UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An exploration of task presentation characteristics of elementary physical education specialist and nonspecialist… O’Connor, Angela 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0059.pdf [ 10.92MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054943.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054943-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054943-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054943-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054943-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054943-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054943-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054943-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054943.ris

Full Text

AN EXPLORATION OF TASK PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS OF ELEMENTARY PHYSICAL EDUCATION SPECIALIST AND NONSPECIALIST STUDENT-TEACHERS IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION by Angela O'Connor B. H. M. S. (Ed.), University of Queensland, 1987 A THESIS SUBMITTED TN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE STUDIES Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 1994 © Angela O'Connor, 1994 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. waffle {&r .fh& ShJcki of Gurr foul urn a^d ^Tisiruoi'on. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) Abstract The purpose of this study is to describe the type of tasks and the characteristics of the tasks' presentation as displayed in physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teacher physical education elementary lessons and to identify if any differences exist between these groups. The participants in the study were three elementary specialist and three elementary nonspecialist student-teachers all undertaking their final 13 week practicum at elementary schools in one school district. All of the six student-teachers were assigned to intermediate classes of Grades 3 to 7 and were responsible for teaching physical education to their assigned class. An important component of task presentation is the teacher's development of content. This is achieved through the presentation of informing, extending, refining, repeating, and applying task types. Task type and task presentation characteristics such as the clarity, visual demonstration completeness, number, accuracy, qualitative nature of cues, appropriateness of pupil responses, and congruency of teacher feedback were described using The Qualitative Measures of Teaching Performance Scale (Rink and Werner, 1989). The QMTPS was used to analyze the three videotaped physical education lessons that each student-teacher taught in weeks five through nine of the practicum. Interviews with the student-teachers and observations of their teaching provided insights into the selection of task type and task presentation. All data were presented in six single case reports and regularities and patterns across cases were identified relative to task type and task presentation characteristics. Differences were found between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers in task type and presentation characteristics. The specialists presented a range of task types and the nonspecialists displayed predominantly informing tasks. A higher number of refining and applying tasks were presented by the specialists. Time available in the lesson, the lesson format, the student-teachers' perception of the pupils'.skill level, the student-teachers' knowledge of the pupils' previous experience in the task, and the degree to which the content presented was based on the decision of others in the school played a significant role in ii accounting for the order and types of the tasks presented. A greater number of the specialists' tasks were supported by demonstrations and an appropriate number of cues. Reference to specific anatomical terms and biomechanical principles were evident in these cues. The teaching style of the student-teacher and the lesson format influenced the presentation of the tasks. Although the results of this multiple-case study cannot be generalized, the findings of the study indicate a need for a greater emphasis on content development and task presentation in physical education pedagogy courses in elementary teacher education programs. This will assist prospective teachers, both specialist and nonspecialist, to learn to present and develop appropriate strategies for the development of content in physical education classes. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iv List of Figures vii Acknowledgements x Chapter One The Problem 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Purpose of the Study 2 1.3 Research Questions 3 1.3.1 Type of Task 3 1.3.2 Nature of Task Presentation 3 1.3.3 Degree of Appropriateness of Pupil Response to the Focus of the Task 4 1.3.4 Degree to which Student-Teacher Feedback is Congruent to the Focus of the Task 4 1.4 Definition of Key Terms 5 1.5 Significance of the Study 8 Chapter Two Review of the Related Literature 12 2.1 Introduction 12 2.2 Task Presentation Characteristics in the Teaching of Physical Education 12 2.3 The Qualitative Measures Of Teaching Performance Scale 15 2.4 Program Content in Undergraduate Physical Education Programs and Preservice Physical Education Teacher Education Programs 19 2.4.1 Content Knowledge 19 2.4.2 Pedagogical-Content Knowledge 20 2.5 Physical Education Specialist and Nonspecialist Teacher Research 26 Chapter Three Design and Methodology 31 3.1 Introduction 31 3.2 Participant Selection 32 3.3 Research Sites 36 3.4 Data Collection 37 3.4.1 Videotaping 37 3.4.2 Interviewing 38 3.4.3 Role of the Researcher 39 3.5 Data Analysis 40 3.6 Establishing Trustworthiness (Validity, Reliability and Generalizability) 46 3.7 Considerations of Case Study Research 49 3.8 Summary 50 iv Chapter Four Results - Single Case Reports 51 4.1 The Case of Joanne - Nonspecialist 53 4.1.1 Introduction 53 " . 4.1.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 55 4.1.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 58 4.1.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 60 4.1.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 62 4.1.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 64 4.1.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 66 4.1.8 Summary of Task Types 68 4.1.9 Summary of Task Presentation 69 4.2 The Case of Kendall - Nonspecialist 71 4.2.1 Introduction 71 4.2.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 72 4.2.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 75 4.2.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 77 4.2.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 80 4.2.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 82 4.2.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 84 4.2.8 Summary of Task Types 86 4.2.9 Summary of Task Presentation 8 8 4.3 The Case of Jane - Nonspecialist 90 4.3.1 Introduction 90 4.3.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 91 4.3.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 93 4.3.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 95 4.3.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 97 4.3.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 99 4.3.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 101 4.3.8 Summary of Task Types 102 4.3.9 Summary of Task Presentation 104 4.4 The Case of David- Specialist 106 4.4.1 Introduction 106 4.4.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 107 4.4.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 110 4.4.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 112 4.4.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 114 4.4.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 116 4.4.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 118 4.4.8 Summary of Task Types 119 4.4.9 S ummary of Task Presentation 121 4.5 The Case of Julie - Specialist 123 4.5.1 Introduction 123 4.5.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 124 4.5.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 127 4.5.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 129 4.5.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 132 4.5.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 134 4.5.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 137 v 4.5.8 Summary of Task Types 139 4.5.9 Summary of Task Presentation 140 4.6 The Case of Wayne - Specialist 142 4.6.1 Introduction 142 4.6.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 144 4.6.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 146 4.6.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 148 4.6.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 150 4.6.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 152 4.6.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 154 4.6.8 Summary of Task Types 155 4.6.9 Summary of Task Presentation 156 4.7 Overview of Six Cases 158 4.7.1 Task Types 158 4.7.2 Task Presentation 164 Chapter Five Summary 168 5.1 Discussion of the Research Questions 168 5.2 Conclusions 171 5.3 Limitations of the QMTPS 173 5.4 Implications 175 5.5 Recommendations 175 References 178 Appendix A Qualitative Measures of Teaching Performance Scale 187 Appendix B Interview Schedule 188 Appendix C Details of Recruitment of Subjects 190 Appendix D QMTPS Tables for Six Student-Teachers 193 Appendix E Sample of Lesson Coding 212 Appendix F Letters of Consent 213 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Possible undesirable task sequences 22 Figure 2. Possible desirable task sequences 23 Figure 3. Questions used to guide observation for reflective physical education teaching 26 Figure 4. An example of a task type sequence graph 44 Figure 5. An example of a task presentation graph 45 Figure 6. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: Joanne 55 Figure 7. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: Joanne 58 Figure. 8. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: Joanne 60 Figure 9. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: Joanne 62 Figure 10. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: Joanne 64 Figure 11. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: Joanne 66 Figure 12. Task type graphs for three lessons: Joanne 68 Figure 13. Task presentation graph for three lessons: Joanne 69 Figure 14. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: Kendall 72 Figure 15. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: Kendall 75 Figure 16. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: Kendall 77 Figure 17. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: Kendall 80 Figure 18. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: Kendall 82 Figure 19. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: Kendall 84 Figure 20. Task type graphs for three lessons: Kendall 86 Figure 21. Task presentation graph for three lessons: Kendall 88 Figure 22. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: Jane 91 Figure 23. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: Jane 93 Figure 24. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: Jane 95 vii Figure 25. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: Jane 97 Figure 26. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: Jane 99 Figure 27. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: Jane 101 Figure 28. Task type graphs for three lessons: Jane 102 Figure 29. Task presentation graph for three lessons: Jane 104 Figure 30. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: David 107 Figure 31. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: David 110 Figure 32. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: David 112 Figure 33. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: David 114 Figure 34. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: David 116 Figure 35. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: David 118 Figure 36. Task type graphs for three lessons: David 119 Figure 37. Task presentation graph for three lessons: David 121 Figure 38. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: Julie 124 Figure 39. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: Julie 127 Figure 40. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: Julie 129 Figure 41. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: Julie 132 Figure 42. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: Julie 134 Figure 43. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: Julie 137 Figure 44. Task type graphs for three lessons: Julie 139 Figure 45. Task presentation graph for three lessons: Julie 140 Figure 46. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: Wayne 144 Figure 47. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: Wayne 146 Figure 48. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: Wayne 148 Figure 49. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: Wayne 150 Figure 50. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: Wayne 152 Figure 51. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: Wayne 154 viii Figure 52. Task type graphs for three lessons: Wayne 155 Figure 53. Task presentation graph for three lessons: Wayne 156 Figure 54. The percentage of task types presented in three observed lessons for nonspecialist student-teachers and physical education specialist student-teachers 159 Figure 55. Summary of task types for three nonspecialist student-teachers 160 Figure 56. Summary of task types for three specialist student-teachers 161 Figure 57. Percentages of task presentation characteristics in which most desirable percentages were presented in three observed lessons for both groups of student-teachers 165 Figure 58. Percentages of task presentation characteristics in which most desirable percentages were presented in three observed lessons for nonspecialist student-teachers and specialist student-teachers 167 be Acknowledgements A sincere thank you is extended to Dr. Moira Luke for all the advice and support she has provided during the thesis process. Since accepting the responsibility as faculty advisor, Moira has helped me to focus the scope of my topic and provided direction through constructive feedback at every stage. Her knowledge in the field of teaching physical education and her experience in conducting research in this area has significantly contributed to my work. Moira's support and encouragement have been invaluable. I would also like to convey my appreciation to Dr. Tony Clarke. Tony's expertise in conducting qualitative research in the area of teacher education, the considerable time and effort he has spent helping me to refine the document, and his constant interest and enthusiasm over the last 12 months were integral to this study. Dr. Frank Echols' contribution to the study has also been genuinely appreciated. Frank's feedback in terms of methodology and design enhanced this study considerably. I also wish to acknowledge the participation of the six student-teachers in this study. Their cooperation and willingness to provide additional insights is sincerely appreciated especially during such a busy time in the program. A very special thanks to my family in Australia for their support in my Canadian quest for knowledge and wisdom. To my 'adopted' families and friends here in Canada, you will always be remembered with the very fondest of memories. x Chapter One The Problem 1.1 Introduction One of the central questions confronting teacher educators is how to prepare teachers to conduct quality instructional programs in schools. Embedded in this question is the concept of pedagogical content knowledge which Shulman (1987) describes as the knowledge required to most effectively relate and transform specific content to enhance pupil learning. This concept emphasizes the critical role that content and pedagogy play in the teaching and learning process. In physical education, an example of pedagogical content knowledge is the ability of preservice teachers to design, develop and present appropriate learning tasks or content for pupils. Rink (1993) refers to this as content development. Although information about the nature of learning tasks is growing, relatively little is known about how preservice teachers learn to develop content in physical education, that is, select appropriate types of tasks and present the content to enhance pupil learning. Tasks or activities that are too difficult for pupils to perform can produce feelings of frustration and may result in off-task behavior. Similarly, tasks that are too easy often lead to boredom, which can also result in off-task behavior (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Consequently, one of the challenges facing student-teachers, then, is to carefully design and select tasks that do not lead to off task behavior. Clarity of instruction, the provision of visual demonstrations, the communication of learning cues, and the congruency of verbal feedback with the focus of the task are characteristics which will assist the student-teacher to keep the pupils on task. Despite a recent increase in the use of naturalistic inquiry to investigate various aspects of teacher thinking, there remains a need to continue to study how teaching skills develop during preservice teacher education and the effects of these programs on pupil learning. The issue of preparing student-teachers with the skills to conduct quality programs is particularly 1 urgent in physical education. The marginal status of physical education within schools may be a factor contributing to the lack of emphasis placed on the quality of physical education teaching in the elementary school. At the elementary level, it is common for teachers to teach a number of content areas. From the most recent survey in British Columbia, 87% of primary teachers of Kindergarden to Grade 3 and 59% of intermediate teachers of Grades 4 to 7 teach their own class physical education (Ministry of Education, 1979, p. 124). Yet, according to the Ministry of Education (1979), one in five elementary teachers have taken no university physical education credit courses, and 77% and 48% of primary and intermediate teachers respectively, have no formal physical education qualifications such as a major, a minor or a diploma degree in physical education. Anecdotal evidence indicates that this pattern is still the case in schools today. Elementary teachers themselves perceive this situation as a major problem. In the Ministry of Education report (1979), both the primary and intermediate teachers rank "Having Physical Education Taught by a Specialist Teacher" and "Improvements In Your Own Physical Education Qualifications" in the top five conditions from the twenty-nine conditions suggested to improve physical education in the elementary school. In addition, the Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation identified several factors that hindered the achievement of objectives recognized as elements of effective physical education programs. One of these factors pertinent to this study was the inadequate university preparation of generalist teachers to teach physical education (Ministry of Education, 1979). JL2 Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was 1) to explore how task presentation characteristics are displayed in physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teacher physical education elementary classes, and 2) to identify the differences, if any, between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers' presentation of these tasks. 2 U Research Questions The research questions which underlie this study are: How are the types of tasks and the characteristics of the tasks' presentation displayed in physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teacher physical education lessons? and Are there any differences between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers' in the display of task types and the characteristics of the tasks' presentation and if so, what are these differences? To address the research questions, the Qualitative Measures of Teaching Performance Scale (QMTPS) was used to describe four components of the student-teachers' task presentation: 1) the type of task, 2) the nature of task presentation, 3) the degree of appropriateness of pupil response to the focus of the task, and 4) the degree to which teacher feedback during an activity is congruent to the focus of the task (Appendix A). 1.3.1 Type of Task According to Rink (1993), there are five types of tasks: 1) informing, 2) refining, 3) extending, 4) repeating, and 5) applying. These tasks constitute what Rink (1993) refers to as content development. The tasks presented to the pupils by the student-teacher were assigned to one of the task type categories. Interviews provided insights about the influences on the student-teachers' development of content or the selection of the type of task to be presented to the pupils. 1.3.2 Nature of Task Presentation The nature of task presentation relates to characteristics that the student-teacher displayed in the communication of task information to the pupils. The five characteristics 3 included: 1) clarity, 2) use of demonstrations, 3) number of cues, 4) accuracy of cues, and 5) the qualitative nature of cues provided by the student-teacher. Three alternatives were available to the researcher to indicate the extent to which each task presented related to each of the five task presentation characteristics: A) yes/full/appropriate/accurate, B) partial/inappropriate/inaccurate, or C) no/none/none given. 1.3.3 Degree of Appropriateness of Pupil Response to the Focus of the Task This component of task presentation addressed the pupils' use of the information provided by the student-teacher to the focus of the task. The three alternatives from which the researcher could select were: A) yes, B) partial, or C) no. 1.3.4 Degree to which Student-Teacher Feedback During an Activity is Congruent to the Focus of the Task. The fourth component of the QMTPS sought to match the information on the results of the pupils' efforts given by the student-teacher to the focus of the task. Three alternatives from which the researcher could select were: A) yes, B) partial, or C) no. 4 L i Definition of Key Terms For this study, the key terms are defined as follows: Pupil: A student within the elementary school system between the ages of 5 and 12 years. Student-teacher: A person undertaking a professional program of study in teacher education at a tertiary institution. This program of study will enable them to qualify for a recognized teaching certificate. Task: "A unit of work given verbally and/or visually by the teacher that focuses pupils on the intended skill or aspect of that skill to be executed once the activity is initiated" (Rink & Werner, 1989b, p. 272). Content development: The process that leads the pupils "from one level of performance to another level of performance through a carefully designed sequence of tasks" (Rink, 1993, p. 100). Type of task: The nature of the activity that the student-teacher presents to the pupils. There are five types of tasks (Rink, 1993). a) Informing: A task that names, defines, or describes a skill or movement concept with no other focus. It is usually the first task in a sequence of tasks. While such instruction is most often directed toward skill or fitness, information about knowledge aspects and/or expectations of social or moral behavior can be presented. An example of an informing task would be "Today we are going to learn how to control the basketball while we are bouncing it". b) Refining: A task that is concerned with the quality of performance, often with emphasis on how the task is performed. The presence of refinement tasks indicates "a concern for quality" (Rink, 1993, p. 102). This implies that the teacher does not merely allow the pupils to perform a movement task but he or she insists that the skill is performed to a particular standard. Most often this type of task focuses on improving the mechanics of the skill or tactical aspects of play, or deals with reinforcing some acceptable aspect of the 5 performance. An example of a refining task would be "As you dribble the ball keep it low and close to your body". c) Extending: A progression designed to change the complexity of the original task This can be done by increasing task difficulty or simplifying the task. Equipment, amount of space, number of pupils involved, number of skills involved in a sequence or the intent of the movement may be changed or modified to provide an extension. An extension task may involve designing a particular task so that a variety of responses can be sought or changing the conditions of performance, such as the height, direction, speed, or force of a movement. An example of an extending task would be "Close your eyes and continue to bounce the ball". d) Repeating: Repetition of the previous task. e) Applying: A task in which the skill focus changes from how to perform the skill to how and when to use the skill. An applying task may involve using the skill(s) learned in a new situation. Competition against others or time may also be involved. However, a degree of automation of the original skill is a beneficial prerequisite. An example of an applying task would be "Pick a partner and play a game of one on one basketball". Task presentation characteristics: The qualities that are displayed by the student-teacher in communicating information to the pupils. According to Rink and Werner (1989b), there are five categories of task presentation: a) Clarity: The degree to which the student-teacher's verbal explanations/directions communicate a clear picture of what he/she requires the pupils to do. This judgement is confirmed on the basis of pupil movement and/or verbal responses to the presentation and is relative to the situation. Yes: Pupils proceeded to work in a focused way on what the student-teacher asked them to do. No: Pupils exhibited confusion, questions, off-task behavior, or lack of intent to deal with the specifics of the task. 6 b) Demonstration: The modeling of the desired performance by the student-teacher, pupil(s), and/or visual aids. Yes: Full model of the desired movement. Partial: Incomplete model of task performance exhibiting only a portion of the desired movement. No: No attempt to model the movement task. c) Appropriate Number of Cues: The degree to which the student-teacher presents sufficient information about the movement task without overloading the pupil. Appropriate: Three or fewer new learning cues related to the performance of the movement task. Inappropriate: Either more than three or no new learning cues related to the performance of the movement task. None given: No attempt at providing learning cues was made by the student-teacher. d) Accuracy of Cues: The degree to which the information presented was technically correct and reflected accurate mechanical principles. Accurate: All information presented was correct. Inaccurate: One or more incidences of incorrect information. None given: No cues given. e) Qualitative cues provided: Verbal information provided to the pupils on the process or mechanics of movement. Yes: Student-teacher's explanation or direction included at least one aspect of the process of performance. No: Student-teacher's explanation or direction included no information on the process of performance. 7 For the purpose of this study, 'task presentation characteristics' also include the sixth and seventh components namely, f) student responses appropriate to task focus, and g) teacher specific congruent feedback. f) Student Responses Appropriate to the Task Focus: The pupils' use of the information on skill performance given by the student-teacher. All: No more than two pupils exhibited inappropriate responses. Partial: Three or more pupils exhibited *inappropriate off-task behavior. None: No pupils exhibited appropriate behavior. *Inappropriate responses: Pupil reactions to the information on skill performance given by the student-teacher which is not consistent "with the educational goals of a specific educational setting" (Siedentop, 1991, p. 96) g) Teacher specific congruent feedback: Information given by the student-teacher on the focus of the task and the results of the pupils' efforts. Yes: More than two incidences were evident in which student-teacher feedback was congruent with the task. Partial: One or more incidence of congruent feedback were evident. No: No congruent feedback was given. 1.5 Significance of the Study Research suggests that the link between task presentation and the performance of motor skills is a clear one. What is not very clear is how to teach beginning or inexperienced teachers, who may not be proficient in these skills, to present appropriate learning tasks and develop these tasks to enhance pupil learning. This study extends the work of Rink (1993) and Rink and Werner (1989b) in terms of content development and task presentation characteristics by applying these concepts to physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers in the practicum setting. 8 Researchers in physical education that have investigated task presentation characteristics have focused on the teacher's development of content through an analysis of the types of tasks presented (Belka & Short, 1991; Gusthart, 1985; Masser, 1985; Rink, 1993). Rink (1993) refers to this process as content development. At a very general level, she describes content development as "a measure bf the clarity of teacher goals and an intent to teach for student learning" (Rink, 1993, p. 102). Thus, Rink distinguishes between the intent to merely provide activity for pupils and the intent to enhance their learning. At a more specific level, Rink (1993) proposes that content development is a "measure of the teacher's ability to blend concerns for the progression of conditions of practice, the quality of performance, and the integration of application experiences" (p. 102). She proposes the development of content is achieved through the integration of extension, refinement, and application tasks. Consequently, Rink (1993) claims that three indicators of content development of physical education are: 1) the sequencing of learning experiences from simple to complex, 2) focusing the learner on achieving maximal performance of a skill or movement sequence, and 3) providing opportunities for pupils to apply skills. Unfortunately, it would appear that in many elementary school physical education lessons there is very little evidence of these indicators and little development toward any intended psychomotor outcomes. According to Rink (1993) "when a psychomotor outcome is intended, many physical educators move rapidly from the practice of skills in very simple environments to game play in very complex environments" (p. 51). Thus, it would appear that the concept of content development involving extension, refinement, and application tasks and the way these tasks are presented to pupils is often overlooked. Related research suggests that task presentation characteristics such as clarity of instruction, effective use of demonstrations, and the provision of accurate and appropriate mechanical information are important dimensions of the teaching and learning process (Dunkin & Biddle, 1984; Feltz & Landers, 1977; Gentile, 1972; Martins, Burwitz, & Zuckerman, 1976; Rosenshine, 1979; Thomas, 1980; Weiss, 1982). These characteristics measure the 9 teacher's attempt to provide the pupil with an accurate motor plan. Rink and Werner (1989b) claim that "pupil responses should technically be of higher quality if the teacher has been able to communicate clearly" (p. 273). If the task is appropriate to the pupils' skill level and well presented, there should be a direct relationship to quality pupil responses. Appropriate responses are considered those in which "the pupils show an intent to use the information on skill performance given by the teacher" (Rink & Werner, 1989b, p. 275). According to these researchers, when pupils formulate motor plans and demonstrate appropriate responses, the conditions are present for the enhancement of learning to occur. Teacher specific congruent feedback addresses the degree to which teacher feedback gives pupils consistent messages about the focus of the task and the results of their efforts. According to Rink and Werner (1989b), if teacher feedback is congruent with task presentation and appropriate to the responses of the pupils, it should serve to further improve the quality of pupil responses. Thus, the more information obtained about these characteristics, the more coherent will be the descriptions of task presentation characteristics as they apply to both physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers in elementary physical education classes. Previous studies comparing physical education specialist and nonspecialist teachers have investigated the differences between pupil experiences and attitudes, academic learning time, amount of feedback given, type of content taught, and the ability of the teachers to observe and analyze skill performance (Biscan & Hoffman, 1976; Eldar, Siedentop, & Jones, 1989; Faucette & Hillidge, 1992; Faucette, Mc Kenzie, & Patterson, 1989; Faucette & Patterson, 1990; Lawson, Lawson, & Stevens, 1982). These studies have focused on qualified, practicing teachers with different educational backgrounds. Very few studies, however, have analyzed the differences between student-teachers with a previous specialization in physical education and those without such a specialization. There appears to be no published research investigating task presentation characteristics of physical education 10 specialists and nonspecialists student-teachers at the elementary level. Furthermore, there appears to be no research addressing this topic in a Canadian context. 11 Chapter Two A Review of the Related Literature 2 J Introduction This review is divided into four sections. The first presents studies which have investigated the concept of task presentation characteristics in the teaching of physical education. The second section outlines previous studies which have utilized the same instrument used in this study, the Qualitative Measures of Teaching Performance Scale (QMTPS). The third section details the program content in undergraduate and preservice physical education teacher education programs. Shulman's (1987) classification of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge provides a framework for this discussion. The final section outlines physical education specialist and nonspecialist elementary teaching research. 1A Task Presentation Characteristics in the Teaching of Physical Education Several recent studies in physical education have investigated the concept of task presentation characteristics in a holistic way (Rink, 1994). Kwak (1993) as cited in Rink (1994) compared five different teacher task presentations on the learning of a novel lacrosse throw by middle school students. It was concluded that the students who received verbal explanation with full demonstrations, cues, and verbal/visual rehearsal remembered more critical information about how to throw and displayed a higher level of performance. Graham (1988), in her study of teachers' task presentations in a secondary school volleyball unit, concluded that effective teachers named the movement task, demonstrated it, communicated the organizational format for the class, informed the students of his or her expectations, instructed the students to listen, offered them choices, and implemented some form of accountability for performance into the task structure. Using both direct and indirect methods of instruction, Graham, Hussey, Taylor, and Werner (1993) characterized effective task presentation as 12 having eight dimensions. This conclusion was based on her study of three secondary school teachers teaching a six-week badminton unit. These eight dimensions included: 1) providing clear and explicit instructions, 2) emphasizing the reason for the content presented, 3) summarizing and repeating information, 4) structuring of new content, 5) signaling for the students' attention, 6) checking for understanding, 7) establishing a productive climate for learning, and 8) presenting accountability measures. While recent studies have investigated the concept of task presentation in a holistic way, research on the individual components of task presentation have been conducted in the classroom and in the physical education setting. Teacher clarity was one of the first teacher variables identified by early classroom research (Brophy & Good, 1986; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Rosenshine, 1979; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1988). The clarity of the teachers' instructions was found to be one of the most consistent variables identified as being related to teacher effectiveness (Rink, 1994). Research in the area of teacher clarity involved identifying a lack of clarity in classroom discourse (Brophy & Good, 1986). Teacher explanation vagueness, discontinuity and the use of utterances such as 'uh' have been identified as negatively related to teacher clarity (Rink, 1994). Rink and Werner (1989b) claim that if the "teacher's verbal explanations or directions communicate a clear idea of what to do and how to do it" (p. 270), the pupils' movement responses will reflect this by "an intent to perform the task as stated by the teacher" (p. 272). The importance of demonstration and focusing the pupil on a few critical aspects of movement in physical education have been investigated in the motor learning, information processing, and motor development literature (Feltz & Landers, 1977; Gentile, 1972; Martins, Burwitz, & Zuckerman, 1976; Thomas, 1980; Weiss, 1982). McKenzie (1982) explained the importance of modeling as a method of learning in teacher preparation in physical education for motor skills, attitudes, and technical teaching skills. Additional support for the use of clear demonstrations and appropriate practice for optimal skill learning is evident in the physical education literature (Sharpe, Hawkins & Weigand, 1989; Silverman, 1985; 13 Southgard & Higgins, 1987). A recent study by Brown (1994) as cited in Rink (1994), however, found that an increased number of demonstrations in the skill of fielding and throwing a ball did not seem to result in additional learning. Hand and Sidaway (1992), however, reported a higher retention of skill learning in a laboratory setting with more frequent demonstrations. Rink (1994) suggested that the inconsistency in results of these two studies may be due to the differences in the number of demonstrations the pupils received and the different instructional settings of the laboratory and the school playing field. Rink (1994) also suggested that the pupils may have been provided with information about performance through the observation of others and consequently the need for teacher demonstration was substantially reduced. The critical nature of cues given to pupils in physical education were investigated by numerous researchers (Masser, 1993; 1985; Rink, French, Werner, Lynn, & Mays, 1992; Rink and Werner, 1989b). These studies support the use of cues to provide the pupil with accurate information on the "process characteristics of performance" (Rink, 1994, p. 275). The importance of providing congruent feedback to the pupil by the teacher is another aspect of task presentation addressed by several researchers in physical education (Belka, Conner & Bowyer, 1991; Rink & Werner, 1989a; Rink & Werner, 1989b). These researchers claim that congruent feedback, that is, information about the pupils' performance which is consistent with what was communicated to the pupils before the practice of the skill, is crucial to improvement in the performance of the skill. Many of the variables such as the clear communication of a motor task to the pupil, adequate practice time with the task, and the provision of feedback on the pupils' practice were described by Gentile (1972) in her model of motor skill acquisition. Yerg (1981) also used these variables as a basis for the model she developed for research on teacher effectiveness. The relationships between these variables have been adapted by Rink and Werner (1987). According to Rink and Werner (1987), task presentation which functions to give the pupil an accurate motor plan of the intended task, mediates the learning goal and the responses of the 14 pupil. Even if the teacher selects an appropriate task, the presentation and development of the task is crucial to whether the pupil responds to the learning goal intended by the teacher. Thus, the teacher's selection of an appropriate task and the characteristics of task presentation are beginnning points for inquiry because they represent critical junctures between the learning goal and the responses of the pupil. 2.3 The Qualitative Measures Of Teaching Performance Scale f QMTPS) Many quantitative observation systems (Darst, Zakrajsek & Mancini, 1989) have been devised to evaluate task presentations in some manner. The Rink and Werner instrument (QMTPS) is the only assessment tool in this compilation of teaching observation systems that qualitatively measures communication of information to the pupils. Thus, the purpose of the Qualitative Measures of Teaching Performance Scale (QMTPS) is "to describe qualitative aspects of teacher process characteristics in an effort to determine why some teachers are more effective than others in effecting student learning" (Rink & Werner, 1989b, p. 269). Rink and Werner (1989b) used a rating scale with two or three defined points to assess the clarity, visual demonstration completeness, accuracy and appropriate number of cues, and the inclusion of process movement cues. Several studies have used the QMTPS (Gusthart & Kelly, 1993; Gusthart, Kelly, & Rink, 1994; Gusthart & Sprigings, 1989; Pellett & Harrison, 1993; Rink & Werner, 1989a). The purpose of the Rink and Werner (1989a) study was to "describe the teaching behaviors of four teachers who had varying degrees of expertise in working with second grade students and to improve the teachers' effectiveness" in a six-lesson unit on jumping and landing (p. 280). "Task presentation, nature of feedback, and appropriateness of student responses were obtained using the QMTPS" (Rink & Werner, 1989a, p. 280). Additional information was collected using the OSCD-PE (Rink, 1979) which described the more general aspects of teachers' content development and managerial skills. In addition, each teachers' written plans were analyzed. Following the first teaching episode, the researchers gave feedback to the 15 teachers on the information obtained from the QMTPS. The teachers were then asked to reteach the unit to a different class. After the feedback sessions, clear and positive changes were noted across the dimensions of the QMTPS for the teachers who had previously scored considerably lower. Rink and Werner (1989a) contend that the categories of the QMTPS instrument describing the teacher's use of cues were "the most indicative of the selection of process characteristics communicated to the students" (p. 295). They claimed that "although a statistical relationship was not established, constructs related to task presentation such as the use of qualitative cues including an appropriate number of cues, and the use of visual demonstrations coupled with verbal explanation seemed to improve effectiveness" (Rink and Werner, 1989a, p. 295). The study also concluded that the total QMTPS score was "a key variable in discriminating the effective teacher, not necessarily the use of any single component of task presentation" (Rink, 1994, p. 273). There is an implication by the researchers here that the data collection methods used in the study identified every component of effective teaching behavior. This is not a strong study as the term 'teaching effectiveness' is used loosely. Siedentop (1984) supports the notion of the importance of adequately defining 'effectiveness'. He states that it is "good to keep in mind that any kind of effectiveness research must define criteria by which effectiveness will be judged-and different criteria may produce a different notion of effectiveness (Siedentop, 1991, p. 41). Furthermore, the procedure of collecting "baseline data on the effectiveness of each of the four teachers" is not explained. Despite the limitations of the study, the constructs of the QMTPS such as the use of an appropriate number of cues, the qualitative nature of the cues, and the presentation of visual demonstration accompanied by teacher explanations appeared to be critical components in the teaching/learning process. The profile of teaching in the four case studies described in Rink and Werner (1989a) is consistent with other classroom research which documents the need for focusing pupils' attention on specific learning tasks and clarity of instruction. The importance of teacher content knowledge and the teacher's ability to give pupils adequate opportunity for quality practice underlies the theoretical frame in the Rink and Werner study. 16 The second study by Gusthart and Sprigings (1989) used the QMTPS to collect data on teaching behaviors in a study examining "the effects of two experienced and expert teachers on pupil learning in a second grade physical education class" (p. 298). A control class was selected as a basis for comparing student learning. These teachers were videotaped over a 3-week period. Student learning, measured by improvement across an increased number of practice trials, occurred for three of the four force production and reduction skills. The expert teachers identified in the study communicated clearly both the intent and nature of the task. This involved selecting relevant information and presenting it to the pupil (Rink, 1993). They also provided both visual and verbal explanations of the task with complete demonstrations supported by accurate task information. An ability to ensure that the pupils performed the tasks consistently with the intent of the task and provided feedback accordingly was another characteristic demonstrated by the expert teachers identified in Gusthart and Sprigings (1989). In describing the teacher process variables in this study, it was concluded that "the QMTPS was able to identify the two teachers as demonstrating effective teaching behaviors" (Gusthart & Sprigings, 1989, p. 308). They continue that the QMTPS identified several constructs "that seem to be critical to teacher effectiveness" (Rink & Werner, 1989, p. 269). The criteria for the teachers in the experimental group included "a reputation for exhibiting desirable instructional behaviors in physical education and a minimum of 4 years teaching experience" (Gusthart & Sprigings, 1989, p. 300). However, the selection process of these teachers who displayed 'desirable instructional behaviors' and examples of the types of instructional behaviors regarded as 'desirable' are not included in the report of the study. Furthermore, there is a need for replication of the study over a longer time frame than three weeks and a need for a larger sample size than two for a study which correlates the extent of pupil learning with teacher process characteristics. Nonetheless, Gusthart and Sprigings (1989) used the QMTPS to identify process characteristics of two teachers who satisfied selected criteria and were identified as 'experienced and expert' second grade physical education teachers. 17 Pellett and Harrison (1993) used the QMTPS to examine and compare the effects of three teachers on pupil learning in college beginning volleyball classes. Of the three teachers in the study, one was termed 'experienced' and the other two were 'inexperienced'. Pupils were pre- and posttested on selected volleyball skills to determine the amount of learning over the unit. Analysis of the QMTPS data showed that detailed content development, clear task presentation and congruent feedback were characteristics of the experienced teacher. Pupil skill test results were analyzed using ANOVA. Pupils of the experienced teacher performed significandy better (p< .05) than pupils of the inexperienced teachers on all skill tests and had more correct trials for all skills during both drills and game play. A more recent study by Gusthart, Kelly, and Rink (1994), investigated the relationship between a high QMTPS score and student learning. Nine teachers taught a volleyball unit to middle school students. Student learning, measured by improvement across an increased number of practice trials, was correlated with the teachers' total QMTPS scores for the volleyball set and serve. The set was correlated at .73 (p = .01) and the serve at .53 (p = .08) with the teachers' total QMTPS score. Rink (1994) stated that "correlations of the magnitude found in this study are indeed encouraging" (p. 273) despite the small sample size and the direct instruction approach adopted by the nine teachers. From the studies described (Gusthart, Kelly, & Rink, 1994; Gusthart & Sprigings, 1989; Pellett & Harrison, 1993; Rink & Werner, 1989a), the QMTPS was used to describe and identify process characteristics of various types of teachers and their effects on pupil learning. However, it is important to be cautious in interpreting the conclusions of studies that directly relate desirable percentages in the various QMTPS constructs to pupil learning or to the concept of teacher effectiveness. Rink and Werner (1989b) clearly state that "the QMTPS is related to but is not a direct measure of effective teaching" (p. 269). Effective teaching and its effect on pupil learning extends beyond the constructs of task type and task presentation characteristics. Furthermore, these constructs which may contribute to pupil learning and perhaps teacher effectiveness should not be considered in isolation from other teacher behaviors or from the 18 context in which the behaviour occurs. This study does not measure pupil learning. Nor does it focus directly on teacher effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to explore and describe task type and task presentation characteristics displayed in physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers physical education classes with the use of the QMTPS. The circumstances which influence the student-teachers' development of content and task presentation characteristics are also identified. Information about these circumstances are presented in the six case reports in Chapter 4. 1A Program Content in Undergraduate Physical Education Programs and Preservice Physical Education Teacher Education Programs Shulman (1987) identifies three categories of teacher knowledge that are specific to a subject area: content knowledge, curricular knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. In particular, content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge provided a useful framework from which to examine research related to program content in physical education teacher education programs with respect to task presentation characteristics. 2.4.1 Content Knowledge Shulman suggests that the teacher is a member of a scholarly community who needs a depth of understanding in the content field. Within physical education, "knowledge of the content field is usually interpreted as knowledge about movement and the ability to perform movement" (Bain, 1990, p. 765). Murphy (1980) indicated that the emphasis on teaching in undergraduate curricula in physical education is demonstrated by the high percentage of required coursework devoted to pedagogy (33%), compared with that devoted to disciplinary studies (13%) and performance courses ( l ^ ) 1 . An area of considerable debate within physical education has been the number and type of movement performance courses that 1 Courses in the biological bases of performance area accounts for the remaining 43% of the undergraduate curricular in physical education. 19 should be included in the undergraduate program (Lawson & Pugh, 1981). Although physical education has been described as a performance-based field comparable to art and music, the role of performance in physical education seems to have been less than adequately resolved. Bain (1990) states that perhaps this is because "sport and exercise classes do not have the cloak of the fine arts to provide respectability within the university environment" (p. 766). Arnold (1979) views performance courses as an integral part of content mastery. He describes content mastery as education in movement as well as education about movement. Thus, physical education majors, including those who intend to teach, should take courses in which performance is taught for its own sake. However, Bain (1990) claims that for others in physical education, performance courses are viewed as "pedagogy courses rather than content courses; that is, only students who are preparing to teach should be required to take them with the intent being on how to teach the activity rather than on the development of personal skill" (p. 766). Bain (1990) concludes that there is a lack of consensus regarding the role of performance courses, indicating diverse views regarding definitions of the physical education subject matter. 2.4.2 Pedagogical Content Knowledge Pedagogical content knowledge defined by Shulman (1987) as the "special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own form of professional understanding" is of particular interest in this investigation on physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers. Essentially, it is the category of knowledge that is most likely to "distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from that of the pedagogue" (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). Within physical education, attempts to identify pedagogical content knowledge needed by teachers in physical education include descriptions of the influences on motor skill acquisition (Pieron, 1986), surveys of groups to describe their perceptions of needed 20 competencies (Weber, 1977; Hendry, 1975), and interviews with or observations of distinctive teachers (Siedentop, 1989). However, work in this area is limited. The ability to structure content for learners has been identified as part of the pedagogical content knowledge of the teacher and is considered a separate ability from the teacher's knowledge of the content (Shulman, 1987). Research in the area of physical education has provided minimal assistance to teacher educators in preparing teachers for developing pedagogical content knowledge in the area of content development (Rink, 1993). Specific knowledge in the area of content development has been identified as a characteristic that distinguishes the expert from the novice teacher in qualitative studies investigating expert teachers of specific content (Rink, 1993). However, the definition of 'expert' requires a clearer conceptualization than is provided in the literature. Most attention in the research has been given to the time pupils spend on-task with little attention to the actual nature or intent of these tasks (Dodds & Rife, 1983). More recent work has begun to explore the characteristics of the learning tasks set by teachers and their impact on pupil learning (Graham, 1992; Graham, Holt/Hale, Mc Ewen, & Parker, 1987; Jones, 1992; Rink & Werner, 1987; Tousignant & Siedentop, 1983). One aspect of pedagogical content knowledge in content development of physical education is the "process of deciding on and implementing a developmental progression of activities so that the children will achieve the objectives decided upon by the teacher" (Graham, 1993, p. 101). These decisions are made as the teachers' observe the pupils, reflects on their plan, and ask themselves what will most benefit this Grade 7 class that they are teaching at 9.15 a. m. on Monday morning? The challenge faced in virtually all physical education programs is the lack of time (Graham, 1992). Consequently the teacher is faced with decisions about both the content of the program and how to develop it so that it is learned quickly and effectively. According to Graham (1992), the teacher essentially has three choices during a lesson after the introductory activity. They can choose to: 1) change a task or activity to make it easier or harder (extending), 2) provide cues that will make the pupils more efficient 21 movers (refining), or 3) provide a challenge to the pupils to give them an opportunity to test their ability and motivate them to continue working on the task (applying). Rink (1993), Gusthart (1985) and Masser (1985) have provided important insights into content development in physical education. The schema that Rink (1993) developed to assist teachers in "understanding, analyzing, and presenting content in physical education consists of four teacher functions" or types of tasks which she termed informing, extending, refining, and applying (Graham, 1992, p. 102). Specific work using the concept of extension on teaching volleyball supports the idea that breaking down complex skills into more manageable parts facilitates learning (French, Rink, & Werner, 1990; Rink et al., 1992). Students who were given a progression of simple-to-complex practice conditions "learned more than the students who practiced the final test for the same amount of time" (Rink, 1993, p. 51). The use of refinement tasks to facilitate learning (Masser, 1985) is an aspect of content development which has been shown to be particularly effective when coupled with appropriate skill progressions (Rink et al., 1991). Belka and Short (1991), however, claim that lesson sequences consisting "entirely of extending or informing followed by applying are considered undesirable" (Figure 1) (p. 133). LESSON A LESSON B Informing • — • — • — • — • Refining Extending Applying Figure 1: Possible undesirable task sequences. Source: From "Implementing a Content Sequencing Model in Physical Education Instruction" by D. E. Belka & C. J. Short, January 1991, Atlanta, GA: Paper presented at the International Association for Physical Education in Higher Education World Congress. Informing Refining Extending Applying 22 In Lesson A, a series of five informing tasks is illustrated. Five sets of information are communicated to the pupils without any opportunity for the pupil to practice and consequently, skill learning would be minimal. In Lesson B, applying tasks are presented immediately after informing tasks. If the skills are well learned, this sequence of tasks may be appropriate. However, if the aim of the lesson is skill progression, this sequence may lead to "confusion and low performance levels" (Belka & Short, 1991, p. 133). Thus, an applying task dominates (Rink, 1985) and the refining and extending processes are bypassed. The original skill in the application task will be of relatively lower quality and less optimal in the applying task than if the task was refined considerably and optimally through a number of extensions, prior to the use of applying tasks (Belka & Short, 1991). Desirable lesson sequences consist of a more varied pattern that includes informing, extending, refining, and applying (Figure 2). LESSON C LESSON D Informing Refining Extending Applying \ Informing Refining Extending Applying Figure 2: Possible desirable task sequences. Source: From "Implementing a Content Sequencing Model in Physical Education Instruction" by D. E. Belka & C. J. Short, January 1991, Atlanta, GA: Paper presented at the International Association for Physical Education in Higher Education World Congress. In Lesson C, for example, refining a task and then extending the difficulty three times until the skill "enables helpful use of an applying task" is desirable (Belka & Short, 1991, p. 4). Lesson D is an example of a more complicated, desirable task type sequence. After an initial informing task is presented, refinement occurs. The teacher then explains the original task again. The task is refined once more. A subsequent extension (which may be a reduction 23 in task difficulty), refinement, and extension of the original task finalizes the sequence before the applying task. This task may be self-testing, such as "Try to shoot 10 hoops in 14 attempts remembering to catch the rebound on the full". This is considered a desirable task sequence because Punk's four teacher functions are incorporated into the task sequence, facilitating skill progression for the pupils. Both Rink and Graham have written textbooks to assist teacher educators, preservice teachers and practicing teachers in their roles of providing quality physical education teaching to elementary pupils. Rink (1993) discusses the importance of content development, that is, the presentation of informing, refining, extending, and applying tasks. Each of the task types are explained in detail. Graham (1992) devotes an entire chapter to Rink's (1993) concept of content development noting that it is "extremely valuable for novice teachers and those who are new to this approach" (Graham, 1992, p. 129). The book contains many practical examples of the four task types in the three main content areas of the elementary physical education curriculum: gymnastics, games, and dance. In her textbook, Teaching Physical Education for Learning, Rink (1993) dedicates a large chapter to content development. In addition, she emphasizes that the types of tasks are closely related to components of task presentation such as gaining the attention of the learner, choosing a way to communicate, selecting and organizing learning cues, clarity of communication, and the phrasing of tasks. These last four emphases communicate information about the nature of the task to the pupil. Both the type of tasks and the way in which the task is presented combine to assist the teacher in achieving the objectives of the lesson. It is interesting to note here that the types of task and the characteristics of their presentation as identified in the QMTPS "somewhat overlap the pedagogical dimensions of task presentation, with some categories assessing the content knowledge of the teacher (for example, accuracy), some categories assessing the pedagogical content knowledge of the teacher (for example, selection of cues), and some categories assessing the communication ability of the teacher (for example, clarity)" (Rink, 1994, p. 274). 24 Graham (1992) has provided a model to assist teachers in their choice of whether to inform, extend, refine, or apply. This is difficult when a teacher is attempting to provide practice opportunities which are developmentally appropriate for an entire class and there is a large range of skill levels in each class. Graham et al. (1987) contend that the decision to extend, refine, and apply is appropriate to both individual pupils and entire classes. Thus, a task can be varied for different pupils in the same class. According to Graham et al. (1987), there are four aspects of a lesson that a student-teacher must consider in order for effective physical education teaching to occur: 1) student safety, 2) on-task behavior of the students, 3) class movement patterns, and 4) individual movement patterns. Figure 3 is Graham et al. (1987) schematic overview of the four key questions which guide the observation for the reflective teaching of physical education. It is important to note that the lines between the questions are two-way and as such indicate that the observational focus is not linear and that a constant interplay exists between the questions. Graham et al. (1987) proposes that student-teachers should learn to focus simultaneously on these four aspects while teaching. These questions assist the teacher in sequencing the content appropriately in order for pupil learning to occur. Thus, the goal of content development reflects the critical role that pedagogical content knowledge plays in enhancing pupil learning in physical education instruction. 25 Are the children working safely? Are most of the children on-task? Yes No Yes No Should the task be changed for the entire class? S I N Extend ? Goto next question Stop the lesson and correct the problem Goto next question Stop the lesson and correct the problem For which children should the task be changed? Extend? Apply? Refine? Figure 3. Questions used to guide observation for reflective physical education teaching. i i i Physical Education Specialist and Nonspecialist Teacher Research Numerous researchers have compared physical education specialist and nonspecialist teaching in the elementary physical education setting. Eldar, Siedentop and Jones (1989) reported that specialists had higher percentages of academic learning time and that management time, off-task behaviors and waiting time were substantially lower. Placek and Randall (1986) also compared the differences in academic learning time between elementary physical education classes taught by specialists versus those taught by nonspecialists. No significant differences were found in the amount of engaged motor time between the classes taught by the nonspecialists versus the specialists. Verbal feedback of specialist and nonspecialist teachers has also been studied. Eldar, Siedentop and Jones (1989) also found that the specialists' verbal feedback matched the type and amount of feedback that would normally be associated with effective teaching (Fink & Siedentop, 1989). When Twa (1982) compared verbal and nonverbal interactions of physical education specialists and nonspecialists, she observed that specialists' interactions related to 26 skill practice whereas the nonspecialists' interactions related more to game play. Placek and Randall (1986) reported similar findings. In their study, Stroot and Morton (1989) described physical education specialists as extremely dedicated professionals who were primarily concerned with pupil learning. Jones, Tannehill, O'Sullivan and Stroot (1989) found that the specialists in their study went beyond the traditional routines of teaching and involved themselves in additional activities such as team teaching in other subjects. Faucette, McKenzie and Patterson (1989) examined the types of activities available to children and how physical education classes were organized when elementary physical education was taught by nonspecialist teachers. Eighty-four classes were observed. The observation instrument used in the study was validated by having independent observers code three videotaped classes. The independent observers' responses were compared to those of three teacher educators specializing in observation methods and elementary physical education. Results indicated that "when pupils were involved in organized class activity, they usually participated in game-type activities such as kickball, relays and dodgeball" (Faucette, McKenzie & Patterson, 1989, p. 27). Pupils had few opportunities to participate in skill practice, dance or gymnastics. Physical education was often dropped from the day's schedule or the pupils were permitted to engage in free play at these times. It was also reported that even the basic components of physical education content were absent, for example, fitness-related activities occurred in less than three percent of the observed classes. Researchers who have contrasted the performance differences of pupils taught by the two types of teachers noted that students taught by physical education specialists made greater improvements in physical fitness measures (Pate & Ross, 1987), and motor fitness measures (Shephard et al., 1982). Several physical education specialist and nonspecialist teaching studies have explored classroom teachers' attitudes toward teaching elementary physical education (Lawson, Lawson & Stevens, 1982; Faucette & Patterson, 1990), but few have examined this relationship with student-teachers. These studies used attitude inventories to measure pupil attitudes. One of the 27 factors contributing to the negative attitude of nonspecialists towards the teaching of physical education included their "lack of knowledge or training in physical education and teachers' beliefs that physical education possessed little value when compared to other subject areas" (Faucette & Hillidge, 1992, p. 33). To determine if there were differences in attitudes toward physical activity for pupils in classes taught by specialists versus nonspecialists, Patterson and Faucette (1990) used the Children's Attitudes Toward Physical Activity (CATPA) inventory (Simon and Smoll, 1974) and they found statistically significant differences between the attitudes of both groups of pupils. They concluded, however, that "teachers play a minimal role in children's attitudes toward physical activity" and recommended that further studies be conducted "that examine and control for multiple factors influencing attitude formation" (Patterson & Faucette, 1990, p. 324). Lawson, Lawson and Stevens (1982) reported that one-third of 298 elementary pupils taught by classroom teachers were unable to distinguish between recess and physical education lessons in any way. During interviews with these pupils, Lawson, Lawson, and Stevens (1982) found that pupils wanted knowledgeable physical education teachers. In Canada, investigators found that the specialists' physical education programs significantly improved pupils' academic achievements, especially in mathematics (Shephard et al., 1982). Thus, some evidence exists to support the claim that achievement levels of pupils taught by physical education specialists is not isolated to physical education contexts. Other investigators have compared specialists' and nonspecialists' teaching behaviors, skill observation and analysis abilities, and elementary pupils' behaviors (Biscan & Hoffman, 1976; Faucette & Patterson, 1990). During a three-month period, Faucette and Patterson (1990) observed four specialists and seven nonspecialists. These researchers used the Teacher Observation Schedule (Rushall, 1979) to identify effective teaching behaviors. It was found that specialists had significantly higher instances of more effective teaching behaviors such as feedback/reward, questioning, and direcung/explaming/informing, and significantly fewer instances of less effective behaviors such as monitoring/attending. However, the scope of the 28 word 'effective' is not clearly delineated in this study. Significantly higher levels of activity were recorded for pupils in the classes taught by specialists. Biscan and Hoffman (1976) compared specialists' and nonspecialists' abilities to observe and analyze pupils' skill performances. They concluded that specialists displayed a more acute ability than nonspecialists to observe familiar sport-specific skills. However, if the skills observed were novel or unfamiliar, neither group appeared better able to observe and analyze pupils' skill performances. Only two studies have investigated aspects of physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teacher behaviors in elementary physical education (Grant & Martens, 1982; Paese, 1985). Paese (1985) revealed that physical education majors or future physical education specialists allotted more time to instruction and gave pupils more feedback than elementary education majors. Using the revised Academic Learning Time-Physical Education (ALT-PE) observation system, Paese (1985) also reported that pupils in the specialists' classes had higher rates of engaged motor time. Grant and Martens (1982) conducted a study in Canada involving eight physical education specialist student-teachers and eight nonspecialist student-teachers. Each student-teacher taught one lesson which was observed by three judges. These judges were asked to "rank the lessons on a sixteen point scale for overall teaching effectiveness" (Grant & Martens, 1982, p. 8). No significant differences were reported between the specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers in either their teaching effectiveness or generic behavioral patterns. However, there were several limitations to the study. Firstly, the information collected from the teaching of one physical education lesson by each student-teacher does not appear to be adequate to warrant a conclusion about statististical significance between the two groups of student-teachers. Secondly, the ranking process of the lessons for teaching effectiveness using one instrument, namely Gasson's Three Dimensional System of Interaction Analysis (Gasson, 1971), and one observer to code the videotaped lessons with no reference to interobserver rehability, appeared to be limiting relative to the concept of teacher effectiveness. Lastly, no explanation was offered as to why no significant differences were 29 reported between the specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers in either their teaching effectiveness or generic behavioral patterns. It is evident that there are differences in the performance and attitudes of pupils taught by physical education specialist and nonspecialist teachers. The research also suggests that lesson organization and teaching behaviors vary between the two groups. However, limited studies have addressed content development displayed in lessons taught by either physical education teachers or student-teachers. Consequently, further research is needed to verify whether there are any differences in content development between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers. 30 Chapter Three Design and Methodology 3_J Introduction The purpose of the study was to explore how task presentation characteristics are displayed in physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teacher physical education elementary classes, and to identify the differences, if any, between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers' presentation of these tasks. Mc Millan and Schumacher (1989) claim that in describing the social context in which educational activities are conducted, common practices and behaviors of those engaging in the activities are reflected. Goetz and LeCompte (1984) state that the goals of descriptive research "should examine processes" (p. 50). In order to examine and describe the type and the nature of task presentation characteristics displayed by the student-teachers, a multiple case study design was employed. In this type of research, it is assumed that human behavior is context-bound (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researcher collects data in the surroundings of the people who produce, influence, and give meaning to human behavior (Schempp, 1987). The biographies of the participants in this study such as the student-teachers' age, pre-practicum teaching or coaching experience, sponsor teacher details, and school location are "all seen as interacting and unifying variables that provide contextual explanations of the observed" (Schempp, 1987, p. 117). According to Merriam (1991), case study research is an inductive mode of inquiry which focuses on a specific phenomenon or situation. The primary goals of such research are understanding, description, and discovery. Multiple visits to a single site, multiple data collection techniques, and small, nonrandom samples enable this type of investigation to be conducted (Merriam, 1991). In addition, the researcher becomes the primary instrument for data collection (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The selection of a case study design demonstrated the researcher's concern 31 for the contextual influences on the way tasks are selected and presented to the pupils in the practicum setting. In the six student-teacher case studies presented, three data collection methods were used. The Qualitative Measures of Teaching Performance Scale was used to collect data on four aspects of teaching behavior: 1) task type, 2) five categories of task presentation, 3) one category for the degree to which the pupil's response was appropriate to the focus of the lesson, and 4) one category for any specific congruent feedback. The most desirable percentages or scores of 1 for each of these seven categories were recorded. These were totaled and converted to a percentage according to the QMTPS scoring system. Interviews were conducted with the student-teachers to gain further insights into the circumstances which influenced the development of content. The combination of these two approaches is supported by Glaser and Strauss (1967) who claim that "In many instances, different forms of data on the same subject are necessary" as supplements and for "mutual verification" (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 18). Similarly, Goetz andLeCompte (1984) comment on the pointlessness of a discussion of the dichotomous choice of objective and subjective data collection. They point out that many researchers include the data collected from both objective and subjective methods. The following is a description of the design and methodology used in this study which includes participant selection and research site details. Procedures for data collection and analysis are discussed in this section in addition to the limitations of the study. 3.2 Participant Selection The participants in this study were selected using a 'purposeful sampling' strategy (Mc Millan & Schumacher, 1989). In this method of sampling, the researcher "searches for information-rich informants, groups, places or events from which to select subunits for more in-depth study" (Mc Millan & Schumacher, 1989, p. 395). Consequently, the selection of participants for the study was based on four criteria: 1) the participants' involvement in the 32 same teacher education program, 2) the participants' involvement in the same university methodology course, 3) the location of the participants' practicum school within one school district, 4) similar grade levels of the participants' practicum classes, and 5) the participants' enthusiasm for teaching and their willingness to provide information. Firstly, the enthusiasm with which the potential participants responded to the researcher's request after being informed of the focus of the study was considered crucial to the success of the study in terms of the participants' involvement and commitment to the focus of the study. Secondly, the participants' involvement in the same university methodology course, Curriculum and Instruction in Physical Education (EDUC 320), ensured that there was a level of consistency across the participants' knowledge base due to their involvement in similar course objectives, content, length, and time of year the course was taught. The location of the participants' practicum school within one school district ensured a higher degree of consistency across practicum schools as compared to participants undertaking their practicum in schools across different school districts. Furthermore, the school district was chosen by the researcher because it was renowned for its daily quality physical education programs. This indicated to the researcher that there was a higher probability of observing physical education classes two or more times per week instead of once a week as in many other Lower Mainland school districts. The participants' involvement in the same teacher education program, that is, the 12-month elementary teacher education program at the University of British Columbia was another example of a purposeful sampling strategy. An overall average of 65% on the best 60 credits of a four-year bachelor's degree is one of the admission requirements to the teacher education program but "because the admission is competitive, the average needed for acceptance into the program is typically higher" (University of British Columbia Student Handbook: Elementary Teacher Education Programs 1993-94, p. 3). This requirement ensured that all the student-teachers had a similar level of academic capability. 33 Practicum classes of similar grade levels were chosen for the study to ensure a level of consistency with pupil ability relative to the types of tasks presented and the nature of their presentation. Grades 3 to 7 were selected as the level of the assigned elementary practicum classes of the student-teachers because of the researcher's previous experience in teaching pupils at this level. This experience assisted the researcher in feeling more comfortable while making observations of pupil responses in these particular grade level physical education classes rather than observing pupils responses in the lower elementary grade physical education classes of Kindergarten to Grade 3. The purpose of the study and requirements for participation were explained to the potential subjects at the end of the methodology class (EDUC 320) sessions (Appendix C) and volunteers were invited to participate. This is an example of what Merriam (1991) describes as a nonprobability sample. In this sampling procedure, there is no method of estimating the probability of inclusion and thus no assurance that every element has some chance of being included. She continues that this type of sampling is logical as long as the researcher uses the data to discover what occurs, the implications of what occurs and the relationships Unking occurrences rather than for answering questions such as 'how much' and 'how often'. Mc Millan and Schumacher (1989) state that probability sampling procedures may not be appropriate when "generalizability of the findings is not an objective" (p. 182). Researchers use this type of sampling to "increase the utilility of information obtained from small samples" (Mc Millan & Schumacher, 1989, p. 182). Each volunteer was asked to complete an Expression of Interest form (Appendix C). From these, two types of participants were selected: (1) student-teachers who have received their undergraduate degree in physical education, and (2) student-teachers who possessed majors in subject areas other than physical education, for example, science, arts or commerce. The purpose of describing particular subgroup[s] in depth" is an example of homogeneous sampling (Patton, 1990, p. 173). 34 Of the twenty seven students who expressed interest in participating, eighteen were nonspecialists and nine were specialists. The researcher then chose three specialists and three nonspecialists based on what Patton (1990) terms 'typical case sampling'. The three physical education specialists were typical of specialists in that all possessed a physical education undergraduate degree and experience in coaching. Two were male and one was female. Gender was not considered in the selection of the specialists and nonspecialists due to the inconclusive evidence in the literature that there are differences in the teaching behaviors of male and female physical education teachers. The three nonspecialists were chosen because there were no indicators to suggest that they were atypical of the nonspecialist group. Each of the six participants' roles was typical in regards to student-teaching in a practicum at an elementary school. As part of the requirement for the 12-month teacher education program, the six student-teachers were responsible for teaching physical education to their assigned classes during their extended teaching practicum; a 13-week period during which "student-teachers will have a range of teaching experiences, including a sustained block of teaching with a teaching load of 80%-100%" (University of British Columbia Student Handbook: Elementary Teacher Education Programs 1993-94, p. 21). This is an example of what Patton (1990) terms 'typical case sampling'. Patton (1990), however, cautions that the purpose of typical case sampling is to describe what is typical to those unfamiliar with the situation or program, not to make generalized statements about the experiences or characteristics of all participants. The decision to choose three physical education specialists and three nonspecialists was based on the purpose of the study to explore how task presentation characteristics are displayed by physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers and to identify the differences between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers' presentation of these tasks. Three cases in each group of student-teachers were considered sufficient by the researcher based on the purpose of the study. Patton (1990) states that no rules exist for sample size in case study inquiry. "Sample size depends on what you want to 35 know, the purpose of the inquiry, what's at stake, what will be useful, what will have credibility, and what can be done with available time and resources" (Patton, 1990, p. 184). Yin (1989) supports Patton (1990) in claiming that the decision regarding the number of cases deemed necessary or sufficient for a multiple-case design is a "selection of the number of case replications-both literal and theoretical-that you would like to have in your study" (p. 57). Literal replications refer to the selection of each case to predict similar results. In this study, cases in which an increased chance of similar task presentation characteristics may be found are literal replications. Theoretical replications, however, refers to the ability of the case to produce "contrary results but for predictable reasons" (Yin, 1989, p. 53). The selection of the number of replications depends upon "the certainty you want to have about your multiple-case results", that is, increased certainty with a greater number of cases (Yin, 1989, p. 57). The content of the observation lessons taught by the student-teachers could not be imposed by the researcher. Sponsor teachers, facilities, weather and the scheduling of school events such as Sports Days dictated to a large extent the lesson content taught by the six student-teachers. Thus, the standardization of content in the study, that is, every student-teacher teaching the same unit such as gymnastics, games or track and field was not feasible. Only three student-teachers, that is, one specialist and two nonspecialists taught two of the three observation lessons in one content area. These content areas were track and field, soccer, and creative game making. The remaining specialist student-teachers taught three lessons in different content areas of Sports Day activities, fitness/softball, and track and field. 3.3 Research Sites The research sites were determined by the school placement of the six student-teachers. A factor in the selection of the six student-teachers for the study was their practicum school's time commitment to physical education, specifically at the grade levels of the student-teachers' assigned classes. The scheduling of physical education at least twice a week for the grade level was the requirement for the student-teacher's involvement and the subsequent school's 36 inclusion in the study. This situation is representative of the scheduling of physical education in elementary schools in the province and thus, is somewhat of a 'typical' situation. Six elementary schools within one school district in British Columbia's Lower Mainland were the sites for this study. School board approval was attained before the collection of data. 3.4 Data Collection Prior to the collection of data and during the initial part of the practicum, the researcher visited all six students and their respective sponsor teachers at their practicum schools. These visits were an opportunity for both the student-teachers and sponsor teachers to become familiar with the researcher as early as possible. The researcher also informed the university's teacher education office and the students' faculty advisors from the university of the intended study. Information and consent forms were given to each of the three groups involved: student-teachers, sponsor teachers and faculty advisors (Appendix C). Data was collected through videotaped observations and interviews. This is consistent with Merriam's (1991) suggestion that "humans are best-suited for the task of naturalistic inquiry and are at their best when using methods that make use of human sensibilities such as interviewing, observing, and analyzing" (p. 3). Data collection was conducted over a period of approximately four weeks during weeks five to nine of the practicum. The researcher spent a total of approximately 45 hours at the six schools. 3.4.1 Videotaping In order to videotape the student-teachers' instruction and the interactions with the pupils during physical education lessons, parental permission was deemed necessary by the school district. During the fifth week and into the ninth week of the practicum, each of the six student-teachers in the specialist and nonspecialist groups was videotaped teaching three, 40 minute physical education lessons. Videotaping started in the fifth week of the practicum when 37 it was assumed that the student-teachers felt more comfortable in the school setting than earlier in the practicum. A VHS video camera with tripod was used to focus on the student-teachers' instruction and the interaction with the pupils and an F M remote wireless microphone was used to record the student-teachers' verbal interactions with the pupils. The researcher made every effort to position the video camera to prevent any undue attention during the lessons by either the student-teacher or the pupils. In the first of the videotaped lessons, the researcher advised the student-teacher to encourage the pupils to wave to the camera in the first few minutes of the lesson. This was an attempt to allow the pupils' natural curiosity and playfulness to emerge so that they could then settle down to the activities of the lesson. In subsequent lessons, particularly those in outside settings such as in the track and field lessons, very minimal attention was given to the video camera by the pupils. Similarly, all of the student-teachers expressed feelings of relative ease while teaching in front of the video camera which may be attributable to a pre-practicum on-campus communications course in which all student-teachers were videotaped whilst teaching. The university's Teacher Education Office recommends that student-teachers "engage in videotaping their own teaching and that of their peers so that they are better able to review their own presentation skills and to make changes or improvements" (University of British Columbia Student Handbook: Elementary Teacher Education Programs 1993-94, p. 31). Consequently, a number of the student-teachers informed the researcher that their sponsor teachers had been videotaping various lessons in the initial part of the practicum before this study had started and, as such, felt comfortable being videotaped while teaching. Each student-teacher was videotaped teaching three physical education lessons. 3.4.2 Interviewing Interviews, conducted with each of the six student-teachers following each videotaped lesson, focused on the circumstances which influenced a student-teacher to adopt a particular task type sequence pattern or particular task characteristics for each lesson. In the initial 38 interview, additional questions were asked about each student-teachers': a) age, b) educational background, c) prior teaching experience, and d) prior coaching experience, e) playing experience, f) their assigned practicum grade, and g) the number of physical education lessons taught before the teaching of the first observed lesson. Patton (1990) claims that these types of questions are important because the answers help the interviewer locate the respondent in relation to others in the group under investigation and assist in establishing comparability between the student-teachers. Appendix B consists of the interview schedule which is divided into two sections. The first consists of questions relating to the student-teachers' background and the second part consists of the six open-ended questions about the circumstances which influenced the development of content in each videotaped lesson. The researcher developed, adopted and modified probes associated with each question to allow further depth and to explore other related issues. The interviews were arranged at a time and place that was convenient and comfortable for each participant These times were usually during recess or the lunch hour directly following each of the videotaped lessons. These interviews, each lasting approximately 30-45 minutes, were audiotaped and later transcribed for analysis. Informal interviews were also conducted throughout the study to confirm or clarify observations. Initially, the study was explained to potential participants as a description of physical education specialist and nonspecialist teacher actions in the elementary practicum. In order to ensure that usual teaching behaviors of the student-teachers were not modified significantly, specific categories within the observation instrument were not revealed to the student-teacher until after the study was completed. This description is a part of the 'Expression of Interest' form given to all potential participants during the participant recruitment period (Appendix C). 3.4.3 Role of the Researcher Each of the student-teachers agreed to accept the researcher's role as observer. According to Darst, Zakrajsek and Mancini (1989), by limiting the researcher's participation in 39 classes, he or she is free to observe to a greater extent than i f participating in the classroom activities. A friendly relationship developed quickly between the participants and the researcher. This was fostered by the researcher communicating to the participants that the study was non-evaluative, that is, not linked to the practicum evaluation, or that the researcher had any link with those involved in his or her evaluation, for example, sponsor teachers or university faculty advisors. Early contact with the student-teacher in the practicum school within the first five weeks of the practicum preceding the videotaping of the observation lessons also facilitated a friendly relationship between the researcher and the student-teacher. Asking open-ended questions to enable the student-teachers to share their thoughts freely about the circumstances which influenced them to adopt a particular task type sequence pattern or particular task characteristics for each lesson also contributed to an amiable participant-researcher association. Throughout the study, the researcher asked the student-teachers about their feelings about the researcher's role. A l l of the student-teachers responded that what was being observed was fairly natural. For example, Jane commented that she was teaching "the same as i f you (the researcher) were not here". Joanne expressed that she was "used to being videotaped" as her sponsor teacher, Mike, had taped her teaching previously and used it as a means of providing feedback on her instruction in math classes. In all of the classes, with the exception of the first five minutes of the first videotaped lesson, the researcher felt as though she was unobtrusive. The pupils in the class quickly became accustomed to seeing the researcher in their physical education classes after being instructed by the student-teacher to wave to the camera in the beginning of the first videotaped lesson. 3.5 Data Analysis According to Merriam (1991), data analysis in a case study is "the process of making sense out of one's data" (p. 127). This involves a process in which data is "consolidated, reduced, and, to some extent, interpreted" (Merriam, 1991, p. 130). 40 The first stage of data analysis was the verbatim transcription of the lesson videotapes (Appendix E). The researcher then analyzed each lesson according to the categories in the Qualitative Measures of Teaching Performance Scale. QMTPS data for both the physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers were recorded in the "number of occurrences and converted to percentages of the teacher task-pupil response unit of analysis for each category in each construct" (Rink & Werner, 1989b, p. 273). Only instructional tasks were included in the coding process. There were five categories in the area of task presentation, one for pupil response appropriate to the focus of the lesson, and one area of specific congruent feedback. Each of these seven areas was totaled and converted to a percentage. Responses in the most desirable category, that is, scores of 1, were added and averaged for a total QMTPS score. Although the total QMTPS score has been regarded in the literature as a key variable in discriminating teacher effectiveness (Gusthart & Sprigings, 1989; Rink & Werner, 1989a), the use of the QMTPS in its entirety in this study was to provide a framework for describing the type of tasks and the characteristics of the tasks' presentation as displayed in two groups of student-teachers. Thus, the total score QMTPS score for each student-teacher for each observation lesson is not referred to in the single case reports, however, the total scores are recorded in Appendix E with the QMTPS data. Interobserver reliability was checked with a second trained observer coding six randomly selected videotapes of a total of eighteen videotapes of the physical education lessons taught by the student-teachers. The training of the second observer consisted of the researcher explaining to the observer the various constructs of the QMTPS. One of the videotaped lessons not included in the reliability check was coded by the observer to ensure that the QMTPS coding procedure was clearly understood. The six levels of agreement were: 100% for Joanne's second observed lesson which consisted of one task; 88% for Kendall's first observed lesson which consisted of eleven tasks; 80% for Kendall's third observed lesson which included six tasks; 100% for Jane's third observed lesson consisting of two tasks; 87% for Julie's second observed lesson consisting of 41 three tasks, and 81% for Wayne's second observed lesson which included four tasks. Thus, the levels of agreement of all the six videotapes checked by the outside observer were above 80% reliability for the QMTPS. Eight weeks after the initial coding of the videotapes, the researcher re-coded three randomly selected videotapes of the total of eighteen. This process recorded an intraobserver agreement level ranging from 83% and 100%. Accurate coding of the lesson videotapes according to the QMTPS required a clear understanding of what constituted a 'task', a 'cue' and 'feedback' in a lesson. According to Rink and Werner (1989b) who first proposed the instrument as a measure of the qualitative aspects of teaching performance, a task is defined as "a unit of work given verbally and/or visually by the teacher that focuses pupils on the intended skill or aspect of that skill to be executed once the activity is initiated" (p. 272). Thus, any episode in a lesson coded as a task required the pupils to have performed a movement or skill following a set of instructions given verbally by a student-teacher or via a demonstration. This implies that if an episode in a lesson involved a student-teacher instructing the pupils to focus on 'keeping the basketball close to the body while dribbling', for example, before the dribbling activity was performed by the class, a refining task would be recorded. The student-teachers' comment of 'keeping the basketball close to the body while dribbling' would also be considered a 'cue' because it helps the pupils to understand how to perform the skill before the performance of the skill. According to Rink and Werner (1989b), the communication of this information "on the focus of the task and the results of the pupils' efforts" (p. 275) after the performance of the dribbling skill would constitute 'feedback'. An example of feedback would be the student-teacher's comment to a pupil to 'keep the basketball close to the body while dribbling' after the pupils' performance of a dribbling activity. The extent to which the feedback was specific or matched to the focus of the task, however, depended upon the initial instructions given by the student-teacher at the beginning of the task and the context within which the task was presented. In most instances in the observation 42 lessons, feedback was directed to individual pupils. When feedback was directed to the class and the student-teacher instructed the pupils to perform a skill or movement as a direct consequence, a 'task' was presented. If the task presented was one of refining or extending, the student-teachers' instructions usually refined or extended an initial informing task. However, for the representation of a repeating task in a sequence, the student-teacher would be required to present a distincdy separate task similar in nature to the previous task. There may be cases, however, in which tasks identified in the student-teachers' lessons display characteristics of two types of tasks. For example, the definition of an informing task assumes that it is the first task in a task sequence. Thus, there are several examples of tasks that may appear to be, for example, applying in nature. However, because the task is the first to be presented in the lesson, it was coded as informing. Similarly within an applying task, there may exist concrete examples of refining comments to individuals by the student-teacher. However, according to the definition of a task which implies that class movement responses should follow the teachers' verbal instructions, the task is coded in the task type sequence as applying. The QMTPS only allows for the coding of one task type at a time. Examples of these situations are noted where applicable in the single case reports. Lesson warm-ups which include running and stretching were not coded in the QMTPS because of the multitude of tasks that may be presented during this part of the lesson. Similarly, lesson conclusions which do not require a movement response from the pupils are not considered as tasks according to the QMTPS and were therefore not represented in the QMTPS. In Chapter 4, the information provided by the QMTPS is divided into two sections: 1) task type, and 2) task presentation. Two types of graphs convey information on these components for each student-teacher for each of the three observed lessons. The first graph, the task type sequence graph, plots each task presented by the student-teacher as one of the following: informing, refining, extending, repeating or 43 applying tasks. Essentially, the task type sequence graph is a representation of the first row of the QMTPS (Appendix A). Figure 4 is an example of a task type sequence graph as presented in Chapter 4 in the single case report section. This graph represents a sequence in which the student-teacher presented nine tasks ranging across all five task types. TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Informing \ Refining \ K Extending Repeating Applying Figure 4. An example of a task type sequence graph. Figure 5 is an example of a task presentation graph which is the second graph presented in Chapter 4. It is a graphical representation of the percentages for each the seven task presentation aspects: clarity, demonstration, number of cues, accuracy of cues, qualitative cues, student responses appropriate to the task focus, and specific congruent feedback. These percentages are detailed in the last column of the task presentation section of the QMTPS. 44 Demonstration Clarity 99.9 TASK Number of cues 0 PRESENTATION Accuracy of cues 0 CHARACTERISTICS • . Qualitative cues 0 Specific congruenl feedback Student responses appropriate 99.9 0 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE Figure 5. An example of a task presentation graph. The task presentation graph conveys information about the most desirable percentages or scores of 1 for the seven task presentation characteristics. It is important to note in Figure 5 that a score of '0' in the 'Number of cues' column indicates that the student-teacher under observation did not present the percent most desired number of cues supporting any of the tasks presented in this lesson. According to the QMTPS coding procedure, an appropriate number of cues is between one and three (Rink & Werner, 1989b). No information is contained in the task presentation graph about the tasks in which the student-teacher presented more than three cues or the tasks presented without cues. However, this information is recorded in the QMTPS table (Appendix D). Similarly, if the student-teacher scored a '0' in the 'Specific congruent feedback' column, this indicates that there were no incidences of tasks in which specific congruent feedback was supplied by the student-teacher. The first stage of analysis of the interview data involved jotting down notes, comments and queries in the margins beside the answers to the interview questions as the researcher read through the transcribed interviews of each student-teacher. Goetz and LeCompte (1984) claim that these notes "serve to isolate the initially most striking, 45 if not ultimately most important, aspects of the data" (p. 191). The second stage of analysis involved the researcher looking for insights into the circumstances which influenced the task type sequence and the way each task was presented by each student-teacher. These insights are presented in each single case report. Following this, the six cases are summarized and discussed in relation to the student-teachers' presentation of task types and the characteristics of the tasks' presentation. The final stage of QMTPS and interview data analyses consisted of looking for regularities and patterns across cases within the two areas of task types and task presentation. Miles and Huberman (1984) term this procedure 'pattern coding' and identifies one important function as laying "the groundwork for cross-site analysis by surfacing themes and causal processes" (p. 68). This was necessary to identify any qualitative differences between the two groups of student-teachers. 3.5 Establishing Trustworthiness (Validity. Reliability and Generalizabilitv) Since case study research is based on different assumptions about reality and has a different 'worldview' than other research paradigms (Novak & Gowin, 1984), it has a different conceptualization of validity and reliability. Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed the terms 'truth value' or credibility for internal validity, 'consistency' for reliability, and 'transferability' for external validity. However the basic question is the same: "To what extent can the researcher trust the findings of a case study?" (Merriam, 1991, p. 166). The following outlines the strategies used in this study to increase the trustworthiness of this study in terms of validity, reliability and generalizability. Krefting (1991), Merriam (1991), and Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommend the use of the following strategies to enhance the credibility of a study's findings: 1) triangulation, 2) repeated observations at each site, 3) peer/colleague examination, and 4) a statement of researcher's biases, assumptions and worldview at the beginning of the study. 46 Firstly, the collection of data using the QMTPS, interviews and observations is an example of triangulation which is defined as the process of using several data sources (Krefting, 1991; Denzin, 1978). The QMTPS was used to provide a framework for describing teacher process characteristics relative to task type and task presentation. The interview and observation data also assisted in describing the influences on task type and task presentation characteristics of specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers. Referring to case study research, Yin (1984) claims that "any finding or conclusion in a case study is likely to be more convincing and accurate if it is based on several different sources of information" (Yin, 1984, p. 91). Dobbert (1982) supports Yin (1984) in stating that triangulation allows cross checking of all types of data for accuracy and completeness and "adds to the depth and breadth of interpretation" (p. 265). Thus, both breadth and depth in this study are enhanced through different methods of data collection in describing task presentation characteristics of physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers. Secondly, repeated observations of the same phenomenon over a period of time enhances the credibility of the study. In this study, three observations of each student-teacher assisted in describing in greater depth task type and task presentation characteristics. Similarly, the observation of three student-teachers in each specialist and nonspecialist group was considered sufficient by the researcher judged on the basis of the purpose and rationale of the study and the sampling strategies used to achieve the purpose. Thirdly, a discussion of the research process and the provision of feedback at various stages of the study with the thesis committee served as an example of 'peer/colleague examination' (Krefting, 1991; Merriam, 1991). This examination further enhanced the study's credibility. Finally, a statement of the researchers' background, biases, assumptions, and worldview before the data collection commences also increases the credibility of a study (Merriam, 1991). In this study, the researcher's background consists of a four year physical education degree which included teaching certification, five years of teaching as a physical education specialist both at the elementary and secondary level, and experience in teaching preservice teachers. In preparation for this study the researcher has specifically taken two 47 graduate level research methods. Goetz and LeCompte (1984) claim that in order for the findings of a study to be dependable "the investigator should explain the theory behind the study, his or her position vis-a-vis the group being studied, the basis for selecting informants and a description of them" (pp. 214-215). In this study, these elements have been detailed by the researcher. The literature review discusses the previous research which outlines the theoretical frameworks which underlie the study, the methodology section details the process of selecting the participants, and the case study section describes the participants in terms of age, educational background, prior teaching, coaching and playing experience. In this study, the researcher's biases, assumptions and worldview are derived from case study research which assumes that differences can be acknowledged and features explained in context, and generalizations in the traditional sense are not sought nor possible. These assumptions are supported by Bogdan and Biklen (1992), Merriam (1991), Schempp (1987), and Yin (1984). Consistency, dependability or rehability all refer to the question: "Are the results consistent with the data collected?" (Merriam, 1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Emergent designs and highly contextual settings makes attaining reUabihty in case studies a difficult yet attainable task. In this study, the following strategies were used to ensure that the results were consistent and dependable: 1) triangulation, 2) peer/colleague examination, and 3) explanation of the researcher's position, and 4) the audit-trail (Merriam, 1991; Krefting, 1991). Since triangulation, peer colleague examination, and the explanation of the researcher's position have been previously addressed in regards to credibility, examples of establishing an audit-trail in this study will be addressed. Three methods were employed to establish an audit-trail: 1) the full transcription of video tapes, 2) a description of the steps involved in each part of the study, that is, data collection, analysis and interpretation, and 3) provisions to make this information available to others in a thesis document. Essentially, in an audit-trail, researchers should aim to present their methods in such detail "that other researchers can use the original report as an operating manual by which to replicate the study" (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984, p. 216). Yin (1984) supports Goetz and LeCompte (1984) advising that the researcher must "make as many 48 steps as possible as operational as possible" (p. 40). Thus, the audit-trail ensures that the lines of inference from data to results were available for review. Other components of the study such as each student-teacher teaching the same assigned class for the duration of the study and the researcher's prior experience in conducting and analyzing interview data enhances both the study's validity and reliability which Merriam (1991) maintains to be "inextricably linked in the conduct of any research" (p. 171). Transferability or external validity refer to the extent "to which the findings of one study can be applied to other situations" (Merriam, 1991, p. 173). In a case study approach, however, the researcher aims to understand "the particular in depth, not because one wants to know what is generally true of the many" (Merriam, 1991, p. 173). In this study the researcher enhanced the possibility of the results being generalizable through providing: 1) typicality, and 2) cross-site and cross-case analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Krefting, 1991; Merriam, 1991). Firstly, each of the participants' roles were typical in regards to student-teaching in a practicum at an elementary school as opposed to a clinical setting in which many studies occur. The readers of this study are more likely to compare the findings of this study to their own situations. This is supported by Goetz and LeCompte (1984). Secondly, the selection of two groups of three physical education specialist student-teachers and three nonspecialist student-teachers at different sites establishes a range of situations upon which the reader can reflect. Kennedy (1979), Walker (1980) and Wilson (1979) claim that most readers have little difficulty in recognizing situations that are parallel to their own. In this way, 'analytical generalizability' is greatly enhanced (Yin, 1984). Merriam (1991) refers to this concept as 'user generalizability'. Thus, the researcher enhanced the generalizability of the case reports through providing typicality, cross-site and cross-case analyses. 3_J2 Considerations of Case Study Research According to Schempp (1987), there are four commonly cited considerations to a study such as this: 1) the researcher, 2) the observed, 3) the situation, and 4) the passing of time. 49 Firstly, researchers vary in their backgrounds, motives and research skills. Similarly, the observed vary in their perceptions of reality. Thirdly, no social context is completely replicable, particularly educational settings. Finally, all three previously mentioned factors, the researcher, the observed and the situation will be influenced by the passing of time. Time may change the interpretations of the data long after the study has been completed. U Summary The purpose of the study is to describe the types of tasks and the characteristics of the tasks' presentation characteristics as displayed in some physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teacher physical education elementary classes and to identify if any differences exist between these groups. A multiple case study design was employed to do this using the QMTPS, interviews with the student-teachers and the researchers' observations. The participants in the study were three elementary specialist and three elementary nonspecialist student-teachers all undertaking their final 13 week practicum at elementary schools in one school district. All of the six student-teachers were assigned to intermediate classes of Grades 3 to 7 and were responsible for teaching physical education to their assigned class. The QMTPS was used to analyze three videotaped physical education lessons. Interviews with the student-teachers and observations of their teaching provided insights into the influences on the student-teachers' selection of task type and task presentation. Data was analyzed using the QMTPS scoring system and pattern coding which involved looking for regularities and patterns in the QMTPS and interview data across cases relative to task type and task presentation characteristics. Trustworthiness was established through triangulation, peer/colleague, statement of researcher's biases, assumptions and worldview, an audit-trail, explanation of the researcher's position, typicality, and cross-case and cross-site analyses. The results are reported in single case reports in the following chapter. 50 Chapter Four Results - Single Case Reports The individual case reports of the six student-teachers are presented in this chapter. Each case report begins with a brief description of the student-teachers' background, that is, their age, education, previous coaching, teaching, competitive sport, and recreational past time experiences. A description of their assigned practicum school, class and sponsor teacher have been included in this section to increase the readers' understanding of the context in which the practicum took place. The number of physical education lessons taught by the student-teacher prior to each of the three observation lessons is reported as is the content area of each lesson. Each case report is then divided into three sections: Lesson 1, Lesson 2, and Lesson 3. Within each lesson, the focus is on the two major components of the QMTPS, that is, task types and task presentation. A QMTPS table including a total QMTPS score for the three observation lessons that each student-teacher taught is presented in Appendix D. The first section presents the task type sequence graphs presented by the student-teacher during the lesson. This graph plots each task presented by the student-teacher as one of the following: informing, refining, extending, repeating or applying tasks. Essentially, the task type sequence graph is a representation of the first row of the QMTPS (Appendix A). A discussion of the task type sequence graph follows. Interview excerpts and the researchers' observations during the lesson and throughout the analysis of the videotaped recording provide further insight into the task types exhibited by both groups of student-teachers with a specific focus on the circumstances under which the task sequences were displayed. The section which focuses on task presentation begins with a graphical representation of the percentages for each the seven task presentation constructs: clarity, 51 demonstration, number of cues, accuracy of cues, the qualitative nature of cues, student responses appropriate to the task focus, and specific congruent feedback. The percentages recorded in the task presentation graph are the same as those noted in the last column of the task presentation section of the QMTPS (Appendix A). The second part of the task presentation section includes a discussion of the graph. Although the most desirable percentages for each of the task presentation characteristics are recorded for each characteristic, the discussion focuses on all of the information that the QMTPS provides about the characteristic. Interview excerpts and the researcher's observations during the lesson and throughout the analysis of the videotaped recording provides additional insights into task presentation characteristics displayed in the lesson by the two groups, particularly in reference to the factors which influence the presentation of task characteristics. Concluding each case report is a general summary which presents the three task type sequence graphs, a summary task presentation graph, and a discussion of the relative comparisons in task type and presentation across the three observation lessons. The six cases are then summarized and discussed in relation to task types and task presentation characteristics in the concluding section of the chapter. The names of the participants described in each case report have been changed to ensure their anonymity. 52 4.1 The Case of Joanne - Nonspecialist 4.1.1 Introduction This case study is based upon the practicum experiences of Joanne, a student in her mid-twenties, engaged in the professional year of teacher education at the University of British Columbia. After high school, Joanne completed one year of a science degree program followed by a four year fine arts degree. After graduation, Joanne entered the twelve month elementary teacher education program in the Faculty of Education. Joanne was a physical education nonspecialist student-teacher who had no previous coaching experience. Her playing experience in sport included high school level swimming, volleyball and fastball. For her practicum, Joanne was assigned to a suburban elementary school with a population of 540. Joanne taught a Grade 3 class for which physical education was scheduled twice a week for 40 minutes. Joanne's sponsor teacher, Mike, had taught for ten years and supervised four student-teachers prior to Joanne. His educational background included a bachelor's degree specializing in drama, a two year teacher education degree, a diploma in counselling psychology, and at the time of this study, he was pursuing a masters degree in counselling psychology. Joanne's lesson 1 was the first physical education lesson that she had taught during her student-teaching practicum. Lesson 2 was taught approximately three weeks after lesson 1. The substantial time lapse between the first and second lessons was due to a rescheduling of the physical education lessons to other days and times which conflicted with the researchers' videotaping of other student-teachers. Lesson 3 was taught one week after lesson 2. The content of lessons 1 and 3 was developed as part of a creative movement unit that Joanne had written during a physical education methods course. The lessons 1 were both creative movement lessons with a specific focus on what Joanne termed 53 "game-making". The purpose of the unit, as written in Joanne's unit plan, was "to expose students to the basic game skills with a variety of apparatus with an emphasis on the invention of games". The focus of lesson 2, however, was on the Virginia Reel folk dance which was one of the activities scheduled for the school's Sports Day. 54 4.1.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 Creative Movement - Game Making TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 6. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: Joanne. The objectives of the first observation lesson and the first lesson of the creative movement unit, as detailed by Joanne in her unit plan, was for the pupil to "demonstrate an ability to move in space by running in different directions, speeds, and with different body parts leading. The first half of the lesson involved the pupils working individually in response to the tasks Joanne presented. The second part of the lesson consisted of the pupils working in groups to change one part of the frozen tag game. This part of the lesson focused on the second objective of the lesson which was, as Joanne had written in her unit plan, "to demonstrate an understanding of games-making by adapting the rules of the game of frozen tag". The task sequence in this lesson consisted of nine instructional tasks (Figure 6). Following a demonstration, Joanne informed the pupils to move individual body parts. A second informing task of "using all the space in the gym" was presented. Four extending tasks immediately followed. These focused on different ways of running 55 around the gym with different body parts leading. One repeating, one informing, and a final extending task completed the sequence for the lesson. The majority of tasks in Joanne's lesson 1 were extending in nature. Joanne expressed concern in the interview that the pupils may sense that the initial running activities "did not have a purpose". This may have influenced Joanne's presentation of a number of extending tasks which increased the difficulty of the initial running task through the addition of movement components, for example, "run with two body parts leading". Extending tasks designed to elicit a variety of responses from the pupils, for example, "show me how many different ways " were also presented by Joanne. It is interesting to note that no refining tasks were planned or presented by Joanne in her first observation lesson. Joanne's decision emerged during the post-les son interview. Firstly, she stated that she chose to present tasks that were "pretty basic". She perceived that the pupils were coping adequately with the level of difficulty of the tasks and she reported their movement responses as "O.K.". Consequendy, Joanne decided that there was no necessity for the presentation of refining tasks. Secondly, Joanne commented that because her sponsor teacher, Mike, has a drama background, the pupils had "a lot of experience with body awareness" previously. However, from the researcher's observations, it was evident that several of the extending tasks presented by Joanne required refinement. The pupils' displayed sloppy running technique and the movement responses to the extension tasks were less than precise. No application tasks were displayed in Joanne's first observation lesson. Joanne did state in the interview, however, that she had intended each group to present the games they had created to the class. Joanne informed the pupils of this before the task. Thus, Joanne's intention was to present an applying task at the end of the lesson. She stated that the purpose of the applying task would be "to motivate the pupils to continue practicing". However, this applying task was not presented due to a lack of time. 56 In conclusion, the majority of tasks in Joanne's first observed lesson focused on increasing the difficulty of the pupils' movements. Although many of the pupils' movements required refinement, there was no evidence of such tasks in the lesson. Furthermore, no applying tasks were present. Joanne did, however, express an intent to include such a task. 57 4.1.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 Creative Movement - Game Making Clarity Demonstration Number of cues TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of cues] CHARACTERISTICS Qualitative cues Specific congruent 22.2 feedback _L 88.8 TZZZZZZZZZZZAWA S ^ ^ ^ ^ V ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 99.9 _L 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 100 Figure 7. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: Joanne. In the area of task presentation, clarity of instruction was evident in eight out of nine tasks that Joanne presented in the first observed lesson (Figure 7). The one task not rated as clear related to Joanne's instruction for the pupils to "change one part of the frozen tag game". It was evident from the class response generally that several pupils had not fully understood what Joanne had instructed them to do. Consequently, the task was coded as unclear due to the observed "lack of intent to deal with the specifics of the task" (Rink & Werner, 1989b, p. 271). Consequently, the student response to the task focus was coded as partial indicating that three or more students exhibited inappropriate behavior relative to the focus of the task (Rink & Werner, 1989b). Joanne provided full or partial demonstrations in four of the nine tasks. However, Joanne made no attempt to provide learning cues in any of the tasks presented in the lesson. The teaching adopted 58 by Joanne in the lesson was consistent with what Mosston and Ashworth (1986) refer to as 'guided discovery' in which "the teacher's sequence of questions brings about a corresponding set of responses" by the pupils (p. 170). This sequence leads the pupil to 'discover' an intended concept. The provision of cues, particularly qualitative cues, before the task in a creative movement lesson taught using a guided discovery approach was not consistent with the objective of the lesson in which the pupils were to "demonstrate an ability to move in space by running in different directions, speeds, and with different body parts leading". Joanne confirmed this in the interview by stating that she wanted the pupils "to experiment for themselves" with different ways of moving. Thus, the non-inclusion of cues with the tasks presented in Joanne's first lesson is justified. Feedback, which was specific and congruent to the task, was given by Joanne in four of the nine tasks, partial feedback was given in two of the nine tasks and no congruent feedback was supplied in the remaining three of Joanne's task presentations. In terms of task presentation Joanne was clear in her instructions for the majority of tasks presented in the first observed lesson. This was based on the appropriateness of student responses to the focus of the task. Considering the guided discovery approach adopted by Joanne in teaching the lesson, the absence of learning cues and the low percentage of full or partial demonstrations supporting the tasks presented in the lesson seems justified. However, the very low percentage of specific and congruent feedback supporting the nine tasks cannot be justified. 59 4.1.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 Folk Dance - Virginia Reel TASK TYPE Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 8. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: Joanne. The task sequence in Joanne's second observed lesson consisted of one informing task (Figure 8). The Virginia Reel folk dance was the focus of the lesson and the lesson was conducted outdoors. The change from creative movement which was the focus of Joanne's first observation lesson to folk dance was prompted by the immediate need for the pupils to practice the folk dance for the upcoming Sports Day. In the interview, Joanne stated that she had no alternative but to teach the dance lesson because the pupils "would not have known what to do on Sports Day if we hadn't practised it". The pupils were organized by Joanne into pairs at the beginning of the lesson and as she explained and demonstrated the dance steps, the pupils followed. Thus, the lesson was taught using the 'command style' (Mosston & Ashworth, 1990). The role of the teacher in implementing the command style of teaching is "to make all the decisions" about the tasks themselves and the organization of the tasks in the lesson (Mosston & Ashworth, 1990, p. 49). The role of the pupil becomes one of following the teacher's instructions and performing the task "when and as described by the teacher" (Mosston & Ashworth, 1990, p. 49). However, approximately 60% of the lesson was spent organizing the pupils into pairs for the dance. Joanne stated that she 60 NUMBER OF TASKS 1 had planned to present one to two more tasks, however, the time spent on managing pupil behavior consumed substantial time and as a result, these tasks were not presented. Off task pupil behavior, particularly towards the end of the lesson, was the eventual reason for Joanne deciding to prematurely close the lesson. Thus, the one task in the lesson involved an explanation and demonstration of the dance steps with no presentation of refining, extending or applying components of the original task. 61 4.1.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 Folk Dance - Virginia Reel Clarity Demonstration Number of cues TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of cues CHARACTERISTICS Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 0 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE Figure 9. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: Joanne. Although Joanne demonstrated the dance steps to be performed by the pupils, they displayed off-task behavior and a lack of intent to deal with the specific steps of the dance. Consequently, the degree of pupil response appropriate to the focus of the task was partial and the task was coded as not clear to the pupils (Figure 9). Joanne sensed from the very beginning of the lesson that "things weren't running smoothly". Joanne attributed this situation to two factors: 1) several members of the class arguing previously throughout the day, and 2) herself for not being psychologically ready to teach the lesson because of her role in mis-managing earlier incidents. Joanne also suggested that teaching the dance outdoors was difficult because "without walls and boundaries, they were feeling a little like it was recess". She also admitted that she did 62 not feel comfortable teaching dance. "It wasn't something I wanted to teach or knew a lot about". Joanne also stated that the dance was "difficult for them socially but for their physical capabilities it wasn't (too difficult). It's something that if we had talked about before we had done it, it might have been O. K." She continued that the dance was possibly not challenging enough because approximately half the class had covered it last year. An inappropriate number of cues, that is, greater than three were presented in the informing task. According to Rink and Werner (1989b), this was coded as inappropriate due to the potential of overloading the pupil. The cues, however, were technically correct and focused on how the dance was to be performed. No congruent feedback was given by Joanne. This was partly due to the lack of instructional time available in the lesson because of the substantial time spent on management tasks and the premature closure of the lesson. In conclusion, Joanne was not clear in her instructions based on the student responses to the task. She overloaded the pupils with an excessive number of cues even though they were accurate and qualitative in nature. In addition, no specific feedback matched to the focus of the task was evident in Joanne's second observed lesson. 63 4.1.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 Creative Movement - Game Making TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 Informing Refining \ Extending \ Repeating \ Applying • Figure 10. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: Joanne. The content of Joanne's third observed lesson was the second lesson of the creative movement unit written during the physical education methods course. Joanne's first observed lesson was also part of the creative movement unit. Both of these lessons focused on game-making. The objectives of the lesson as written in Joanne's unit plan was for the pupils to "understand that a ball may be manipulated in several different ways" and "to develop a game which demonstrates the manipulation of ball skills while keeping the ball in control". The first part of the lesson involved the students working in pairs mirroring their partners' movements. Joanne then instructed the pupils to individually explore different ways of manipulating the ball. The last part of the lesson involved groups of three to four pupils creating a game manipulating a ball. Other equipment such as bean bags and pylons could also be used. The objective of the game was for each group member to be in the full control of the ball. The task sequence in this lesson consisted of four instructional tasks: two informing followed by one extending and one applying (Figure 10). During the lesson, Joanne decided to condense the extending 'control of the ball' activity into one task 64 instead of two as she had originally planned. The purpose of this was to allow more time for the presentation of the final applying task. The applying task consisted of the pupils creating either a competitive or non-competitive small group game in which each person was required to touch the ball at least once. The object of the game was to maintain control of the ball while "using" one, two, three or four balls that each group had in its possession and manipulating them in "a few different ways". The pupils could use other pieces of equipment such as bean bags and pylons in addition to the balls. No refining tasks, however, were presented during the lesson. Joanne's judgement that the pupils' "coped" with the task presented influenced to some extent the absence of refining tasks. As Mike, Joanne's sponsor teacher, is a drama specialist, Joanne reported that the pupils were familiar with these type of movement experiences and therefore the need to focus on the quality of their movements was not required. However, from the researcher's observations during the lesson, a need for improving the quality of the movements requiring ball control was evident. An example of such a movement included rolling the ball around the gym while keeping it under control. Several pupils exhibited a lack of ball control and, as a result, interfered with the other pupils' movements. Some off-task behavior occurred at this point. Joanne's third observed lesson showed an attempt to include a variety of task types with the exception of repeating and refining tasks. However, a specific need for refining of the pupils' movements in the four tasks presented was witnessed by the researcher particularly in the tasks presented by Joanne which required ball control. 65 4.1.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 Creative Movement - Game Making TASK PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS 0 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE Figure 11. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: Joanne. In task presentation, three out of the four instructional tasks were clear (Figure 11). The task that was unclear began with Joanne's instructions to "get a ball and do anything you want with it for two minutes". Towards the end of the two minutes, several pupils began displaying uncontrolled movements with the ball and, as a result, interfered with the other pupils' movements and subsequent off-task behavior occurred. Joanne stated that some of the tasks may have been "a little bit simple for some of them". Reference was made by Joanne to two boys in the class which she referred to as "athletes". "They don't want to do just the simple things that the rest of the class is doing. They want to be kicking and jumping". This perspective, however, does not 66 account for the lack of intent to perform the movement as stated by the teacher by the pupils nor does it justify Joanne's presentation of instructions that were unclear. Full demonstrations of activities and an appropriate number of cues accompanied only the third and fourth tasks of the total four tasks presented by Joanne in lesson 3. However, it must be noted that the provision of demonstrations and cues, particularly qualitative cues, before the task in a creative movement lesson taught using a guided discovery approach may not be applicable. In a creative movement lesson, the emphasis is on the pupils exploring movement for themselves relative to the teacher's task and not for the teacher to elude to these via demonstrations or cues. All of the cues provided in the third and fourth tasks, however, were both accurate and qualitative in nature. The students responded appropriately to the task focus, that is "with an intent to perform the task as stated by the teacher (Rink & Werner, 1989b, p. 272), in three of the four tasks. Specific congruent feedback was given by Joanne in three of the four tasks. The majority of the feedback addressed safety, that is, emphasizing the need to avoid bodily contact with other pupils in the class while moving in the confined gym area. During the lesson after one of the movement tasks, Joanne stated to the pupils "I see some unsafe things happening. You are not bowling balls knocking over pins. Let's try to move in our safety bubble". In conclusion, the majority of tasks presented in Joanne's third observed lesson were clear based on the students' reponses and were supported by specific congruent feedback. Given the guided discovery approach adopted by Joanne in teaching the lesson, the lower percentage of full or partial demonstrations, and the number of cues supporting the four tasks was justified. 67 4.1.8 Summary of Task Types LESSON 1 (Creative Movement) LESSON 2 (Folk Dance) Informing •—* Refining \ A Extending Repeating V Applying Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying LESSON 3 (Creative Movement) Informing •-Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 12. Task type graphs for three lessons: Joanne. Although the task type information from lesson 2 was limited due to management problems and the comparability of the lesson to the other two lessons was somewhat reduced due to the different content area, the types of tasks presented during the three observed lessons displayed mainly informing and extending tasks (Figure 12). Refining tasks were, however, not represented in any of the lessons. Two factors which were referred to in the interview accounted for this: 1) Joanne's perception that the tasks particularly in lesson 1 were, as she stated, "pretty basic" and as such, she felt that refining task presentation was not warranted, and 2) the pupils' familiarity with creative movement activities due to Joanne's sponsor teachers' specialization in drama and a perception that the pupils' movement patterns required little or no increase in quality. However, it was evident from the researchers' observations that some of the tasks presented in the three observation lessons did require refinement. Belka and Short (1991) claim that lesson sequences without refining tasks are considered undesirable because the original skill will be of relatively lower quality. According to these researchers, the decreased quality will reflect in the performance of the applying task. From the researcher's observations, this was indeed the case in Joanne's first observed lesson. 68 4.1.9 Summary of Task Presentation Clanty o Demonstration TASK Number of cues PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback |0 Lessonl \ Lesson 2 I Lesson 3 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 100 Figure 13. Task presentation graph for three lessons: Joanne. In terms of task presentation characteristics, Joanne displayed clarity in the way she presented her instructions relative to the task in lessons 1 and 3 (Figure 13). In the interview, Joanne acknowledged that the pupils did not benefit from lesson 2 in terms of movement experience not because of her unclear instructions but because of the pupils' "disruptive behavior". From the researcher's observations, however, it was evident that a combination of factors such as Joanne's lack of specific instructions, the unsettled nature of some of the pupils, and the outdoor setting contributed to the students' lack of intent to deal with the specifics of the dance. 6 9 Full demonstrations accompanied the tasks in all three lessons. An inappropriate number, that is, more than three cues, accompanied the tasks presented over the three lessons. Two factors accounted for this: 1) the guided discovery approach teaching style adopted by Joanne in two of the three observed lessons, and 2) the presentation of more than three cues per task in lesson 1 and 2. However, over the three lessons, the cues presented were accurate and qualitative. Appropriate student responses to the task which reflects an intent to perform the tasks as stated by the teacher were displayed in two lessons, 1 and 3. These were the same lessons in which Joanne's instructions were clear. Specific congruent feedback was given in two of Joanne's three lessons. Thus, demonstrations and accurate, qualitative cues were observed in all of Joanne's observed lessons. Tasks in two of the three lessons were clear based on the student responses, despite Joanne's opinion that the pupils' lack of intent to deal with the task in lesson 2 that was rated as unclear was more a result of the pupils' behavior and not a reflection of her instructions to the class. Tasks in two of the three lessons were supported by specific and congruent feedback. However, Joanne presented too many cues, that is greater than three per task, in each of the three observed lessons. A general concern which Joanne expressed during the post-lesson interviews was ensuring that the pupils knew "exactly what to do before" she instructed them to perform the tasks. 70 4.2 The Case of Kendall-Nonspecialist 4.2.1 Introduction The second case study is based upon the practicum experiences of 26 year old Kendall. Kendall graduated with a Bachelor of Arts majoring in English and German before entering the 12 month teacher education at the University of British Columbia. Kendall is a physical education nonspecialist student-teacher. She has no previous coaching experience and her playing experience includes basketball at high school and at the intramural level at university. For her practicum, Kendall was assigned to a suburban elementary school with a population of approximately 300 students where physical education was timetabled four times a week for 40 minutes each lesson. Kendall was assigned a Grade 4/5 split class with Dan, her sponsor teacher who has taught for ten years and has a Bachelor of Arts. Flis specialization is in the area of special education. Before Kendall taught observation lesson 1, she had previously been involved with approximately twenty physical education lessons during her practicum. Her involvement in these lessons were mainly as an observer because Dan, her sponsor teacher, enjoyed teaching the physical education classes to his class because, as Joanne stated in the first post-lesson interview, "he just played games with them". She continued that "he doesn't focus on skills". Lesson 2 was taught one week after lesson 1 and lesson 3 was taught two weeks after lesson 2. The content of lesson 1 and 3 was soccer. The focus of the second observation lesson, however, was on relay practice for Sports Day. The choice of these lessons observed was based primarily on Joanne's physical education teaching schedule while on practicum and the researcher's videotaping schedule. 71 4.2.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 Soccer - Skill Practice TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 14. Task type sequence: Lesson 1: Kendall. Kendall's first observation lesson was presented to the pupils in a "multiple stations/single task format" (Mosston & Ashworth, 1990) in the gym. Each pupil practiced the soccer skill as required at the first station and then moved to the following station to perform the next assigned soccer skill. The reason for this particular lesson format was, as Kendall stated in the post-lesson interview, because she sensed that the pupils "were becoming bored with soccer, particularly with just playing games all the time". In the lessons prior to this one in which soccer games were played, Kendall noticed that the less skilled pupils were "being left out". Thus, her objective as stated in the post-lesson interview, was for all the pupils but particularly the less skilled ones to "work on their skills so they can have more fun playing when we play the game". The task sequence in Kendall's first observation lesson consisted of nine instructional tasks (Figure 14). The first seven tasks were separate informing tasks designed to introduce, locate and explain the soccer skills to be performed at each of the four stations: throw-in, dribbling, trapping, and tackling. The eighth task was an applied tackling drill which was to be performed at one station. This involved one 72 person dribbling the ball and trying to keep possession while under pressure from their partner. If their partner touched the ball, the players switched positions. Kendall stated in the interview that she included this station to "make the lesson a little more interesting". The researcher observed that the pupils displayed increased enthusiasm at this station than at any of the previous stations. This was possibly due to the increased challenge of the task. A second applying activity was planned to be presented by Kendall but was abandoned due to lack of space in the indoor gym. This applying task has not been plotted in the task sequence. Enlarging the playing area for the trapping task to give the pupils "more room and make it easier for them" completed the sequence pattern. This extending task was presented during the practice portion of the lesson. The sequence of tasks in Kendall's first observed lesson displays a predominance of informing tasks in the beginning of the lesson. Mosston and Ashworth (1986) claim that the essence of 'practice style' adopted by Kendall is "a particular cycle of relationships between the teacher and the learner in which the teacher presents the tasks, the learner performs it for a period of time, then the teacher observes the performance and offers feedback" (p. 27-28). This cycle of relationships reflected the necessity to communicate any technical or organizational information about the tasks to be performed at the lesson's start. Although there was an absence of refining tasks in the task sequence, it should be noted that there were instances in the lesson when Kendall gave refining comments to individual pupils in the class after a skill was performed at the assigned station. Such instances, however, were coded as feedback. Thus, there was no evidence in Kendall's first observed lesson of any refining task presentation directed to the entire class. The provision of feedback to individual students at the appropriate station in the lesson was consistent with the objective of Kendall's lesson, that is, to increase the pupils' skill, particularly the skills of those who are less experienced and display lower levels of skills, so they "can have more fun playing when we play the game". The researcher's observations that there were many 73 different skill levels in the class justified Joanne's task presentation in terms of providing specific congruent feedback to individual pupils rather than to the entire class. Furthermore, stopping to entire class to give feedback would have substantially reduced the time available for pupil practice which is a prime reason for the initial choice of implementing the practice style lesson format. 74 4.2.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 Soccer - Skill Practice Clarity V/////////////////////////77777A 99.9 Demonstration y//////A 22.2 Number of cues ^ 1 1 . 1 TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of ™k///////////A 44.4 CHARACTERISTICS ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback Qualitative cues y//////////A 44.4 V////////////////////////////7X 99.9 _L 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 100 Figure 15. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: Kendall. In the area of task presentation Kendall was clear in the instruction of all tasks (Figure 15). She gave full demonstrations in three tasks and partial demonstration in two tasks. These demonstrations included an example of what not to do in the fourth task. There were no demonstrations in five of the ten tasks. This may be attributed to Kendall's perception that because many of the previous physical education lessons were devoted to playing the game, the pupils in the class were familiar with the basic skills such as the throw-in, dribbling skills, and trapping and as a result, a visual demonstration of these skills were not warranted. The researcher's observations, however, did not confirm Kendall's perception that arose in the interview because several of the pupils, for example, were throwing the ball with one hand and 75 from the side of their body at the throw-in station, rather than with the correct two-handed, behind the head technique. An appropriate number of cues was given during two of the ten tasks presented. Within these two tasks, the cues were accurate and qualitative in nature. In three of the ten tasks, more than three learning cues were given. This was considered to be inappropriate in the coding process "overloading the children with more information than they could not possibly remember or use" (Graham, 1992, p. 106). However, these cues were accurate and provided verbal information to the pupil on the process of performing the soccer skills. For example, "Why does the ball need to be close to your feet while dribbling?" No new learning cues were given in five of the ten tasks. During the ten tasks, the student responses to the focus of each task were appropriate. Kendall gave specific and congruent feedback in only one task. It was directed towards an individual pupil in an attempt to improve her throw-in technique during the practice portion of the lesson. Partial feedback was given to the pupils in one task and no feedback in the remaining seven presented throughout the lesson. Feedback was supplied to the pupils during the practice portion of the lesson. Thus, in Kendall's first observation lesson, she was clear in task presentation. Despite the accurate and qualitative nature of the learning cues, the provision of too many cues in some of the lesson tasks and none in others accounts for the poor rating in the 'number of cues' category. Demonstrations were not presented in half of the tasks and specific congruent feedback occurred infrequently, thus accounting for the low rating in this category. 76 4.2.5 Task Type - Lesson 2 Games - Relays TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 Informing • • Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 16. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: Kendall. Kendall's second observed lesson consisted of games that were scheduled for the whole school to play at the school's upcoming Sports Day. In the interview, Kendall admitted that the lesson "did not really fit" after lesson 1 in terms of content area. Kendall's first observed lesson was soccer and her emphasis was on skill practice in the adoption of a stations or practice style approach. The decision to teach a Sports Day games lesson was based upon a request by Dan, Kendall's sponsor teacher, to organize a practise lesson for the games for the Sports Day the day before the lesson was due to be taught and three days before the actual Sports Day. "Dan gave me the sheet which explained the relays and it was up to me to teach it". Kendall had no choice in what was to be taught in the lesson because Dan, in his role as sponsor teacher, had asked her to teach the lesson and she did not feel comfortable in not accepting. In addition, an urgent need existed to familiarize the pupils with how the games were to be performed to facilitate the smooth running of the Sports Day which Dan was organizing for the school. The focus of the lesson was on relay events and the lesson was taught outdoors on the school field. 77 The task sequence pattern in this lesson consisted of two informing tasks (Figure 16). Kendall began the lesson with an explanation of how the two tasks, the Circle relay and the Charlie Chaplin relay, were to be run and the lesson concluded with the class performing the relays. Three tasks were actually planned, however, only two were covered by Kendall because there wasn't "enough time". She stated that she "didn't know how long the other two activities would take". No refining tasks were presented to the class as a whole, however, refining comments were made to individual pupils during the relay. Comments such as "try to really squeeze your knees together" were evident in the Charlie Chaplin relay in which the pupils were having difficulty keeping the small bean bags between their knees. To include a refining task in the task type sequence for the lesson, it would have been necessary for Kendall to incorporate a task with the specific focus of "squeezing your knees together" in order to practice a task that would increase the quality of the skill. Consequently, there was no evidence of refining tasks in Kendall's second observed lesson because skill development was not the prime objective of the lesson; the emphasis was more on the pupils practising the relay as it was required to be performed on Sports Day. The absence of extension or application tasks in Kendall's task sequence reflected her hesitance to modify Sports Day activities because, as she stated in the interview, every pupil in the school "is expected to participate in the relays as is", that is, without modifications. Furthermore, it was evident from the pupils' skill level in the Charlie Chaplin relay that an increase in task difficulty was not warranted for the pupils. The majority of pupils were coping with the task. It was not the mismatch between task difficulty and pupil skill level which caused some off-task behavior to occur but the time spent waiting in line for a turn. The inflexibility to change the content of the lesson as a scheduled practice for Sports Day limited the extent to which Kendall could extend and apply the two informing relay tasks. No extending or applying tasks were presented. There was evidence, however, of Kendall's attempt to refine individual pupils' skills by 78 individual feedback during the relay practice portion despite no representation of refining tasks in the sequence graph in Kendall's second observed lesson. 79 4.2.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 Games - Relays Clarity Demonstration Number of cues TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of cue; CHARACTERISTICS Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE Figure 17. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: Kendall. Kendall's instructions to the pupils were unclear in both tasks (Figure 17). The pupils' displayed confusion in lining up for both the Circle relay and the Charlie Chaplin relay. The conclusion was a result of Kendall's unfamiliarity with the relay and the organization of the pupils in conducting the relays. She had commented in the interview that this lesson "came up because Sports Day is next Friday and we wanted them to know how to do the relays". No demonstration accompanied the first Circle relay task but a full demonstration was given by Kendall in the second task. No learning cues were supplied in the first task. An appropriate number of cues, however, were presented in Kendall's second task. The cues in the second task were accurate and qualitative in nature. Pupil responses to the first task were appropriate but no specific congruent feedback was evident. In the second task, the responses of the pupils were 80 partially appropriate due to the substantially challenging nature of the activity for the pupils of this age and the task was supported by partial feedback. The feedback was directed to the pupils' positioning of the bean bag between their knees in the Charlie Chaplin relay. Thus, specific congruent feedback and clarity based on student responses were areas of Kendall's task presentation which exhibited considerably lower desirable percentages than the other five task presentation characteristics. 81 4.2.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 Soccer - Skill Practice TYPE OF TASK NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Informing Refining \ Extending \ Repeating \ Applying 1 Figure 18. Task sequence graph: Lesson 3: Kendall. The task sequence in Kendall's third observation lesson consisted of six instructional tasks (Figure 18). The lesson was presented to the pupils in a similar format to Kendall's first soccer skills lesson. The first five tasks were separate informing tasks re-explaining the soccer skills to be performed at each of the stations as in lesson 1. Time constraints in the lesson caused Kendall to abandon her plans to allow the pupils to participate at the four stations as originally planned; instead only two stations were covered. Regarding the issue of time allocation in a station lesson, Kendall commented "I wish the explaining part took up less time. It always seems it would only take a few minutes but then you get to it and it takes longer. So they (the pupils) lose out". The remaining task in the lesson was a soccer game which was an applying task. In the interview, Kendall had commented that she had sensed that there were " a lot of people who were really depressed that we were doing stations again. They weren't participating so I decided to do a bit of a game". Thus, the task sequence in Kendall's third observed lesson consists entirely of informing tasks followed by one applying task. According to Belka and Short (1991), this type of sequence can be appropriate if the skills are well learned. However, this was not the case. Many of the 82 pupils displayed inappropriate technique in the informing tasks particularly in the skills of passing and trapping. Furthermore, these skills had been previously practised in Kendall's first observed lesson and in other soccer lessons taught by Kendall's sponsor teacher, Dan, before Kendall's practicum. Belka and Short (1991) state that when refining and extending processes are bypassed and an applying task immediately follows an informing task, pupils become frustrated in the applying task and low levels of performance levels may become evident. This is because the original skills in the application task will be of relatively lower quality in the applying task than if considerable refinement and extension occurred prior to the presentation of the applying tasks. This is the situation which was observed in Kendall's third observed lesson. 83 4.2.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 Soccer - Skill Practice Clarity Demonstration Number of cues TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of cue; CHARACTERISTICS Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 99.6 33.2 33.2 incomplete due to temporary loss of sound 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 100 Figure 19. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: Kendall. In Kendall's task presentation in lesson 3, all of the six tasks displayed were clear (Figure 19). None of the first five tasks were supported by full demonstrations, however, a partial demonstration accompanied the final game activity. Kendall stated that "We had already covered similar types of soccer skills" in the first observed soccer skills lesson. A loss of sound for approximately three minutes during the videotaping prevented the coding of the number, accuracy, and qualitative nature of cues provided by Kendall in the final game activity. However, an appropriate number of accurate, nonqualitative cues were presented by Kendall in two of the other five coded tasks. No cues were given to the pupil by Kendall in the remaining three tasks. The low number 84 of cues presented and the nonqualitative nature of the cues that were presented may have been due to two factors. Firstly, Kendall's perception that providing cues was not required because of the pupils' prior experience in soccer which, as Kendall stated, was considerable. "They have done a lot of soccer but mainly games". It is interesting to note that the tasks and format presented in the lesson were very similar to those presented in Kendall's first observed lesson. As a result, she may have reduced the number of cues she presented within the tasks in the third observed lesson. Secondly, the number of cues presented by Kendall may have been low in this lesson due to delegation of this duty to the "team leaders" who Kendall chose to be responsible for "organizing the better people to help the people who weren't as good". From the researchers' observations, however, it was evident that the team leaders did not fulfill their job responsibility because of what appeared to be a lack of instruction from Kendall about their role. Kendall agreed that the team leaders "didn't do what they were supposed to do". The provision of cues for the majority of pupils in that class, however, would have been beneficial in reinforcing skills already learned previously. Student responses were appropriate in all six tasks with specific congruent feedback only given in two of the six tasks. This may have been influenced by time, particularly considering that the provision of feedback in station lessons usually occurs in the practice portion of the lesson which is characteristically towards the latter part of the lesson. Thus, Kendall displayed clarity in her instruction of the tasks based on appropriate student responses relative to the task. It is necessary to note that the coding of the number of cues, the degree of accuracy with which they were presented and their qualitative nature was incomplete due to the temporary loss of sound on the videotape recording. Specific congruent feedback was infrequent and full demonstrations of tasks were nonexistent in Kendall's third observed lesson. There appeared to be no apparent reason for Kendall's lack of congruent feedback to the pupils. 85 4.2.8 Summary of Task Types LESSON 1 (Soccer) LESSON 2 (Games) LESSON 3 (Soccer) Informing Informing Informing • • • • Refining Refining Refining Extending Extending Extending Repeating Repeating Repeating Applying Applying Applying Figure 20. Task type graphs for three lessons: Kendall. The types of tasks presented by Kendall during lessons 1 and 3 were comparable in terms of the content covered in the lessons, that is, both soccer skills lessons were presented in a station format. Similarly, the objectives of lessons 1 and 3 both focused on skill development. In lesson 2, however, Kendall's prime objective was to familiarize the pupils with the rules and organization of specific activities which would contribute to the Sports Day's success. Thus, the differences in content and objectives from Kendall's lesson 2 to those of lessons 1 and 3 should be noted. Despite these differences, however, Figure 20 shows that a predominance of informing tasks were displayed across Kendall's three lessons. This trend is most striking at the beginning of the similar lessons, 1 and 3. This is partly due to the station format adopted by Kendall in the lessons. It is also interesting to note that when lessons 1 and 3 are considered together, that is, as a progression, all of the task types with the exception of repeating tasks are represented. In addition, an application task completes the sequence. This reflects what Belka and Short (1991) term a 'desirable lesson sequence' in which all of the task types are presented in the suggested order. The inflexibility to alter the content or the focus of lesson 2 in her role as a student-teacher on practicum limited the extent to which two lesson tasks could be extended and applied. However, the presentation of refining tasks 86 was constrained only by the time Kendall allocated to such tasks. However, since the beginning of the soccer unit, Kendall had noted a significant improvement in the pupils' skill level. "People that were just not doing anything at the beginning of soccer have really gotten into participating and even if their skills aren't that great, they are still a lot better than they were at the beginning". Because the pupils had previously been playing games of soccer in physical education lessons with Dan, Kendall's sponsor teacher before the observed lessons, the observations made by the researcher were made over a shorter period than the time period to which Kendall was referring in this comment. As such, the researchers' claim to witnessing an increase in skill level across the time period specified by Kendall would warrant further substantiation. 87 4.2.9 Summary of Task Presentation Clarity Demonstration TASK PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback [7| Lesson 1 3 Lesson 2 I Lesson 3 V. >///////////;////////////7777* 1- 1-20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 100 Figure 21. Task presentation graph for three lessons: Kendall. In terms of task presentation, Kendall displayed clarity in two of the three observed lessons (Figure 21). A lack of clarity in instructions to the class in one of the three observed lessons was due to Kendall's unfamilarity with the organization of the Sports Day relays. In Kendall's situation, however, her unfamiliarity with the relays related to the wider context of her role as a student-teacher on practicum. "Dan gave me the sheet which explained the relays and it was up to me to teach it". This does not fully account for the lack of instructional clarity in the tasks in Kendall's lesson 2 but it was a contributing factor to this aspect of task presentation. 88 Full or partial demonstrations accompanied the tasks in two lessons but not in the third lesson. This was due to the similarity of lesson 3 in format and in specific skill tasks to Kendall's first soccer skills lesson. Generally, the cues presented in Kendall's three lessons were over three per task or not provided at all. However, the cues presented in all three lessons were accurate and focused on how to perform the task. Student responses which reflected an intent to deal with the specifics of the task were evident in two of the three lessons, that is, in lessons 1 and 3 in which Kendall's instructions were clear to the pupils. Specific congruent feedback was given in two of the three lessons with evidence in lesson 3 of more than two incidences of specific congruent feedback per task. Thus, the task presentation characteristics in Kendall's three observed lessons which displayed most desirable percentages in two of the three lessons were clarity, demonstration, accuracy of cues, and qualitative nature of cues. The number of cues presented in tasks in Kendall's three observed lessons exhibited less than desirable percentages, reflecting the similar nature of Kendall's first andthird observed lesson. 89 4 .3 The Case of Jane - Nonspecialist 4.3.1 Introduction The third case study is based upon the practicum experiences of Jane. Jane, in her early thirties, graduated in 1990 with a Bachelor of Science (Honours) before entering her fifth year of tertiary study in the twelve month elementary teacher education program in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia. Jane is a physical education nonspecialist with no specific coaching experience. Jane had played basketball both in elementary and high school and also competed extensively at a provincial level in track and field and cross country at both the elementary and high school level. For her practicum, Jane taught Grade 4 at a suburban elementary school with a high population of English as a second language students. The enrolment at the school was approximately 500 and for her practicum class physical education was scheduled twice a week for 40 minutes. Jane's sponsor teacher was John who completed a physical education degree before entering the Bachelor of Education program. In John's six-year teaching career, he has considerable experience in the teaching of physical education and was, at the time of the study, teaching physical education to three other classes in the school. John had not supervised any student-teachers prior to Jane. Jane's lesson 1 was the first physical education lesson that she had taught during her student-teaching practicum. Lesson 2 was taught approximately one week following Jane's first observed lesson and lesson 3 took place one week after lesson 2. Track and field was the content area for all of Jane's three observation lessons. One event was covered in each of the three lessons. Relay running and baton passing were covered in the first observed lesson, shotput was the focus of lesson 2, and lesson 3 addressed the long jump. However, it must be noted that Jane's first lesson was the pupils' second relay lesson. Similarly, Jane's second observed lesson was the pupils' second shotput lesson and lesson 3 was the pupils' third consecutive long jump lesson within the track and field unit. 90 4.3.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 Track and Field - Relays TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Informing Refining . \ Extending Repeating Applying \ Figure 22. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: Jane. Jane's first observed lesson focused on relay running and baton passing. Prior to the lesson, Jane and John had organized the pupils into groups from the previous lesson, each with a team number and a runner number. Part of the warmup consisted of checking to ensure that each pupil was in the correct position according to their allocated team and runner number. Jane's sponsor teacher, John, had taught a similar relay lesson the day before. Thus, the objectives of the lesson, as written in Jane's lesson plans, emphasized reviewing "how to properly pass the baton to their partner in the relay". This lesson was the pupils' second relay lesson and their second track and field lesson. The task sequence in this lesson consisted of ten instructional tasks (Figure 22). The first informing task included the pupils' running the circular relay after Jane reviewed the correct underhand baton passing technique. Two of the six relay teams, team #1 and team #2, ran against each other in the first informing task. The following eight repeating tasks which were essentially the same as the initial informing task but without the teacher explanation or demonstration, consisted of different pairs of teams competing against each other. 91 There was no evidence of refining or extending tasks in Jane's first observed lesson. The absence of these tasks may have been due to John teaching a similar relay lesson the day before in which similar tasks were covered. Despite the absence of refining tasks, Jane supplied feedback to the whole class at the end of the lesson with comments such as "Make sure you remember palm facing upwards with your fingers making the V". The absence of extending tasks may be attributed to Jane's perception that the pupils "seemed to be enjoying" the relay activity. 'They were all shouting 'Go! Go! Go!" However, in the interview, Jane reported that a "few" pupils found the relay less challenging than she had expected. She reported that one of the boys on the track team just looked at me as if to say 'Do we have to go through this again ?' The competitive nature of the activity and the pupils' baton passing technique did not warrant the inclusion of a more difficult task, despite the small number of pupils who expressed feelings of boredom. The high number of tasks in Jane's first observed lesson may be attributed to several factors: 1) the predominance of repeating tasks which required less time to be presented than for other types of tasks, and 2 ) the establishment of management routines by Jane's sponsor teacher, John. Jane and John had organized the pupils into groups from the previous lesson, each with a team number and a runner number. Part of the warmup consisted of checking to ensure that each pupil was in the correct position according to their allocated team and runner number. Thus, Jane's task type sequence in her first observed lesson included a high number of repeating tasks. This sequence was not regarded as desirable according to Belka and Short (1991) because of the absence of refining, extending or applying tasks. However, Jane's sequence in the first observed lesson was legitimated by the nature of the activity and the context of the lesson particularly in relation to prior lessons. 92 4.3.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 Track and Field - Relays Clarity Demonstration Number of cues V. TASK PRESENTATION A c c u r a c y o f c u e s '/////////////////A 60 CHARACTERISTICS ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback YZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA™ v/////////////77m 60 V///////////////////////////77A loo V////////, 30 _L 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 100 Figure 23. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: Jane. In the area of task presentation Jane displayed clarity in all of the lesson tasks (Figure 23). This was a predictable situation for the eight repeating tasks. No demonstrations supported any of the repeating tasks. Demonstrations were not required for the repeating tasks due to the visual demonstration already provided in the previous informing task. Thus, the poor rating in the demonstration aspect of task presentation was justifiable. An appropriate number of cues accompanied four of the ten tasks in the lesson. The majority of the cues were directed to individual pupils before the running of the relays, for example, comments such as "move apart a little" or "start to run before he passes it" were frequent. In Jane's lesson plan, three cues were noted: 1) the right to left hand pass, 2) the forward motion of the person receiving the pass, and 3) running in the correct team-designated lane when more than one team running at a time. Despite the documentation of these three cues 93 in Jane's written lesson plans and her report in the post-lesson interview that she was conscious of focusing only on limited aspects of how to pass the relay baton, an inappropriate number of cues, that is, more than three, accompanied the first informing task. Despite the excessive number of cues presented, each was technically correct and focused specifically on how to run the relay as quickly and efficiendy as possible. Jane's emphasis on passing the baton efficiently reflected the qualitative nature of the cues. Student responses were appropriate in all of the tasks. Feedback matched to the focus of the tasks accompanied six of the ten tasks presented. One example occurred in the lesson closure when Jane stated to the pupils that she "noticed a few people turning hands". She told the pupils to remember to place their "palms upward". She gave feedback to the whole class about specific mistakes made by individual pupils and supplied useful hints about how to alleviate them. Thus, Jane's strengths in task presentation in this lesson were her clarity and the presentation of accurate and qualitative nature of cues presented. However, an excessive number of cues were presented. 94 4.3.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 Track and Field - Shotput TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 Informing • Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 24. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: Jane. The putting of the shot was the focus of Jane's second observed lesson. This was the pupils' second shot put lesson because Jane had taught an introductory shot put lesson to the pupils the day before. The objective of Jane's written lesson plan was for the pupils "to learn the proper technique to 'throw' a shot put" and to "recognize the proper safety procedures when handling a shot put". During a pupil demonstration, Jane explained the technique. She instructed the pupils to throw the 'whiffleballs' (plastic balls) first and then to put the shot. When the pupils performed two "good" shotput attempts, they could then proceed to the long jump where Jane's sponsor teacher John was supervising. For some lesser skilled pupils, however, Jane required them to throw the whiffleball three times and put the shot three times before moving to the long jump area. The task sequence in Jane's second observed lesson consisted of one informing task (Figure 24). The major reasons for the presentation of only one task in Jane's second observed lesson can be attributed to three factors. Firstly, Jane conducted a long warm-up activity which was not coded in the QMTPS because of the multitude of tasks 95 that may have resulted if the, warm up was ceded. Secondly, a considerable amount of time was spent giving feedback to individual pupils which reduced the need for more class tasks than were presented. Thirdly, the implementation of safety practices during the task consumed a significant amount of time. For example, Jane informed the pupils of the "throw-m-me-same-dkection-before-all-collecting'' rule as written in her lesson plan and enforced it for the first three minutes of the lesson. After the lesson, Jane admitted that the time available for pupil practice in the lesson was "sacrificed for safety". Towards the end of the lesson as the number of pupils with which Jane was working decreased, Jane changed the timing of each pupil's attempt to one at a time. She reported in the interview that this allowed her to provide more individual feedback particularly to those pupils who were experiencing difficulty with the shotput technique. Despite the absence of class refining tasks in the task type sequence graph, significant individual feedback was given to each pupil, particularly to the lesser skilled. These incidences were not included in the task type sequence because the QMTPS does not accommodate for the coding of individual refining tasks. However, it was evident that Jane's provision of feedback to individual pupils significantly improved the pupils' skill level particularly for those who were experiencing difficulty with the skill at the start of the lesson. 96 4.3.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 Track and Field - Shotput Clarity Demonstration Number of cues TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of cues CHARACTERISTICS Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 20 40 60 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE Figure 25. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: Jane. Jane displayed clarity in the task presented in her second observation lesson (Figure 25). A pupil demonstration supported the task. However, an excessive number of cues, that is, four cues, were presented in the task. Despite using an excessive number of cues, however, the cues which Jane used were documented in her lesson plans. They included: 1) "keeping the shot put firmly in the palm of the hand, 2) pushing the throwing arm forward and up to release the shot put, 3) using the legs in a sideways stepping motion to help propel the shotput forward once released, and 4) forcing the throwing arm to move up and forward without slackening and causing strain on the elbow". These cues were referred to in the task in addition to cues related to safety while putting the shot in a confined area. Jane addressed accurately the mechanical principles which influenced the pupils' performance in the 97 shotput. For example, she referred to the importance of the legs in the push off movement before one of the pupils' attempted his put. The accuracy and qualitative nature of the cues presented by Jane in this lesson reflected: 1) her previous experience in track and field, and 2) the influence of John, Jane's sponsor teacher, as a role model in the teaching of physical education. In the interview, Jane reported that she did try to incorporate "some" of John's content and organization of the content that she had previously observed in John's physical education lessons. However, Jane was eager to declare that the ideas for the content of her lessons were "basically her own" with evidence of thorough lesson plans to document her ideas. In Jane's second observation lesson, the one task presented was clear and supported by a demonstration. Even though an excessive number of cues were presented before the task, the cues were accurate and addressed the process of putting the shot. Most of the specific congruent feedback throughout the lesson was addressed to individual pupils. 98 4.3.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 Track and Field - Long Jump TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 Informing \ Refining \ Extending \ Repeating Applying Figure 26. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: Jane. The focus of the Jane's third observed lesson was the long jump. Her objectives for the lesson were for the pupils to "demonstrate correct long jump technique". The task type sequence in this lesson consisted of two instructional tasks (Figure 26). The first informing task was a review of the long jump for approximately half of the class followed by pupil practice. The other half of the class were practising the shot put with John. The second task was a repeating task, that is, reviewing the long jump covered in the informing task but presented to the other half of the class who were previously working with John. Although only two tasks were presented and there was no representation of refining tasks in the task type sequence, Jane dedicated considerable time to individually refining the pupils' technique in the long jump. To one pupil, for example, Jane stated "One foot take-off, two foot landing and forward. Just remember those three things". These incidences were not included in the task type sequence because the QMTPS does not accommodate for the coding of individual tasks. The individual attention given to each pupil by Jane was facilitated by the division of the class into two groups of approximately 15 pupils. Jane commented in 99 the interview that "it works better this way because they give you more attention while you are explaining" an activity. The absence of extending tasks in the task type sequence does not truly indicate the challenging nature of the long jump activity, as Jane stated, "to jump further and further each time". In the interview after the lesson, Jane perceived that the pupils were "improving and challengingthemselves even towards the end of the lesson". Thus, the inclusion of group extending tasks did not appear to be warranted in this lesson. Furthermore, the presence of a tape measure alongside the long jump pit indicated Jane's intention to measure the pupils'jumps and thus, present an application task. However, no emphasis was paid by Jane or the pupils to the distance jumped; the major emphasis was on the refining of the long jump technique. If Jane had measured their jumps, an applying task would have been coded and included in the task type sequence. Although the task type sequence indicated an omission by Jane to present refining, extending or applying tasks, there is evidence during the lesson of refinement, an intention to apply, and several justifiable reasons for not changing the difficulty level in a task such as long jump which is, in itself, a challenging task for all pupils regardless of their jumping ability. 100 4.3.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 Track and Field - Long Jump TASK PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE Figure 27. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: Jane. As the second task in Jane's third observed lesson was a repeat of the first but with a different group of pupils, the ratings of task presentation characteristics are essentially the same (Figure 27). Both tasks were clearly presented by Jane. A demonstration supporting the tasks were shown to each group. Accurate and qualitative cues were presented in addition to Jane providing specific and task-congruent feedback. Student responses to the task were appropriate in both lessons. However, an over-abundance of cues were presented in the second task when the task was explained despite Jane's attempt to, as she stated in the interview, "not give them too many things to remember". The over-abundance of cues was the only difference between the two tasks presented in Jane's third observed lesson. 101 4.3.9 Summary of Task Types LESSON 1 (Track and Field-Relays) LESSON 2 (Track and Field-Shotput) LESSON 3 (Track and Field-Long Jump) Informing Informing • Informing Refining Refining Refining Extending Extending Extending Repeating Repeating Repeating Applying Applying Applying Figure 28. Task type sequence graphs for three lessons: Jane. The three task sequences in the three observed lessons reflected the dominance of the initial task presented in lesson (Figure 28). Although the competitive nature of the initial tasks in all three track and field lessons, that is, the two-team relay competition in lesson 1, the shotput in lesson 2, and the long jump in lesson 3 indicates to some extent the presence of application tasks, the presentation of these tasks at the beginning of the lesson suggest that they are predominantly informational and were coded as such. There is no representation of refining tasks in the sequence despite Jane's use of refining comments to individual pupils throughout the three lessons. Similarly, no extending tasks are included in the task type sequences for any of the three lessons. This situation does not indicate the challenging nature of the three track and field tasks that Jane covered in the three lessons. In the interviews, Jane reported that she perceived that the relay, shot put and long jump tasks in the three lessons were "challenging enough" for each pupil despite their running, throwing or jumping ability level and consequently, she did not consider changing or modifying the tasks that she had planned and documented in her written lesson plans. It was evident from the researcher's observations that the inclusion of group extending tasks did not appear to be warranted in any of the three 102 lessons. Thus, the task sequences in each of Jane's lessons are justified by the lesson structure, the nature of the tasks, the objectives of the lessons, and the content of the previous track and field lessons. 103 4.3.9 Summary of Task Presentation Clarity Demonstration 7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA TASK Number of cues 10 PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS Accuracy of cues [IZ1 Lesson 1 \ Lesson 2 I Lesson 3 Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE Figure 29. Task presentation graph for three lessons: Jane. Jane displayed clarity in all the tasks presented in her three observed lessons (Figure 29). Full or partial demonstrations accompanied the tasks in all three lessons but to a lesser extent in lesson 1. This was due to the repetition of the two-team relay races. Generally, the cues that Jane presented in all three lessons were accurate and qualitative. In lesson 1, however, the cues focused less on how to perform the tasks. The number of cues supporting the tasks varied across the three lessons with the one task presented in lesson 2 not supported by any cues and an over-abundance of cues presented in one of the two tasks in lesson 3. However, throughout the three interviews, Jane did report that she was 104 conscious of not presenting "too many things for them to think about" during the practice segments of the track and field events. Appropriate student responses to the task focus were displayed in all three lessons and full, specific, and congruent feedback was given in all three lessons, but to a lesser extent in lesson 1. Thus, the majority of tasks presented by Jane in the three observed lessons were clear, demonstration-supported, accompanied by accurate cues and specific congruent feedback. The number of cues presented, however, were less than appropriate in the majority of tasks. 105 4.4 The Case of David - Specialist 4.4.1 Introduction David is a physical education specialist student-teacher in his mid-twenties. He has a physical education degree with a minor in biology. He has extensive coaching experience at several hockey schools. Dav id has also taught four months of gymnastics through the provincial sports award program. He has played various sports during his elementary and high school years but started to specialize in hockey in Grade 10. David still participates in various sports such as softball, golf and skiing. David taught Grade 4 at a suburban elementary school with a population of approximately 500. David's;practicum class schedule included physical education twice a week for 40 minutes. David's sponsor teacher was Iris who had supervised three student-teachers prior to David. Her specialization is in art and special education. A t the time of the study Iris was in her fifth teaching year following completion of a Bachelor of Education at University of British Columbia fifteen years ago. David had taught one physical education lesson before his first observation lesson. One week separated each of David's observation lessons. A l l three observation lessons developed the content area of track and field. Lesson 1 introduced various aspects of effective sprinting form to the pupils, lesson 2 focused on relays, and lesson 3 involved relays and running games. 106 4.4.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 Track and Field - Sprinting TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 30. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: David. The focus of David's first observed lesson was the improvement of the pupils' sprinting form and performance in track and field. The task sequence in this lesson consisted of four instructional tasks (Figure 30). An initial informing task was an explanation of a running game entitled 'Cheetahs and Cheetals'. Depending on David's 'call' of Cheetahs or Cheetals, half of the class attempted to tag or try to avoid being tagged by the other group of pupils. One of David's requirements in this task was for each pupil to assume the crouch position before the game proceeded. The purpose of this game was, as David stated in the post-lesson interview, to "practise their crouch starts" and to "force them to have a quick start so they don't get tagged by their partner". David also stated the purpose of the game to the pupils in his initial explanation. The second task for the pupils in David's first observed lesson was a 100 metre time trial race in groups of three. This is represented in the task type sequence graph as an applying task. According to David, the purpose of this task as he explained to the pupils in the class was to "group you all in heats according to your running ability for Sports Day". However, he also explained to them that the 100 metre run "wasn't a test" and what he wanted most of all 107 was for "everybody to improve on your form and your speed". Thus, David's choice of an applying task for an objective with a refining focus seemed inconsistent. However, David was asked to conduct this activity by a teacher who teaches most of the physical education in the school in preparation for Sports Day. Although no separate refining tasks were recorded in the lesson, the time trial task included the pupils organizing themselves into pairs and nominating one pupil in the pair to, as David described, "analyze their partners' running form". David asked the pupils to tell him at the end of the lesson "what their partners' arms and legs were doing" during the run, and to specifically note their partners' head position. He asked them to note: "Was their head all over the place or straight ahead?" At the end of the lesson, David invited the pupils to give feedback on their partners' running style to the class and concluded with a summary of what "good technique" comprises of in sprinting in relation to the movements of the three body parts noted previously: the legs, arms and head. The third task in David's first observed lesson was an applying task. David told the pupils that he had "invented" a game called Sandwich Tag so "they could practise their starts". The nature of the tag game required the group of pupils who were originally 'in' to have a quick start in order not to be tagged by pupils starting slightly behind them. Other pupils were also trying to tag the 'in' group from the front. Thus, the name of the game, Sandwich Tag. The fourth task in the lesson consisted of David widening the boundaries in the task to make it easier for the 'in' group not to become tagged and as David stated to them to "give them a bit of a chance". Thus the final task in David's first observed lesson was extending in nature. In the interview following the lesson, David specifically used the word extending in stating that, in hindsight, he could have extended the final tag game by "making the boundaries even wider". He perceived that "there were still too many people in the tag area". There were numerous pupils who were becoming tagged frequently even after the boundary was widened the first time and many of them asked David if he would make the tag area wider. David's immediate response to them during the lesson was "If we make it bigger, the game goes on 108 forever and we haven't got enough time". Consequendy, David did not present another extending task due to lack of time. In David's first observed lesson, the task type sequence included three types of tasks: informing, applying and extending. Two applying tasks were presented immediately after an informing task and the only extending task was presented to the pupils after two applying tasks. According to Belka and Short (1991), the order of these tasks in David's first lesson is undesirable. They claim that extending tasks should precede applying tasks so that the original task can be adjusted in difficulty level and extended optimally prior to the use of applying tasks. Secondly, the sequence pattern from an informing task straight to two applying tasks does not allow for the pupils skills to be refined. Belka and Short (1991) state that this type of lesson sequence will lead to "confusion and low performance levels" in the applying task (p. 133). Despite the absence of refining tasks in the task type sequence, David did address the issue of improving the pupils' skill level in the 100 metre time trial task. According to Belka and Short's (1991) guideline for desirable task sequences, however, this refining component should precede the applying task and not occur concurrendy with the applying task as evidenced in David's first observed lesson. 109 4.4.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 Track and Field - Sprinting ciarity YZZZZZZZZZZZZZA* Demonstration y///////, 25 Number of cues TASK V//////A* PRESENTATION A c c u r a c y o f c u e s '///////A 2 5 CHARACTERISTICS r f ' f ' f ' ' A Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback WZZZZZAK VZZZZZZZZZZZZZZfr _L -L 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 1 0 0 Figure 31. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: David. In task presentation two of the four tasks presented in David's first observed lesson were clear (Figure 31). These were the 100 metre time trial task and the final extending task in which the boundaries were widened for the Sandwich Tag game. The other two tasks were unclear based on the student responses to these tasks. Although the game of Cheetahs and Cheetals was played by the class in the last physical education lesson taught by David, the pupils displayed confusion about which group that David nominated were to tag and which group were to chase. David instructed the pupils to line up and assume the crouch position. No review explanation of the rules were given at all because David presumed that, as he stated to the pupils, "they knew how to play the game". A similar situation occurred in the Sandwich Tag game. A very brief explanation of the game was given by David. No demonstration about how to play the game was given and consequentiy, the pupils exhibited a lack of intent to deal 110 with the specifics of the tagging process. David attributed this predicament to the pupils' "listening problem". One of the pupils in the class told David during the Sandwich Tag game that it was "too complicated". David's response was "You just have to listen. This game helps us to improve our listening skills". The rules were not reviewed by David in the first instance. It became increasingly evident from the confused pupil behavior that the task was unclear. This behavior was a direct result of David's task presentation and to a lesser extent, from the challenging component inherent in the task 'invented' by David. Only one of the four tasks were supported by a full demonstration; no demonstration accompanied the other three tasks. An appropriate number of cues were presented by David in the final extending task only. No cues supported the other three tasks. Feedback, however, was specific and congruent in the first two of the four tasks. The questioning of the pupils who analyzed their partners' running form by David was one episode of feedback in the second applying task. No congruent feedback was given in the second two tasks. 111 4.4.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 Track and Field - Relays T A S K TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS Informing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Refining Extending \ / Repeating v Applying V Figure 32. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: David. David's second observed track and field lesson concentrated on improving the pupils' baton passing technique. The task sequence in David's second observed lesson consisted of seven instructional tasks (Figure 32). The first informing task consisted of running the 100 metre time trial for those pupils who did not perform the run in David's first observed lesson. The following tasks in the sequence focused on a progression to teach the pupils how to pass the relay baton. The first informing task involved David organizing the pupils into five lines and explaining the baton passing technique to them. The pupils then practised passing the baton in their groups while standing one arms' length apart. David refined the pupils' baton passing technique by explaining the importance of having the correct foot forward while passing to their team mates. He stated to the class "If you're right handed, your left foot should be forward. That means your strong leg takes the first step. O . K . Pass!" David's second refining task in the sequence focused the pupils' attention on the correct positioning of the hand to receive the baton. This task was then repeated. The sixth task presented was applying in nature because David introduced a competitive element to the relay passing task. "The team who finishes first kneel down so we know who came first". In the interview David 112 commented that "as soon as you turn it (the task) into a race, they'll take shortcuts to get ahead". This seems to account for David's presentation of an additional refining task. This task focused on "placing the baton" in their team mates' hand without them "having to look behind" to see where the baton is located. In the interview after the lesson, David reported that he perceived that the pupils' incidents of "sloppy passing" seemed to decrease as a result of the refining task. The researcher also noted that in the interview, David seemed to be quite perceptive about which aspects of the pupils' technique needed refining. He reflected that "Some of the need to have their hands open more and their arms further apart". With regards to refining, he commented that "once we do a real relay, they'll do the skills properly". The refining task completed the task type sequence for David's second observed lesson. It is interesting to note that this task type sequence includes a varied pattern of tasks that develops the initial relay task through processes of refinement before the presentation of an application task. This type of sequence is similar with the order of tasks which Belka and Short (1991) suggest as desirable for task presentation with skill learning as an objective; the exception was that David did not present any extending tasks in his second observed lesson. This may be due to David's report in the interview that he did not perceive any of the tasks to be overly challenging or not challenging enough for the majority of pupils in the class. He admitted that "Usually it's funny because if they are bored or not having fun, you'll usually hear it from someone". David reported in the interview that he did not hear any pupil commenting that they were bored in his first observed lesson. 113 4.4.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 Track and Field - Relays Clarity Demonstration Number of cues TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of cues CHARACTERISTICS Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 0 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE Figure 33. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: David. In the area of task presentation clarity of instruction was evident in three of the seven tasks that David presented in his second observed lesson (Figure 33). The pupils' confusion in those tasks not rated as clear was largely a result of David's instruction about the organization of the task. For example, in the first informing task, David did not explain to the class that he wanted the pupils who had not been timed in the 100 metre run in the last lesson to line up in pairs to run it in this lesson. Following the warmup, he shouted to the pupils from the finish Une to "Take your marks". David reported in the interview that "We couldn't wait all day for them". Consequently, the pupils did not respond to his directions and the task took longer than David had originally planned. One task was supported by a full demonstration; two tasks were accompanied by partial demonstrations and the remaining four tasks were not supported by a demonstration at all. In 114 six of the seven tasks presented in David's second observed lesson, an appropriate number of cues, that is, between one and three, were presented. These were accurate and qualitative in nature, for example, "turn your body" and "put your thumb out". No cues, however, were supplied by David in one task. One to two incidences of congruent feedback were given in five of the seven tasks with one task accompanied by no congruent feedback. No tasks received more than two incidences of teacher feedback which was congruent with the focus of the task. Thus, David's task presentation in his second observed lesson included unclear directions which were reflected in the confused pupil responses to over half of David's tasks. The nature of the student responses may have been partially due to the low number of full demonstrations accompanying the tasks in the lesson. David did, however, provide a higher frequency of accurate and qualitative cues with each of the tasks presented in the lesson. 115 4.4.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 Track and Field - Relays and Running Games T A S K TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS Informing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 \ / \ Refining Extending V — / \ Repeating v Applying V Figure 34. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: David. David's third observed lesson was the next consecutive track and field lesson taught by David after his second observed lesson and its focus was on, as David stated in the interview, "the improvement of their relay skills". Seven instructional tasks were represented in the task sequence of the lesson (Figure 34). The first informing task in lesson 3 was a review of the last task in David's second observed lesson: baton passing in groups with the pupils approximately arms length apart. David stated in the interview that he perceived this task as not challenging for the pupils. "If I had jumped straight into a long distance relay or the pylon game they wouldn't have got the hand-off, the baton would have been dropped a lot, and they wouldn't have known the position to be in to receive the baton". Thus, David acknowledged the importance of reviewing aspects of the refining tasks presented to the pupils in David's previous observed lesson. The following three tasks were extending in nature. This involved David increasing the distance between the pupils' from approximately 10 metres in the first extending task to approximately 40 metres in the second extending task. The pupils had to run this distance before passing the baton to their team mate. In the interview, David reported that during the two extending tasks, he was "watching their technique. They seemed to be improving quite a 116 bit". The tiiird extension task consisted of the pupils shouting "Stick!" when they were ready to pass the baton to their team mate. David sensed that this task was a "litde tricky for them because they were only in Grade 4. I don't have time to mark out the correct distance for each of them so they know exactly when to yell 'Stick!". The fifth task was applying in nature. David reported in the interview that running a 4 x 100 metre relay was not possible due to the shape and length of the field. As a result, David incorporated the skills that the pupils had practised in the extending tasks and applied these skills to a game situation. Each pupil in the team ran around a pylon and passed it to the next team mate. Essentially David admitted that this task "was as close to a real-life relay" given the facilities and equipment available to him. An informing task of "Cheetahs and Cheetals" as explained and played in David's second observed lesson followed. David noted in the interview that in the game of "Cheetahs and Cheetals", the pupils are "still practicing their running style, crouch starts, and most importantly, listening skills". The final task, an extension of the "Cheetahs and Cheetals" game, consisted of David moving the pylons used as boundaries for the game closer to the pupils' starting position, allowing for easier tagging. His intention, as he stated to the pupils was, "to make this a little easier because no one is being tagged". According to Belka and Short (1991), David displayed components of a desirable task sequence in his third observation lesson. The original relay activity was extended several times before applying the skills. However, no refining tasks were represented in the task type sequence. 117 4.4.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 Track and Field - Relays and Running Games TASK PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE Figure 35. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: David. In task presentation all of the seven tasks presented by David were clear (Figure 35). Full demonstrations accompanied four of the seven tasks, a partial demonstration supported one task, and the remaining two tasks were accompanied by no demonstration. Between one and three accurate learning cues were presented in the first two tasks. An example of a cue which David provided to the pupils was "You don't have to turn your whole body; just look over your shoulder". In the first review task, the cues were not qualitative. This may be related to David's report in the interview that the pupils were already familiar with how to pass the relay baton. The researcher's observations confirmed this while the pupils were engaging in the task. David supplied no cues before five of the tasks in the lesson. The student responses in David's third observed lesson reflected an intent to perform all of the tasks as stated. 118 4.4.8 Summary of Task Types LESSON 1 (Track and Field-Sprinting) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying LESSON 2 (Track and Field-Relays) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying LESSON 3 (Track and Field-Relays) Informing • • Refining \ \ Extending •""•""^  Repeating \ Applying • Figure 36. Task type graphs for three lessons: David. In the three of David's observed track and field lessons, a clear development of content was evident over the lessons (Figure 36). The first lesson introduced various aspects of effective sprinting form to the pupils, lesson 2 focused on relay baton passing, and David's third observation lesson applied both the sprinting and baton passing techniques to the running of relays. All five task types were included: informing, refining, extending, and applying. In the interview, David commented on the importance he places on the inclusion of applying tasks in his physical education lessons. He states, "Kids like structure. By structure, I mean drills. They like it as long as you can intersperse games with it in the lesson. I think you should teach them skills but within each lesson always have a game which emphasizes that skill. It's important". It was very interesting to note the concentration of the task types across the three observed lessons. For example, in lesson 1, two applying tasks were presented following the initial informing task. In lesson 2, the initial task was refined before the applying task and refined further after its presentation. A total of four extending tasks dominated the task type sequence in lesson 3 prior to David's presentation of the applied relay game. Across the three lessons, David presented a varied task type sequence which focused on one type of task per lesson, that is, applying in lesson 1, refining in 119 lesson 2, and extending in lesson 3. 4.4.9 Summary of Task Presentation Clarity Demonstration TASK PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback YZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA T T T 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE P7I Lesson 1 3 Lesson 2 I Lesson 3 100 Figure 37. Task presentation graph for three lessons: David. Over the three observed lessons, David displayed clarity in one of the three observed lessons (Figure 37). David's verbal explanations did not communicate a clear enough idea of what to perform and how to perform it. This was based on the student responses. Full demonstrations accompanied six of the eighteen tasks over the three lessons, three tasks were supported by partial demonstrations, and the remaining nine tasks were presented with no demonstration. Three of the eighteen tasks were supported by specific congruent feedback. Despite the low ratings on task characteristics such as clarity, demonstration, number of cues, student responses appropriate to task focus, and specific congruent feedback, the nature 121 of the cues David presented reflected what Shulman (1987) refers to as 'pedagogical content knowledge' or the type of knowledge that "distinguishes the understanding of the content specialist from that of the pedagogue" (p. 8). This knowledge was displayed in David's use of specific anatomical terminology and reference to biomechanical principles in the tasks he presented during the three observed lessons. For example, David used terminology such as "extended leg" in his explanation of sprinting start technique to the pupils and his explanation of sprinting form to the pupils integrated biomechanical concepts such as "increased force" leading to a "higher stride" which, he explained to the pupils, resulted in "faster running speed". 122 4 .5 The Case of Ju l ie - Special ist 4.5.1 Introduction Julie is a 25 year old physical education specialist student-teacher with a Bachelor of Physical Education from the University of British Columbia. She has coached predominantly at basketball camps and has played the sport for a number of years at a competitive level including four years on the University of British Columbia varsity team. Julie has also participated in sports such as soccer and track and field in Grades 8 and 9, and softball for five years in elementary and high school. Julie's practicum class was Grade 7. She was at the same school as Joanne. Julie's practicum class schedule included physical education twice a week for 60 minutes. Julie's sponsor teacher was Jennifer who had supervised five student-teachers prior to Julie. Jennifer's specialization was music and at the time of the study, she was pursuing a Diploma in Bibliotherapy. Julie's lesson 1 was the fifth physical education lesson that she had taught during her student-teaching practicum. The low number of physical education lessons that Julie taught resulted from the sudden resignation of the school's physical education specialist. Julie's sponsor teacher, Jennifer then assumed the major responsibility for teaching physical education to the Grade 7's. Lesson 2 was taught one week following lesson 1 and Julie taught lesson 3 one week after lesson 2. Different content areas were covered in Julie's three observed lessons. A game called "Latvian soccer" was played and the pupils practiced the obstacle course to be performed by the whole school on Sports Day in her first observed lesson. Lesson 2 was a fitness circuit and baseball. Lesson 3 was a track and field lesson in which the pupils practiced events that were part of a Mini-Olympics lesson that Julie was organizing for the class at the end of the track and field unit. 123 4.5.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 Games - Soccer and Obstacle Course TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 Informing \ / Refining V Extending Y Repeating Applying Figure 38. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: Julie. Julie's first observed lesson focused on two diverse activities: a Latvian soccer game and an obstacle course which was to be practised by the pupils for the school's upcoming Sports Day. However, the task type sequence consisted of three instructional tasks (Figure 38). At the beginning of the lesson, Julie explained to the Grade 7's that they were to play Latvian soccer for the first 20 minutes. The objective of the game was for the group of ten standing in the middle to intercept the ball with their feet or hands while the ball was kicked from one pupil in the outside group to another on the other side. Scoring was involved in the game. However, the task was the first in the sequence and therefore an informing task. The pupil explanation of how to play and the playing of the game constituted the first informing task. During the first five minutes of the game, Julie changed the number of pupils in the centre to three rather than ten. This was the second extending task. It was extending in nature because the game increased in difficulty for the middle group because there was more space within which the ball could be kicked to the other side and a smaller chance of being intercepted. June stopped the game because, as she reported in the interview, "some of them were not following the low kick rule" which was explained to the pupils during the first few 124 minutes of the game. Julie observed that the pupils in the middle group were in danger of becoming hit with the ball in the head and upper extremities. Julie stated in the interview that she included the Latvian soccer game in the lesson because the pupils had expressed feelings of boredom with the fitness circuit that was regularly conducted by the physical education specialist. The final task in Julie's first observed lesson consisted of the school's substitute physical education teacher explaining what was involved in the school's Sports Day obstacle course and the pupils going outside to perform the obstacle course in their assigned teams under Julie and the substitute teachers' supervision. In the interview after Julie's first observed lesson, she expressed concern that this lesson and the previous four physical education lessons that she had taught while on practicum were, as she stated, "imposed" on her. Julie described that this as a consequence of the sudden resignation of the school's physical education specialist and her sponsor teacher's subsequent decision to assume the major responsibility for teaching physical education to the class despite Julie's background in the area. Prior to the resignation of the school's physical education specialist, Julie noted that the Grade 7 physical education "program" was quite "structured". Thus, as a student-teacher on practicum at the school, Julie reported that she "felt the pressure" to teach whatever was suggested by her sponsor teacher, Jennifer. In the interview after lesson 1, Julie expressed concern about the inconsistency in the content of the physical education lessons from week to week. She would have liked to choose a "theme" such as track and field and include a lot more instruction on "how to do things the right way" than evidenced in lesson 1. The presentation of a "modified or real game" at the end of the lesson was perceived by Julie as important; "a culminating activity which puts the skills all together and can be fun at the same time". The preferred activities which Julie would have liked to include in her first observed lesson were similar to the types which Rink recommends to be presented in lessons which enhance pupil learning through appropriate content development. These tasks 125 include refining and applying tasks. Refining and applying tasks, however, are absent from the types of tasks presented in Julie's first observed lesson. 126 4.5.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 Games - Soccer and Obstacle Course Clarity Demonstration TASK Number of cues y//////77A 33.3 PRESENTATION A c c u r a c y o f c u e s 3 3 .3 CHARACTERISTICS ^ ^ ^ ^ J ^ J Student responses appropriate V////////////////////////77777Z loo Qualitative ™™\//////77Z\ 33.3 V/////////////////////////7777A100 _L 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 100 Figure 39. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: Julie. In the area of task presentation, Julie displayed clarity in all of the lesson tasks (Figure 39). Demonstrations were not supplied in the first two tasks but in the third task, Julie instructed one of the pupils to demonstrate how to negotiate one of the hoop obstacles in the obstacle course. However, the demonstration "exhibited only a portion" (Rink & Werner, 1989b, p. 271) of the desired set of movements which made up the obstacle course task. No learning cues were given by Julie before the first two tasks. A total of two cues were presented by Julie in the obstacle course task. One example of a learning cue in the obstacle course task was "Put your body through the hoop either feet first or head first. It's quicker though to use your feet because you don't have to waste time picking it up". The cues presented in the task were accurate because they were technically correct and qualitative, including one aspect of the process of performing one or more components of the obstacle course task. The student 127 responses to the task focus in Julie's first observed lesson reflected "an intent to perform the task as stated by the teacher" (Rink & Werner, 1989b, p. 272). More than two incidences of specific congruent feedback were presented in two of the three tasks. Julie supplied no congruent feedback in the first soccer task. Feedback was given but it was not specific to the focus of the task. Generally, Julie's task presentation in the first observed lesson reflected clarity based on the student responses. Specific congruent feedback was evident in two of the three tasks displayed and cue presentation was appropriate in number, accuracy and qualitative nature in a third of the tasks presented. Full supporting demonstrations of the tasks Julie presented in the lesson were not evident Either no attempt to demonstrate or an incomplete model of the required task was evident in the three tasks presented by Julie in the lesson. 1 2 8 4.5.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 Games - Baseball TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 Informing Refining \ Extending \ Repeating \ Applying Figure 40. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: Julie. The focus of Julie's third lesson was on offering an opportunity to the pupils to play a game of baseball; an activity that they had wanted to do for "quite a while", according to the interview with Julie. "They have been wanting a break from the fitness activities". The task sequence in the lesson consisted of three instructional tasks (Figure 40). The first informing task was a fitness circuit. Julie explained some small details about the organization of the circuit and the required technique for some of the exercises before the pupils performed the activities. The decision to include the fitness circuit in the task type sequence was based on the substantial part of the total lesson time that Julie devoted to it. In the interview after lesson 1, she reported that the purpose of the circuit was "more than a warm up. They're working on their fitness as well". She continued that "it's a little tough though. Like pushups for 45 seconds for the kids is impossible. They don't have the upper body strength". Julie reported that she "tells them to do as many good quality pushups or tricep dips as they can and then have a break if they need to". This was communicated to the pupils prior to the start of the task. The second task presented by Julie in this lesson was a baseball throwing relay. In the post-lesson interview, Julie reported that she thought it was "a good warm-up to the game". The pupils used gloves to throw the baseball to each other in their two teams. This 129 was a separate task to the preceding fitness circuit task and the pupils had not performed this activity before. Consequently, it was coded as an informing task. Julie abandoned the task after five minutes. In the interview she stated that "they weren't really into it". Julie's final task in lesson 1 was an applying task: a softball game. Julie reported that the aim of the softball game was for the pupils to "enjoy a friendly game" and to allow the pupils "to run it themselves". Julie and the physical education substitute teacher sat and talked to each other for the entire twenty minute game. Commenting generally on lesson 2, Julie stated that she "didn't think they learned anything about technique today". The absence of refining tasks or comments in this lesson's task type sequence confirmed this. Similarly, the absence of any extending tasks in Julie's second observed lesson reflects what Belka and Short (1991) consider to be an undesirable lesson sequence due to the pupil's lack of opportunity for catching and throwing skills to be refined and then extended. However, Belka and Short (1991) presented a clause to the claim about desirable task sequences. An applying task presented immediately following an informing task, as displayed in Julie's third observed lesson, may be "possible" // "the skills are well learned" (Belka & Short, 1991, p. 133). From the researcher's observations, it was evident that approximately 50% of the pupils did possess a reasonable level of skill primarily due to, as Julie reported in the interview, considerable playing experience the pupils have had prior to the lesson outside the school. There were a number of pupils, however, who did not possess skills of that level. Thus, the absence of refining and extending tasks in Julie's lesson 2 task type sequence was not justified for these pupils. Furthermore, the use of refinement tasks has been shown to facilitate learning for different levels of skill (Masser, 1985). This process has been shown to be particularly effective when coupled with skill progressions, that is, the presentation of a variety of tasks as defined by Rink (1993). Julie did admit, however, that the aim of the lesson was not on skill progression but on "having fun". She commented on the reason behind this as "I've 130 watched the way these kids played Softball with their previous teacher and it just seemed too militaristic: 'O. K. this is the way you do it. Line up and throw the ball". Thus, the task type sequence in Julie's lesson 2 was influenced to a great extent on the objective of the lesson and the content of previous physical education lessons. 131 4.5.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 Games - Baseball Clarity Demonstration Number of cues TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of cues CHARACTERISTICS Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 99.9 33.3 99.9 33.3 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 100 Figure 41. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: Julie. In task presentation, all of Julie's tasks were clear based on the degree to which the student responses indicated an intent to perform the tasks required (Figure 41). The only evidence of demonstration in the lesson was in the second task, the throwing relay task, which was a new task for the pupils. Julie described the steps involved in the drill as one of the teams demonstrated. There were no cues presented in any of the three tasks in Julie's second observation lesson. More than two incidences of specific congruent feedback occurred in the fitness circuit task only and were directed towards the modification of some of the more, as Julie described in the interview, "tough" exercises in the circuit One incident of congruent feedback relating to throwing accuracy was evident in the relay. No congruent feedback at all was given in the baseball game which lasted for a substantial part of the lesson, that is, approximately twenty 132 minutes. From the researcher's observations, the lack of provision of specific congruent feedback was not warranted despite Julie reporting that the aim of the Softball game was for the pupils to "enjoy a friendly game" and to allow them "to run it themselves". There were periods during the lesson when feedback could have positively contributed to the pupils' enjoyment of the task which was the primary focus of the game as reported by Julie in the post-lesson interview. Thus, in her second observed lesson, Julie displayed instructional clarity based on appropriate student responses. The provision of demonstrations and specific, congruent feedback accompanying the tasks was less evident and Julie's presentation of cues in the second observed lesson was not evident at all. 133 4.5.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 Track and Field - Mini-Olympics TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 5 Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 42. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: Julie. Julie's third observed lesson was an overview of the activities to be performed in a Mini-Olympics lesson which was planned by Julie to be two weeks after this lesson. In this lesson, each pupil practiced one track and field event one station and then moved to the following station to perform the next event. As this lesson was the first track and field lesson of a planned six-week unit, it would have been interesting for this lesson to have been Julie's first observed lesson. Julie's plan for the following three lessons was, as she reported in the interview following the lesson, to allow the pupils to "choose what two activities they wanted to compete in and practise those". The second last lesson "would be practising the team relay" and any station at which they wanted "to get extra practice". The last lesson would be the staging of the Mini-Olympics with teams earning points according to their combined performances. The purpose of the Mini-Olympics lesson was to conclude the planned six-lesson track and field unit, and to also conclude the ancient Greece unit which they were currently studying in social studies. 134 The task sequence in Julie's third observation lesson consisted of five instructional tasks (Figure 42) presented to the pupils in a "multiple stations/single task format" (Mosston & Ashworth, 1990). Explaining, locating and demonstrating the Mini-Olympic events were part of the first informing task, in addition to the pupils organizing themselves into house teams and assigning their team a Greek name. All of the remaining four tasks presented by Julie were separate applying tasks which were to be performed at four stations: long jump, high jump, shotput, and discus. The sequence of tasks in Julie's first observed lesson displayed a predominance of applying tasks. Although Julie did not emphasize the exact measurement of the pupils' attempts at each event, she did suggest to one group to "keep track of your marks on the ground to see how far you get each time". Although there was an absence of refining tasks in Julie's task type sequence for lesson 3, there were instances in the lesson when Julie gave refining comments to individual pupils in the class during the practice portion of the lesson at each station. Julie expressed doubt about whether the shotput activity was challenging enough for the pupils. Julie reported in the interview that the pupils "were kind of bored". She did state, however, that the tasks "can be challenging if you really insist they do the correct technique. Today, I felt I didn't give anyone the attention they deserved". Before the lesson, Julie nominated four pupils to be, as she called them, "experts" responsible for "showing technique to their group in their best event and telling them what to do differently". These pupils were observed to fulfill this role as required by Julie. However, because the feedback comments from Julie and the pupil 'experts' were directed to individuals in the class, no whole class refining tasks were represented in the task type sequence. In addition, whole class extending tasks were absent from the sequence. The researcher observed that this was not a major concern due to the inherently challenging nature of the track and field activities chosen to be presented in the lesson. However, there was evidence of individual extension activities. For 135 example, Julie modified the high jump activity by telling the pupils if it's not challenging enough "to just do a high and a low shift" of bar height levels in order to cater for the pupils' range of jumping abilities. Thus, the absence of refining or extending tasks in the task type sequence in Julie's third observed lesson was not a major concern due to the presentation of such tasks to numerous pupils in the class for which such tasks were observed by the researcher to be warranted. 136 4.5.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 Track and Field - Mini-Olympics Clarity Demonstration Number of cues TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of cues CHARACTERISTICS Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback Figure 43. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: Julie. In Julie's task presentation, all five of the instructional tasks that she presented were clear (Figure 43). A full pupil demonstration of the correct technique was communicated to the whole class in two of the tasks: the shot and the discus. In the remaining three tasks, two tasks received no support via a demonstration. Julie did, however, partially demonstrate the correct footwork required for the execution of both the long jump and the high jump. The cues presented by Julie in the first three tasks were appropriate in number, that is, between one and three. The last two tasks of shotput and discus were accompanied by an inappropriate number of cues, that is, greater than three per task, despite their accurate nature of and their focus on how to perform the movement. The student responses in all the tasks reflected an intent to 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 137 perform the task as stated by Julie. More than two incidences of feedback were evident in three of the five lesson tasks. In the discus task, Julie supplied two incidences of congruent feedback and no congruent feedback in the shotput task. Julie nominated four pupils before the lesson to be, as she called them, "experts" responsible for "showing technique to their group in their best event and telling them what to do differendy". This may account for the lower incidences of feedback in the last two tasks. 138 4.5.6 Summary of Task Types LESSON 1 (Games-Soccer and Obstacle Course) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying V LESSON 2 (Games-Baseball) Informing < Refining Extending Repeating Applying LESSON 3 (Track and Field-Mini Olympics) Informing • Refining \ Extending 1 1 Repeating Applying 1 . . . Figure.44. Task type graphs for three lessons: Julie. The types of tasks presented during Julie's three observed lessons displayed a predominance of informing tasks (Figure 44). This may be partly explained by the variation in content areas that Julie taught within one lesson in addition to the variety of content areas observed across Julie's three lessons. Lesson 2 and 3 displayed similar task type sequences, that is, the presentation of informing tasks followed by application tasks. Belka and Short (1991) claim that this task sequence is undesirable unless the skills are well learned and executed at a reasonable skill level. Julie's lesson 1 was the closest task sequence to what Belka and Short (1991) would describe as 'desirable' due to the opportunity for the class to be challenged by an increase in task difficulty. However, there were a small number of pupils who were observed by the researcher to be "competent bystanders" in the game due to their relatively lower skill levels. This term was used by Tousignant and Siedentop (1983) to describe pupils who appear to be involved in games of lessons but are really not participating at all. Thus, the bypassing of refining and extending tasks generally in Julie's three observed lessons did not facilitate optimal skill learning for all the pupils in her practicum class, particularly the pupils observed to be 'competent bystanders' by the researcher. 139 4.5.7 Summary of Task Presentation Clarity Demonstration TASK PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS \///////7A Number of cues 0 Accuracy of cues m Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE V/\ Lesson 1 E3 Lesson 2 I Lesson 3 Figure 45. Task presentation graph for three lessons: Julie. Julie displayed clarity in the way she presented her instructions relative to the task focus in all three observed lessons (Figure 45). Full demonstrations were evident in tasks in two of the three lessons. An appropriate number of cues, that is, between three and one, was presented in two of Julie's three lessons. The cues presented in these lessons, that is, lessons 1 and 3, were accurate and qualitative in nature. Student responses to the task reflected the pupils' intent to participate as required by Julie in all three lessons. More than two incidences of specific congruent feedback was evident in tasks presented in all three lessons. Lesson 1 and 3 displayed slightly higher frequencies of specific, congruent feedback than lesson 2. The 140 difference in the amount of specific, congruent feedback between the lessons may be partly due to the nature of the objectives that Julie had reported for each lesson. Julie focused on skill development in lessons 1 and 3 whereas in lesson 1, the emphasis was more on enjoyment, that is, as Julie reported in the interview, the aim of the lesson was to "enjoy a friendly game" and to allow the pupils "to run it themselves". Most desirable percentages for task presentation characteristics in Julie's three observed lessons were obtained for clarity and appropriate student responses matched to the task focus. 141 4.6 The Case of Wavne 4.6.1 Introduction Wayne is a physical education specialist student-teacher in his mid twenties with a Bachelor of Physical Education. At the time of the study, he was completing a Masters in Physical Education and Coaching through a university in the U. S. A. In 1987, Wayne started coaching university and professional hockey teams from Korea and Japan. He was a professional coach at one hockey school for three years and then coached at the university level for three years before entering the teacher education program at the University of British Columbia. Wayne's extensive playing career included five years on a university hockey team and in his fifth year he earned a berth on the national team, playing several championship games in Europe. He was then drafted by a high profile hockey team in the United States of America and played there for one year. At the time of the study Wayne played hockey at a recreational level several times a week in the winter. During his student-teaching practicum, Wayne taught a Grade 6 class at a suburban elementary school with a population of approximately 470. Wayne's practicum class schedule included physical education three times a week for 40 minutes. In the interview, Wayne reported that "If there's anything I feel most comfortable with teaching, it's physical education". Wayne's sponsor teacher was Ted who had supervised eighteen student-teachers prior to Wayne over his twenty years of teaching. Ted's specialization was in graphic arts and he was pursuing a Master's degree in education at the time of the study. Wayne had taught approximately twenty one physical education lessons before his first observed lesson. Lesson 2 was taught two days after lesson 1 and Wayne taught lesson 3 one day after lesson 2. Lessons 1 and 2 were both track and field lessons: shotput and long jump. Wayne's third observation lesson consisted of 'buddy gym' activities in which Wayne's grade 142 6 practicum class was partnered or 'buddied' with a grade one class. The Sports Day activities involved teams of pupils from grades one to seven working together at each station. Before Sports Day, each Friday was a buddy physical education lesson which was one of three physical education lessons scheduled per week in the school timetable for grade 6. Wayne's lesson 3 was one of the buddy gym lessons. 143 4.6.2 Task Types - Lesson 1 Track and Field - Shotput TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 Informing Refining Extending \ Repeating \ Applying Figure 46. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 1: Wayne. The objective of Wayne's first observed lesson was for the pupils "to learn the correct shotput technique". The task sequence in Wayne's first observation lesson consisted of four instructional tasks (Figure 46). Wayne's first task was informing in nature. His instructions focused on two components of shot put: the importance of safety and the use of correct technique. Wayne explained to the pupils that his "first consideration in working with shotputs is safety". He described the dire consequence of being hit by a shotput and explained to them how he was to ensure safety in the lesson: "zero tolerance for fooling around", enforcement of the all-throw-before-collect rule, and the "stand behind the ropes" rule. Wayne had laid ropes on the field to ensure where the groups were throwing was, as Wayne explained, "a safe direction". The second part of the informing task concentrated on the technique of putting the shot. The informing task concluded with the pupils practising the shotput. The second task Wayne presented was one of refinement. In the interview, Wayne's noted that "As far as content in this lesson, I only wanted to go over quickly how you would hold the shot in your hand and then explain basically the three areas where power came from and try to refine it a little later". Thus, Wayne did not plan to 144 focus on increasing the quality of the pupils' shot put technique, however, he stopped the whole class at one point in the lesson to demonstrate and emphasi2e to the pupils that the shot "should be touching your chin". This was represented as a refining task in the task type sequence. The other reason for the focus of the refining task was one of safety: "I was also worried about them hurting their elbows". Wayne stated in the interview that he "had a pretty good idea that they were going to start bringing their hand off their chin and start throwing it like a baseball so I had a plan to stop them after one throw". The third task in Wayne's first observation lesson involved the pupils' partners giving feedback. This task focused on increasing the quality of the shot put technique by ensuring that "the ball stays on the shoulder until you rotate and then your arm goes straight out". Wayne's final task in this lesson consisted of measuring and recording one throw for each pupil. The order of the tasks presented by Wayne in the first observed lesson was the same order as Belka and Short (1991) recommends for a lesson in which the objective of the lesson is skill development. Indeed, the pupils' skill development in shotput was the main focus of Wayne's first observed track and field lesson. 145 4.6.3 Task Presentation - Lesson 1 Track and Field - Shotput Clarity V//////////////////////////////A 100 Demonstration V/////////////A 50 Number of cues TASK Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback WZZZZZZZZZZZZA^ Accuracy of c u e s p ^ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ^ ^ ^ 100 CHARACTERISTICS Y//////////////////////A 75 V////////////////////////////77\ too V//////////////////////////7777A loo _L i. 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 100 Figure 47. Task presentation graph: Lesson 1: Wayne. Clarity of instruction was reported in all four tasks presented in Wayne's first observed lesson (Figure 47). He gave full demonstrations in two tasks and demonstrated a portion of the desired shotput tasks in the final two tasks. More than three cues were communicated to the pupils in half of the tasks and the desired number, that is, less than three or greater that one supported Wayne's first and last task. Two examples of the many cues that Wayne presented were "Push off with the back leg" and "Remember to hold the shot with spread fingers". All of the cues presented by Wayne were accurate and reflected mechanical principles. For example, Wayne introduced the concept of power to the pupils at the beginning of the lesson. He stated in the interview that "I've never thrown the shot put before but I just thought about how it was done and decided to explain the contribution of the arms and legs in terms of power. The cues presented in Wayne's first observed lesson were on correct shot put 146 technique in all but one task; the cues presented in this task related to safety. Wayne instructed the pupils to "line up behind the tape". He continued "I don't want you to follow the ball out and come and see what your score is because the person behind you is going to be throwing next so when you've thrown go back behind everyone". The student responses in all of the lesson tasks reflected an intent to act on Wayne's instructions. Numerous incidents of specific congruent feedback accompanied all of Wayne's four tasks presented in the lesson. Thus, the most desirable percentage of all seven task presentation characteristics were presented for each task in Wayne's first observed lesson. 147 4.6.4 Task Types - Lesson 2 Track and Field - Long Jump TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 Informing \ Refining \ / Extending Repeating Applying Figure 48. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 2: Wayne. The focus of Wayne's second observed lesson was on improving the pupils' long jump technique. The task sequence in Wayne's second observed lesson consisted of four instructional tasks: one informing, two extending, and one refining (Figure 48). The first informing task involved a brief introduction of the tasks for the lesson and an explanation of the long jump technique. The pupils determined their take-off leg. Wayne instructed the pupils "to take three steps and then jump off the foot they were going to leap with it and land with two feet". The second and third tasks involved extending the three steps to a long jump run-up. Firstly, Wayne instructed the pupils "to take three steps a little faster and get as high as you can off that dominant foot". Pupil practice followed. Wayne then focused the pupils' attention on attaining "some height off the board with the last step...leaping as high and as far as you can". In the interview, Wayne reported that approximately 60% of the pupils were achieving "good lift off the board" and the other 40% "I'd have to work with". The final refining task in Wayne's second observed lesson concentrated on the landing: "As you land, throw your arms back to prevent you from falling backwards". The type of tasks represented in 148 Wayne's second observed lesson and the order in which they were presented reflected Wayne's intention to increase the pupils' skill level gradually through extending tasks and then attempt to refine these skills. 149 4.6.5 Task Presentation - Lesson 2 Track and Field - Long Jump Clarity Demonstration Number of cues TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of cues CHARACTERISTICS Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 0 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE Figure 49. Task presentation graph: Lesson 2: Wayne. Based on the student responses, Wayne presented all four tasks in his second observed lesson clearly (Figure 49). Full demonstrations were evident in the first two of the four tasks. The number of cues presented in all four of the instructional tasks were appropriate, that is, between one and three. Each was accurate and qualitative in nature, reflecting Wayne's sound knowledge of the biomechanical principles of long jump. Wayne explained to the pupils, "Your speed will carry you forward and your lift will carry you up". Numerous incidences of specific congruent feedback were presented in the final two tasks, for example, "Good leap off that last step". One incident of congruent feedback was evidenced in the second extending task and no congruent feedback supported the initial informing task. Thus, Wayne displayed 150 desirable percentages in the majority of the seven task presentation characteristics in his second observed track and field lesson. 151 4.6.6 Task Types - Lesson 3 Games - Blanket Toss TASK TYPE NUMBER OF TASKS 1 2 3 4 Informing \ T Refining \ / Extending \ / Repeating V Applying Figure 50. Task type sequence graph: Lesson 3: Wayne. Wayne's third observed lesson was a games lesson in which each pupil of Wayne's grade six practicum class was partnered or "buddied' with grade one pupils to practice for activities to be performed on the school's Sports Day. On Sports Day, teams of pupils from grades one to seven were required to perform noncompetitive activities together at designated stations. Thus, the objective of the lesson was, as Wayne reported in the interview, "to get used to working with buddies" and "to become familiar with the Sports Day events". The task type sequence in Wayne's third observed lesson consisted of four instructional tasks (Figure 50), each related to a blanket toss activity. Firstly, Wayne organized the gym into quarters with benches acting as dividers. He then explained the first blanket toss task to be performed in the 'buddy gym' lesson while reinforcing the safety aspects of working with smaller buddies. The activity component of Wayne's first informing task involved the buddies, that is, one grade seven pupil and one grade one pupil, tossing a ball into the air while holding on to a blanket. The second task involved extending the blanket toss activity to, as Wayne explained to the pupils, "figuring out how you can get the ball going towards the wall". 152 The applying task which followed involved the pupils tossing the ball to the group across the benches from them. In this task, the buddies scored a point each time the ball was successfully tossed across the bench with the blanket. The fourth task was a separate 'tug-a-piece' activity, similar to the tug-of-war game. With pairs of pupils sitting on either side of the rope with their legs extended, the aim was for all the pupils to stand up by pulling on the rope. Thus, in Wayne's third observed lesson, the initial blanket toss activity was extended in difficulty, reflecting Wayne's intent to successfully toss the ball across the benches in the final applying activity. Thus, the order and sequence of these tasks facilitated skill progression and exemplified what Belka and Short (1991) would identify as a desirable task sequence. 153 4.6.7 Task Presentation - Lesson 3 Games - Blanket Toss Clarity Demonstration Number of cues 100 TASK PRESENTATION Accuracy of cue: CHARACTERISTICS Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 100 Figure 51. Task presentation graph: Lesson 3: Wayne. Wayne displayed clarity in the four tasks he presented in the lesson (Figure 51). Full demonstrations were not evident in any of Wayne's tasks. Partial demonstrations supported two tasks and demonstrations were absent from the remaining two tasks. The number of cues were appropriate, that is, between one and three in all four tasks, in addition to reflecting accurate concepts and providing information on how to perform the tasks. More than two incidences of congruent feedback was provided in one of the four tasks. One incident of congruent feedback was evident in one of the four tasks with Wayne supplying no congruent feedback to the pupils about their skill performance in the remaining two tasks. In Wayne's third observed lesson, five of the seven task characteristics were represented by most desirable percentages in all four lesson tasks. 154 4.6.8 Summary of Task Types LESSON 1 LESSON 2 LESSON 3 (Track and Field - Shotput) (Track and Field - Long Jump) (Games - Blanket Toss) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 52. Task type graphs for three lessons: Wayne. The order of tasks in the three task sequences (Figure 52) indicated generally that the initial informing task presented in Wayne's three observed lessons is refined and extended to some extent prior to the presentation of applying tasks. The task type sequence in lesson 1 represents Wayne's refinement of the initial shotput activity. The sequence also indicated the absence of any extending tasks before the applying task. Lesson 2's task type sequence indicated extension and refinement tasks without the presence of any applying tasks. Lesson 3's sequence of extending tasks before the applying task indicated an absence of refining tasks in the buddy gym activities. Generally, however, Wayne's order of the tasks presented in his three observation lessons reflected his intention to develop content either by increasing quality or changing the difficulty of the first task before applying the movement skill. It was also interesting to note that Wayne appeared to structure the three observed track and field lessons and the remaining lessons that he was to teach while on practicum with the process of content development in mind. For example, he planned to organize the track and field unit by covering relay, shot put and long jump with one day of instruction and one day of practice for each different area with a mini-track meet competition in teams to complete the track and field unit. 155 4.6.9 Summary of Task Presentation Clarity Demonstration TASK PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 20 40 60 80 PERCENT MOST DESIRABLE 0 Lesson 1 3 Lesson 2 I Lesson 3 Figure 53. Task presentation graph for three lessons: Wayne. Wayne displayed clarity in the way he presented his instructions relative to the task focus in all three observed lessons (Figure 53). Full demonstrations of the desired movements in the task were presented in two of Wayne's observed lessons. The cues presented in all tasks in lessons 2 and 3 were sufficient in number not to overload the pupil. The cues were also accurate and focused on at least one aspect of the process of performance. However, more than three cues were communicated to the pupils in half of the four tasks presented in Wayne's lesson 1. This number was considered to be inappropriate because of the possibility of overloading the learner with too much information about the task. The student responses reflected an intent to perform the tasks as stated by Wayne in all three observed lessons. More 156 than two incidences of Wayne's feedback was congruent with the tasks presented in all three observed lessons with lesson 1 containing more tasks in which specific and congruent feedback was noted. Thus, most desirable percentages in characteristics such as clarity, accuracy of cues, and student responses appropriate to the task focus were noted in all tasks that Wayne presented in the1 three observed lessons. 157 4.7 Overview of Six Cases 4.7.1 Task Types In terms of the number of tasks, the three physical education specialist student-teachers and the three nonspecialist student-teachers presented a similar number of tasks across the three observed lessons, that is, forty-one tasks and forty-three tasks respectively. Within one lesson, all of the six student-teachers presented a minimum of one task and a maximum of ten tasks. No student-teacher presented all five task types in one lesson. Of the five task types proposed by Rink (1993) to develop content in physical education lessons, both groups of student-teachers presented a majority of informing tasks across their three observed lessons, that is, 51% by the nonspecialists and 34% by the specialists (Figure 54). Figure 54 also shows that refining tasks displayed the lowest percentage of the five task types presented by the nonspecialists, that is, 2% as compared to 15% for the specialists. Repeating tasks were the least frequent task type presented by the specialists, that is, 2% as compared to 26% for the nonspecialists. A higher percentage of extending tasks, that is, 22%, were displayed by the specialists as compared to 16% displayed by the nonspecialist group. Similarly, the specialists displayed a significandy higher percentage of applying tasks, that is, 27% compared to the presentation of applying tasks by the nonspecialists only 5% of the total tasks (Figure 54). 158 TASK TYPES Informing Refining Extending Repeating g ^  Applying 51 34 ^ 1 5 16 3*322 &55S55& 26 15 30 45 60 75 100 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL TASKS PRESENTED IN THREE OBSERVED LESSONS E3 Nonspecialist student-teachers 0 Physical education specialist student-teachers Figure 54. The percentage of task types presented in three observed lessons for nonspecialist student-teachers and physical education specialist student-teachers. The order in which the tasks were presented for each of the eighteen observed physical education lessons, displayed components of both 'desirable' and 'undesirable' lesson sequences (Belka & Short, 1991). According to these researchers, desirable lesson sequences facilitate skill progression by the presentation of refining and extending tasks prior to the presentation of applying tasks. Conversely, undesirable lesson sequences may consist "entirely of extending or informing followed by applying" tasks (Belka & Short, 1991, p. 133). Figures 55 and 56 present the nonspecialist and the specialist student-teachers' task type sequences for the nine observed lessons. No attempt has been made, however, to categorize the student-teachers' task type sequence beyond the sequence and type of task displayed. 159 1) Joanne LESSON 1 (Creative Movement) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying LESSON 1 (Soccer) Informing Refining Extending Repeating A P P l v i n g LESSON 1 (Track and Field -Relays) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying 2) LESSON 2 (Folk Dance) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Kendall LESSON 2 (Games) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying 3) Jane LESSON 2 (Track and Field -Shotput) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying LESSON 3 (Creative Movement) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying LESSON 3 (Soccer) Informing • • • • Refining Extending Repeating Applying LESSON 3 (Track and Field -Long Jump) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 55. Summary of task types for the three nonspecialist student-teachers. 160 1) David LESSON 1 (Track and Field-Sprinting) LESSON 2 (Track and Field-Relays) Informing • Informing Refining \ Refining Extending I f Extending Repeating 1 / Repeating Applying i—* Applying 2) Julie LESSON 1 LESSON 2 (Games-Soccer/Obstacle Course) (Games-Baseball) Informing • • Informing Refining \ / Refining Extending • Extending Repeating Repeating Applying Applying LESSON 3 (Track and Field-Relays) Informing • • Refining \ \ Extending •"•"^ Repeating \ Applying • LESSON 3 (Track and Field -Mini-Olympic s) Informing • Refining \ Extending } [ Repeating Applying 1 . . . LESSON 1 (Track and Field-Shotput) Informing < Refining Extending Repeating Applying 3) Wayne LESSON 2 (Track and Field-Long Jump) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying 1/ LESSON 3 (Games-Blanket Toss) Informing Refining Extending Repeating Applying Figure 56. Summary of task types for the three specialist student-teachers. 161 The interviews with the student-teachers and the researcher's observations identified several factors which played key roles in influencing the types of tasks which the student-teacher presented in the study. These factors included: 1) the availability of time in the lesson, 2) the format of the lesson, 3) the content and objectives of the lesson, 4) the student-teachers' perception of the pupils' skill level, and 5) the degree to which the content to be presented was based on the decision of others in the school. First, the availability of time in the lesson influenced both groups of student-teachers in their choice of the types of tasks presented. In the interviews, it was evident that time prevented several of the student-teachers from presenting all the content they had planned to present For example, in Kendall's second observed lesson, three separate activities in the lesson were actually planned but only two were presented. Thus, an informing task was absent in Kendall's task type sequence. Similarly, in David's second observed lesson, a lack of time remaining in the lesson prevented the presentation of an additional extending task in the task type sequence. Graham (1992) supports this study's findings by claiming that the challenge faced by virtually all physical education programs is the lack of time. Thus, additional pressure is placed on the teacher responsible for the teaching of physical education in the school to make decisions about how to present and develop the content of the program as quickly and efficiently as possible. The choice of whether to inform, refine, extend, or apply is particularly crucial for student-teachers. This is because a large percentage of their time is often consumed by management tasks in the classroom and consequently, less class time is available for instruction. It was evident from the researcher's observations that the format of the lesson influenced the order and types of tasks presented by the student-teachers in the observed lessons. For example, Kendall taught two of her three observed lessons in a station format. This involved the pupils practising soccer skills at each station for a specific period of time before moving on to the next station. The task sequence displayed a predominance of informing tasks particularly at the beginning of the lesson which reflects the necessity to 162 communicate any technical or organizational information about the tasks at the start of the station lesson. In this example, the order of the tasks presented by the student-teacher is particularly influenced by the lesson format. The nature of the QMTPS in facilitating the coding of lessons taught by direct instruction to a larger extent than for other teaching styles contributes to the underlying reason why the format of the lesson influenced the order and types of tasks presented by the student-teachers in their observed lessons. From the researcher's observations, it was clear that the objectives and content of the observed lessons influenced the types of tasks which the student-teacher presented. For example, the objectives of Kendall's first and third observed lessons both focused on skill development in soccer. The task type sequences of both these lessons included numerous informing tasks in addition to one refining, one extending, and one applying task. In her second observed lesson, however, Kendall's prime objective was to familiarize the pupils with the rules and organization of specific activities which would contribute to the Sports Day's success. In this lesson, only two informing tasks were presented with no evidence of refining, extending, or applying tasks. Thus, the objectives of the lesson influenced the types of tasks which the student-teacher presented in their observed lessons. In the interviews with the student-teachers, there was a general indication that the student-teachers' perception of the pupils' skill level was a significant influence on the type of tasks that the student-teachers chose to present. For example, in Joanne's first observed lesson, she perceived that the pupils' skill level were "O. K." and because the tasks presented were, as she stated, "pretty basic", Joanne presented no refining tasks. Joanne had also commented that because her sponsor teacher, Mike, had a drama background, the pupils have had "a lot of experience with body awareness". Thus, Joanne perceived that the pupils displayed movement patterns that required little or no refinement, despite the researchers' observations which indicated otherwise. Graham (1992) acknowledges that the choice of whether to inform, extend, refine, or apply tasks for the pupils by the teacher is difficult when the teacher perceives that there is a large range of skill levels in the class. In his model 163 designed to assist student-teachers in developing content, Graham et al. (1987) claims that one task can be varied for different pupils in the same class. There were several examples of student-teachers individually refining and extending tasks presented to pupils noted in the single case reports. However, individual task presentation was not coded in the task type sequence because the QMTPS does not accommodate for differentiation between individual and group task presentation. Although the practicum settings of the six student-teachers varied, the student-teachers expressed concern in the post-lesson interviews that the content presented in their observed physical education lessons was based on the decisions of others in the school. Often the content to be taught in the lessons were decided upon by the sponsor teacher. There were several examples in this study in which the content to be taught was based on a school event such as Sports Day. This perhaps realistically reflects the constraints which face the student-teachers during the practicum. However, the degree to which the student-teachers are constrainted reflect the practicum school. In general, many of the types of tasks presented were not based on the decision of the student-teacher and this influenced the types of tasks presented in the observed physical education lessons for both groups. 4.7.2 Task Presentation In terms of the presentation characteristics of the task type sequence, the six student-teachers' verbal explanations and directions to the pupils communicated a clear idea of what was expected in 88% of the tasks presented (Figure 57). Consequendy, the student responses reflected an intent to perform 88% of the tasks presented as described by the student-teacher. Demonstrating the desired movement by the student-teacher or a pupil in the class was a feature which accompanied 51% of the tasks presented by the nonspecialists and the specialists. Between one and three cues were given to the pupils in 54% of the tasks presented by the two groups. All of the cues presented by both groups were technically correct and reflected accurate mechanical principles. At least one aspect of the process of performance was 164 addressed in 91% of the tasks presented by the two groups. More than two incidences of congruent feedback was displayed in 36% of the tasks presented by the nonspecialist student-teachers and the physical education specialist student-teachers. Clarity Demonstration TASK N " m b e r PRESENTATION o t c u e s CHARACTERISTICS Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 88 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL TASKS IN WHICH THE MOST DESIRABLE PERCENT IS DISPLAYED ACROSS THE THREE OBSERVED LESSONS Figure 57. Percentages of task presentation characteristics in which most desirable percentages were presented in three observed lessons for both groups of student-teachers. Of the total tasks presented by the nonspecialists, 91% were clear compared to 85% of the specialists' tasks (Figure 58). Consequendy, the student responses reflected an intent to perform the task as described by the student-teacher in 91% of the tasks presented by the nonspecialists and in 85% of the tasks presented by the specialists. Demonstrating the desired movement by the student-teacher or a pupil in the class was a feature which accompanied 42% 165 of the tasks presented by the nonspecialists and 61% of the tasks presented by the specialists. Between one and three cues were given to the pupils in 47% of the tasks presented by the nonspecialists and in 61% of the tasks presented by the specialists. All of the cues presented by both groups were technically correct and reflected accurate mechanical principles. At least one aspect of the process of performance was addressed in 89% of the tasks presented by the nonspecialists and in 93% of the tasks presented by the specialists. More than two incidences of congruent feedback was displayed in 33% of the nonspecialists' tasks and in 39% of the specialists' tasks. From the researcher's observations, the teaching style that the student-teacher adopted for the lesson and the lesson format influenced the nature of the seven task presentation characteristics. For example, Joanne used a guided discovery approach in lessons 1 and 3. The provision of cues and demonstrations by Joanne were less frequent than in her second observation lesson which was a direct instruction lesson. Thus, the different teaching styles and related class formats influenced the task presentation characteristics of the student-teachers. It must be noted, however, that "not every task presented need have all the characteristics of the ideal task presentation" (Rink, 1994, p. 276). 166 91 !5 Demonstration Igggggggggggggi j42 Number of cues TASK PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues 47 100 100 89 393 S3 Nonspecialist student-teachers Ej] Physical education specialist student-teachers Student responses appropriate Specific congruent feedback 'A'A'A'A'A'jQ 9 1 85 33 339 15 30 45 60 75 100 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL TASKS IN WHICH THE PERCENT IS MOST DESIRABLE FOR EACH TASK PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTIC IN THREE OBSERVED LESSONS Figure 58. Percentages of task presentation characteristics in which most desirable percentages were presented in three observed lessons for nonspecialist student-teachers and specialist student-teachers. 167 Chapter Five Summary This chapter is presented in six sections. The first section is a discussion of the results and is organized according to the two research questions which reflect the purpose of this study. Limitations of the QMTPS are then discussed. Implications, conclusions from the study's findings and recommendations for future studies are presented in the final three sections of this chapter. 5.1 Discussion of the Research Questions 1) How are the types of tasks and the characteristics of the tasks' presentation displayed in physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teacher physical education lessons? Of the five task types proposed by Rink (1993) to develop content in physical education lessons, both nonspecialist and physical education specialist student-teachers displayed a majority of informing tasks in the task type sequence displayed for the three observed physical education lessons that they each taught during the practicum. Refining tasks displayed the lowest percentages of the five task types presented by the nonspecialists and repeating tasks were presented least frequently by the specialists. The percentage of extending tasks presented were approximately the same for both student-teacher groups. The order in which the tasks were presented for each of the eighteen observed physical education lessons displayed components of both 'desirable' and 'undesirable' lesson sequences as termed by Belka and Short (1991). However, the presence of contextual factors played a significant role in accounting for the order and the types of tasks presented. The interviews and the researcher's observations identified these factors as: 1) the availability of time in the lesson, 2) the format of the lesson, 3) the objectives of the lesson, 4) the student-teachers' 168 perception of the pupils' skill level, and 5) the degree to which the content to be presented was based on the decision of others in the school. Generally, the student-teachers presented tasks that were clear, that included at least one aspect of information describing how to perform the task, and were accompanied by accurate cues. However, half of the tasks presented were accompanied by full demonstrations of the desired movements and were presented with an appropriate number of cues. Only one third of the tasks presented by the student-teachers displayed any evidence of specific congruent feedback. The researcher's observations identified the teaching style adopted by the teacher and the consequent lesson format as a significant influence on the seven task presentation characteristics of the student-teachers particularly in relation to cue presentation and demonstration presence or completeness. 2) Are there any differences between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers' in the display of task types and the characteristics of the tasks' presentation and if so, what are they ? Differences were found between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers in the display of task types and the characteristics of the task' presentation. Although both groups displayed a majority of informing tasks, the specialists presented more varied patterns of task types in their lesson sequences than the nonspecialists, that is, less of a dominance of one task type over another. The task type sequences of the nonspecialists, however, displayed a dominance of informing tasks. Other differences in the display of task type sequences between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers included the specialists' presentation of a greater number of refining and applying tasks than the nonspecialists. From the post lesson interviews and the lesson transcriptions, it was apparent that the specialists were more cognizant than the 169 nonspecialists about the concept of content development in terms of Rink's (1993) task types. For example, in the interview, two of the specialists used words such as 'refine' and 'extend' in relation to their intentions for content development. This reflects Shulman's (1987) concept of pedagogical knowledge which is most likely to "distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from that of the pedagogue" (p. 8). In terms of the characteristics of task presentation displayed by the two groups of student-teachers, aspects of clarity, accuracy and qualitative nature of cues, student responses appropriate to the task focus, and specific congruent feedback exhibited approximately similar most desirable percentages. The physical education specialist student-teachers, however, supplied fuller demonstrations in a higher percentage of tasks than the nonspecialist student-teachers. The specialists also presented a higher percentage of tasks supported by an appropriate number of cues, that is, between one and three cues, than the nonspecialists. This may be attributed to the presentation of a greater percentage of tasks accompanied by over three cues by the nonspecialists. Although all of the cues presented by both groups were technically correct and reflected accurate mechanical principles, the specialists presented a higher degree of specificity in relation to technique and mechanical principles of physical activity in the interviews and in the lesson transcriptions. This is another example of Shulman's (1987) concept of pedagogical content knowledge. Specifically, this knowledge was displayed through the specialists' use of anatomical terminology and reference to biomechanics principles in the tasks presented. Such examples included "extended leg" in relation to sprinting start technique, "increased force" leading to a "higher stride" in an explanation of sprinting form, and the concept of "power" was referred to in an explanation of correct shotput technique using the legs, arms, and hip "rotation". It is clear then that qualitative differences seemed to exist between these physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers' in their display of task type sequences and the presentation of such tasks. 170 5.2 Conclusions The following conclusions from this study are derived from the case study design. The researcher, the participants, the setting and time and its passing will affect the results and the interpretation of the study's descriptive data. Firstly, the researcher was limited by her background and observation/interpretation skills. Secondly, the student-teachers varied in the way they presented types of tasks to the pupils and the nature in which these tasks were presented. This was due, in part, to the student-teachers' different personalities, backgrounds, teaching philosophies and prior experiences. Thirdly, each of the six practicum settings was unique. Thus, the demands placed on the student-teacher in each practicum setting were also unique. Consequently, the results of the study cannot be generalized in a quantitative sense across other settings. However, it is hoped that readers may find aspects of this study that resonate and can be generalized to their own situation. Lastly, this study is affected by time and its passing. Midway through the 13-week practicum was considered a favorable time for the study because it was assumed that the student-teachers would feel more comfortable in the school setting than earlier in the practicum. Other research has supported this claim (Paese, 1985). If this study was conducted either at the beginning of the practicum or more towards the end of the practicum, different patterns of task type and the nature of the tasks' presentation in physical education classes may have emerged. With these considerations in mind, however, perhaps the most significant conclusion of this study is that differences did exist between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers' in the display of task type sequences and the presentation of such tasks in this study. Physical education specialist student-teachers presented a more varied sequence of the five task types proposed by Rink (1993) and a greater number of refining and applying tasks than the nonspecialist student-teachers. In addition, the specialists seemed to be more cognizant than the nonspecialists with content development in terms of Rink's (1993) five task types, reflecting Shulman's (1987) concept of pedagogical-content knowledge, that is, knowledge possessed specifically by those in the field of physical education. The physical 171 education specialist student-teachers supplied demonstrations in a greater number of tasks and presented a higher frequency of tasks supported by an appropriate number of cues than the nonspecialist student-teachers. The specialists' reference to specific anatomical terms and biomechanical principles reflected again the specialists' pedagogical-content knowledge as defined by Shulman (1987). Previous studies which used the Q M T P S assisted researchers in gaining a more qualitative insight as to how particular teachers differ from others in terms of pupil learning in the physical education instructional setting (Rink & Werner, 1989b). According to the original designers of the instrument, the Q M T P S is "related to but is not a direct measure of effective teaching" (Rink & Werner, 1989b, p. 269). In this study, the use of the Q M T P S was to explore task type and task presentation chracteristics in two groups of student-teachers. Thus, the conclusion that differences in task presentation exist between the groups does not necessarily imply that the physical education specialist student-teachers are more effective teachers. Effective teaching goes beyond the constructs identified in the Q M T P S . However, the description of the way in which the constructs of task presentation are displayed yield a more complete picture of the link between instruction and pupil learning for physical education specialist and nonspecialist elementary student-teachers. In the physical education specialist and nonspecialist teacher literature, there is evidence that lesson organization and teaching behaviors may vary between the two groups. However, no published literature has addressed task presentation characteristics of physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers. Thus, the findings of this study that differences in task presentation characteristics did exist between the physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers contributes to the knowledge base of three research areas: 1) the qualitative aspects of teacher performance, particularly task presentation and content development, 2) physical education specialist and nonspecialist research, and 3) teacher education in physical education. 172 5.3 Limitations of the QMTPS Few systematic observation instruments that have been specifically designed to measure aspects of the teaching process are available in physical education (Byra, 1992). The QMTPS was originally designed to qualitatively measure the communication of information to the pupils in terms of clarity, visual demonstration completeness, accuracy and appropriate number of cues, inclusion of process movement cues, and specific congruent feedback. However, there are four limitations to the instrument which need to be noted. Firstly, the instrument used in the study, Rink and Werner's Qualitative Measures of Teaching Performance Scale (QMTPS) assumes that skill development is an objective of all physical education lessons. It has been witnessed, however, in this study that lesson objectives have included the exploration of different ways of moving and manipulating objects, or familarizing pupils with how to play games. Thus, the scope of the QMTPS is limited for lessons which do not focus primarily on pupils' skill development. Secondly, the QMTPS does not supply information about when in the lesson the task characteristics are presented. Thus, the QMTPS is based on the assumption that the characteristics of the teachers' task presentation are displayed at one point in time, that is, accompanying the teacher's introduction and explanation of the task and before the pupils response to the teacher's directions. However, in the lessons in which the teacher adopted a teaching style other than the command style (Mosston & Ashworth, 1986; 1990) or direct instruction, particular task presentation characteristics became less critical to the pupils' learning. For example, in the guided discovery approach, the student-teacher's presentation of a demonstration, the provision of between one and three cues per task, and the inclusion of process movement cues with the teachers' task explanation were less significant to the pupils' needs. The emphasis here is on the pupils exploring appropriate movement responses for themselves and not for the student-teacher to elude to these via demonstrations or numerous cues, particularly those which are qualitative in nature. Mosston and Ashworth (1986) claim that the role of the teacher in a guided discovery lesson is to "offer feedback or clues (if 173 necessary) without providing the solution" (p. 171). Similarly, a 'practice style' lesson in which the pupils "practice the assigned tasks as demonstrated and/or explained" by the teacher (Mosston & Ashworth, 1986, p. 25) necessitates the communication of technical or organizational information about the tasks to be performed at each station at the lesson's start. In this style of lesson, the provision of teacher feedback characteristically occurs in the latter stages of the lesson during the pupils practice at the assigned stations. Thus, the QMTPS does not allow the coding of task presentation information in different parts of the lesson. Nor does it accommodate for teaching styles other than those related to a direct instruction approach. These factors influence the time during the lesson in which the task is presented, the type of task presented, and the characteristics of its presentation. Information such as when the task characteristics were displayed in the lesson would have enhanced the description of task presentation characteristics of physical education physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers in elementary physical education lessons. Thirdly, the development of a QMTPS coding manual to accompany the instrument is needed to assist in the coding process. A request to Rink to obtain a coding manual to clarify QMTPS coding procedures was made. However, one was not available at the time. The provision of examples of category descriptors in the task type and task presentation characteristics sections would indeed support the definitions already provided and increase the reliability of the data generated by the use of the instrument. The final limitation of the QMTPS is that the instrument does not address Graham's (1987) claim that the choice of whether to inform, refine, extend, or apply is appropriate to both individual pupils in addition to entire classes. The QMTPS assumed that task information is directed to classes of pupils only. As a result, there is no opportunity to differentiate between individual and group feedback. Despite the limitations of the QMTPS, it proved to be a useful technique in the identification of particular characteristics crucial to task presentation. 174 5.4 Implications Although the results of the multiple case study cannot be generalized in the statistical sense, the differences that were found to exist between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers' in the display of task type sequences and the presentation of these tasks indicates a need for a greater emphasis on content development and task presentation in physical education pedagogy courses in elementary teacher education programs. The display of refining tasks to promote skill progression, the presentation of an appropriate number of cues with each lesson task, and the focus of these cues on how to perform the skill are aspects of task presentation that need to be specifically addressed in these courses. With such emphases, these courses will assist prospective teachers, both specialist and nonspecialist, to learn to present and develop appropriate strategies for the development of content in physical education classes. 5.5 Recommendations The following is a list of recommendations for future study based on the findings from this study: 1) This study found that differences existed between physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers' in the display of task type sequences and the presentation of these tasks in the practicum setting. It would be interesting to describe the task presentation characteristics of qualified practising physical education specialist and nonspecialist teachers. This would confirm or d^ sconfirm that the differences still exist after a period of time teaching physical education in the field. At this stage of the participants' teaching career, it may be that management tasks and in particular discipline management would consume less instructional time in the lesson than observed in this study and generally in the practicum setting. As a result, the presentation of task characteristics may be displayed differently than evidenced in this study. This recommendation was prompted by one of the participants in the study who, after her third observation lesson in an informal discussion, candidly stated: 175 "We are all dealing with the basics right now with management and pacing being a big thing. We are not familiar with the content of much of anything. I am a physical education specialist but I don't know anything about track events in physical education or light in science. We are all learning it so after that, maybe I would move more into informing, extending, refining and applying and all those kinds of things because I know they're important but, at this stage, I can't even begin to focus on them. I'm preoccupied with informing tasks. I may put other types in my lesson plan but it will probably end up being scrapped because I couldn't get the lesson going quickly enough". 2) More studies need to be conducted with physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers in areas which influence instruction such as types of management strategies, planning practices, and academic learning time for the two groups. Information on such variables would assist in providing a research base for the content of method courses in elementary teacher education programs. 3 ) Researchers need to identify the relationship of contextual variables such as objectives set by the teacher for the lesson and the characteristics of the learner such as age, skill level and motivation to specific task presentation characteristics. These variables may influence how a task would best be presented. 4) Studies which identify desirable task type sequences and task presentation characteristics for teaching styles other than direct instruction would be useful information for teachers who adopt a variety of teaching styles in their teaching repertoire. For example, a "games for understanding" approach which is an alternative approach for teaching motor skills direcdy in game settings may warrant a different task type sequence or a different profile of task presentation characteristics than is appropriate to a direct instruction teaching method. 5) An adaptation of the QMTPS is needed to obtain additional information about pre and post task components of a lesson. The pre-task component could include information 176 about the warm-up, the lesson purpose, safety, and organization. Post-task components could consist of information about the closure of the lesson, the attainment of the objectives of the lesson, and the appropriateness of the task for the pupils. 6) With the trend towards the nonspecialist or generalist teachers taking responsibility for teaching physical education in the elementary school, more studies are needed to identify the characteristics of task presentation which will enhance pupil learning in different contexts. 177 REFERENCES Arnold, P. J. (1979). Meaning in movement, sport and physical education. London: Heinemann. Bain, L . L . (1990). Physical education teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 758-781). New York: MacMillan. Belka, D. & Short, C. (1991, January). Implementing a content sequencing model in physical education instruction. Paper presented at the International Association for Physical Education in Higher Education World Congress, Atlanta, GA. Belka, D., Conner, K., & Bowyer, G. (1991, April). Quality and congruency of task presentations and teacher verbal feedback in preservice peer teaching episodes. Revision of a paper presented at the International Association for Physical Education in Higher Education World Congress, Atlanta, GA. Biscan, D. V. & Hoffman, S. J. (1976). Movement analysis as a generic ability of physical education teachers and students. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 42(2), 161-163. Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research methods for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. InM. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp 328-375). New York: Macmillan. Byra, M . (1992). Measuring qualitative aspects of teaching in physical education. Journal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance. March, 83-89. Csikszentmihalyi, M . , & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (Eds.) (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1 7 8 Darst, P. W., Zakrajsek, M . D., and Mancini, V. H. (Eds.). (1989). Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (2nd edition). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Denzin, N. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dobbert,M. (1982). Ethnographic research: Theory and application for modern schools and societies. New York: Praegar. Dodds, P., & Rife, F. (Eds.). (1983). Time to learn in physical education: History, completed research, and potential future for academic learning in physical education [Monograph No. 1]. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Dunkin, M . , & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Eldar, E . , Siedentop, D., and Jones, D. L . (1989). The seven elementary specialists. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 8(3). 189-197. Faucette, N., McKenzie, T., & Patterson, P. (1989). Descriptive analysis of nonspecialist elementary physical education teachers' curricular choices and class organization. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 9_, 284-293. Faucette, N., & Patterson, P. (1990). Comparing teaching behaviors and student activity levels in classes taught by P.E. specialists versus nonspecialists. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 9. 106-114. Faucette, N., & Hillidge, S. (1992). Research flndings-P.E. specialists and classroom teachers. Runner. 3(1). 32-35. Feltz, D. L . , & Landers, D. M . (1977). Informational-motivational components of a model's demonstration. Research Quarterly. 48,525-533. Fink, J., & Siedentop, D. (1989). The development of routines, rules and expectations at the start of the school year. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. £(3), 198-212. 179 French, K., Rink, J., & Werner, P. (1990). Effects of contextual interference on retention of three volleyball skills. Perceptual Motor Skills. 21, 179-186. Gasson, I. S. (1971). The development of an observational instrument to record selected teacher-pupil behaviors in primary school physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Gentile, A. (1972). A working model for skill acquisition with application to teaching [Monograph No. 17]. Quest. 3-23. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press. Graham, G., Holt/Hale, S., Mc Ewen, T., & Parker, M. (1987). Children moving: A teacher's guide to developing a successful physical education program. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Graham, K. C. (1988). A qualitative analysis of an effective teacher's movement task presentations during a unit of instruction. The Physical Educator. H , 187-195. Graham, K. C, Hussey, K., Taylor, K., & Werner, P. (1993). A study of verbal presentations of three effective teachers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. M (Suppl.), 87A. (Abstract) Graham, G. (1992). Teaching children physical education: Becoming a master teacher. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Graham, G. (1993). Children moving: A reflective approach to teaching physical education (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Grant, B., & Martens, F. (1982). Teacher effectiveness in elementary physical education. Canadian Association for Health. Physical Education and Recreation Journal. 48(4), 7-10. 180 Griffin, P., & Templin, T. (1989). An overview of qualitative research. In P. W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek, & V. H. Mancini (Eds.). Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (pp. 400-409). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Gusthart, J. (1985). Variations in direct, indirect, and noncontributing teacher behaviors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 4. 111-122. Gusthart, J., & Sprigings, E . (1989). Student learning as a measure of teacher effectiveness in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. &, 298-311. Gusthart, J., & Kelly, I. (1993). Teachers' instructional variables in volleyball and students' improvement in motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 7_6_, 1015-1024. Gusthart, J., Kelly, I, & Rink, J. (1994). The validity of the QMTPS as a measure of teacher effectiveness. Manuscript submitted for publication. Hand, J., & Sidaway, B. (1992). Relative frequency of modeling effects on the performance and retention of a motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 63 (Suppl.), 57F. (Abstract) Hendry, L . B. (1975). The role of the physical education teacher. Education Research. 12(1), 115-121. Jones, D., Tannehill, D., O'Sullivan, M . , & Stroot, S. (1989). The fifth dimension: Extending the physical education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 813), 261-265. Jones, D. (1992). Analysis of task systems in elementary physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 11.411-425. Kennedy, M . (1979). Generalizing from single case studies. Evaluation Quarterly. 3. 661-679. Krefting, L . (1991). Rigor in qualitative research. The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 45(3). 73-81. 181 Lawson, H., & Pugh, D. (1981). Six significant qustions about performance and performance courses. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 52(3). 59-61. Lawson, H., Lawson, B., & Stevens, A. (1982). Meanings and functions attributed to elementary physical education. Canadian Association for Health. Physical Education and Recreation Journal. 48(4), 3-6. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Martins, R., Burwitz, L., & Zuckerman, J. (1976). Modeling effects on motor performance. Research Quarterly. 47. 277-291. Masser, L. (1985). The effect of refinement on student achievement in a fundamental motor skill in grades K through 6. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 6_, 174-182. Masser, L. (1993). Critical cues help first-grade students' achievement in handstands and forward rolls. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 12,301-312. McKenzie, T. L. (1982). Research on modeling: Implications for teacher educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 1(31. 23-30.. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (2nd edition). Glenview, 111: Scott, Foresman and Company. Merriam, S. P. (1991). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ministry of Education (1979). B. C. physical education assessment-General report. British Columbia: Government Printing Office. Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching physical education (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. 182 Mosston, M . , & Ashworth, S. (1990). The spectrum of teaching styles: From command to discovery. New York: Longman. Murphy, R. D. (1980). Professional-discipline orientation in undergraduate curriculums for preparation of teachers of physical education, 1978-1980. Dissertation Abstracts International. 41, 2499A. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paese, P. (1985). Assessment of a teacher education program based on student intern performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 5.52-58. Pate, R. R., & Ross, J. G. (1987). Factors associated with with health-related fitness. Journal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance. 58(9). 93-95. Patterson, P., & Faucette, N. (1990). Children's attitudes toward physical activity in classes taught by specialist versus nonspecialist physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 9_, 324-331. Patton, M . Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pellett, T., & Harrison, J. (1993). Differences between experienced and inexperienced teachers' content development, task presentation, student practice and achievement. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 64(1) (Suppl.), A-92. Pieron, M . (1986). Analysis of the research based on observation of the teaching of physical education. In M . Pieron & G. Graham (Eds.), Sport pedagogy (pp. 193-202). Champaign, II: Human Kinetics. Placek, J., & Randall, L . (1986). Comparison of academic learning time in physical education: students of specialists and nonspecialists. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 5. 157-165. 183 Rink, J. (1979). Development of an observation system for content development in physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Rink, J., & Werner, P. (1987). Student responses as a measure of teacher effectiveness. In G. Barrette, R. Feingold, C. Reese, & M . Pieron (Eds.), Myths, models, and methods in sport pedagogy (pp. 129-206). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Rink, J., & Werner, P. (1989a). Case studies of teacher effectiveness in second grade i physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. £, 280-297. Rink, J., & Werner, P. (1989b). Qualitative measures of teaching performance scale (QMTPS). In P. W Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek, & V. H . Mancini (Eds.). Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (pp. 269-275). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Rink, J., French, K., Werner, P., Lynn, S., & Mays, A. (1992). The influence of content development on the effectiveness of instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 11. 139-149. Rink, J. (1993). Teaching physical education for learning (2nd ed.). St Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby. Rink, J. (1994). Task presentation in pedagogy. Quest. 46_, 270-280. Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching (pp. 28-56). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen. Rosenshine, B. & Stevens, (1988). Teaching functions. Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan, 376-391. Schempp, P. G. (1987). Research on teaching in physical education: Beyond the limits of science. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 6.111-121. Sharpe, T. L . , Hawkins, A., & Wiegand, R. (1989). Model/practice versus verbal/rehearsal introductions of systems skills within an individually prescribed instructional setting. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2(1), 25-38. 184 Shephard, R., Voile, M . , Lavallee, R., LaBarve, R., Jequier, & Rajic, M . (1982). Curricular time for physical education? Journal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance. 51(9), 19-20. Shulman, L . S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review. 5_7_(1), 1-22. Siedentop, D. (Ed.). (1989). The effective elementary specialist study [Monograph]. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 8.(3). Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Simon, J., & Smoll, F. (1974). An instrument for assessing children's attitudes towards physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 45.407-415. Silverman, S. (1985). Relationships of engagement and practice trials to student achievement. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 5_, 13-21. Southgard, D. & Higgins, T. (1987). Changing movement patterns: Effects of demonstrations and practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 58(1). 77-80. Stroot, S. A., & Morton, P. J. (1989). Blueprints for learning. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. £(3) , 213-222. Thomas, J. R. (1980). Acquisition of motor skills: Information processing differences between children and adults. Research Quarterly. 51(1), 158-173. Tousignant, M . , & Siedentop, D. (1983). A qualitative analysis of task structures in required secondary physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 3* 47-57. Twa, C. A. (1982). A comparison of elementary physical education specialists' and generalists' verbal and nonverbal interaction at the elementary level. Dissertation Abstracts International. 43.2930-1A. (University Microfilms No. DCJ73-21903) 185 Walker, R. (1980). The conduct of educational case studies: Ethics, theory and procedures. In W. B. Dockerell and D. Hamilton (Eds.). Rethinking educational research. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Weber, M . (1977). Physical education role identification instrument. Research Quarterly. 48.(2), 445-451. Weiss, M . (1982). Developmental modeling: Enhancing children's motor skill acquisition. Journal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance. 62,49-50. Werner, P., & Rink, J. (1984, July). Effects of intervention in the teaching process on jumping and landing abilities of second grade children. Paper presented at the Olympic Scientific Congress, Eugene, OR. Werner, P., & Rink, J. (1986). Identifying effective instructional skills for teaching jumping and landing. Unpublished paper, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Werner, P., & Rink, J. (1987). Student responses as a measure of teacher effectiveness. In G. T. Barrette, R. S. Feingold, C. R. Rees, & M . Pieron (Eds.), Mvths. models. & methods in sport pedagogy (pp. 199-206). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Wilson, S. (1979). Explorations of the usefulness of case study evaluations. Evaluation Quarterly. 3_, 446-459. Yerg, B. (1981). The impact of selected presage and process behaviors on the refinement of a motor skill. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 1(1), 38-46. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 186 APPENDIX A THE QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF TEACHING PERFORMANCE SCALE (QMTPS) This instrument will be used in this study to analyze four major aspects of teaching performance. These include categorizing the type of task presented by the student-teacher and the way the task is presented Other aspects of the instrument include observing the appropriateness of the pupil responses to the task presented and the type of feedback given to the pupils by the student-teacher. Data will be recorded in terms of occurrences and converted to percentages of the teacher task-pupil response unit of analysis for each category in each construct There are five categories in the area of task presentation, one for pupil response appropriate to the focus of the lesson and one area in specific congruent feedback. Each of these seven areas is totaled and converted to a percentage according to the QMTPS scoring system. Teacner Pocus o( lesson Lesson number . Coder Task Presentation o( lask Sludeni response appropriate lo locus Specilic congruenl leedback Type o( task t-lniormin<j R-Rofina (Quality) E-£*teod (variety) Re-Repeat (repeat sam* u u | A-Apply seM-tesiiog Number JC CO o © Cx >-. f— Clarity Demonstration Number of cues Accuracy ol cues Qualitallve cues Sludeni response appropriate lo locus Specilic congruenl leedback Number Clarity Demonstration Number of cues Accuracy ol cues Qualitallve cues Sludeni response appropriate lo locus Specilic congruenl leedback Clarity 1- Yes 2 - No 1 Demonstration 1- Fult 2- Partial 3- Nooe 2 3 A t Number ol cues 1 -Appropriate 2 -Inappropriate 3—None given 5 6 7 Accuracy o( cues 1- Accurate 2- 1 naccu rate 3- Nona given 8 9 10 Qualitative cues 1- Yes 2- No 1 1 12 Student responses 2- Paniai 3— None 13 14 Specific congruenl (eedtxack 1- Yes 2 - Partial 3- No 15 Totals l Percent toe each category Percent most desirable Total QMTPS 187 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Three interviews, conducted with each of the six student-teachers following each videotaped lesson, focused on the circumstances which influenced a student-teacher to adopt a particular task type sequence pattern for each lesson, that is, the student-teacher's use of extending, refining or applying tasks in the physical education lessons that they taught. The initial part of the interview, Part A, consisted of the researcher asking questions about each student-teachers': i) age, ii) educational background, iii) prior teaching experience, and iv) prior coaching experience, v) playing experience, vi) their assigned practicum grade, and vii) the number of physical education lessons taught before the teaching of the first observed lesson. Part B focused on the circumstances which influenced a student-teacher to adopt a particular task type sequence pattern for each lesson. PART A i) What is your age? ii) What is your educational background? iii) Have you any prior teaching experience? iv) Have you any prior coaching experience? v) What sports have you played? vi) What grade are you teaching while on practicum? 188 vii) How many physical education lessons have you taught before the first lesson that is to be videotaped? PART B 1. As a teacher, under what circumstances during a lesson would you completely change the activity or task that you present to the pupils? 2. In what situations would you change the activity for only one individual? 3. As a teacher, under what circumstances during a lesson would you modify the activity or task that you present to the pupils? 4a. What are the indicators of a task or activity that is too difficult for the pupils? b. Could you give me an example of one of these tasks? c. Please describe what you would do if you perceive that the task is too difficult for the pupils? 5a. What are the indicators of a task or activity that is not challenging for the pupils? b. Could you give me an example of one of these tasks? c. Please describe what you would do if you perceive that the task is not challenging for the pupils? 6. How do you know if the pupil is getting any benefit from the activity or task? 189 APPENDIX C DETAILS OF RECRUITMENT OF SUBJECTS Initial contact with potential subjects were made through visits by the researcher to classes of EDUC 320 (Curriculum and Instruction in Physical Education). This course is taken by all students in the second term of the 12 month elementary teacher education program at U. B. C. The purpose of the study and requirements for participation were explained to the students at the end of class sessions (see below). Opportunities to ask questions was part of the session. Then, the researcher asked each student to complete an Expression of Interest form. EXPLANATION OF T H E STUDY TO POTENTIAL SUBJECTS IN EDUC 320 CLASSES My name is Angela O'Connor. I am a fully qualified teacher. I graduated with a Bachelor of Human Movement Studies (Education), a 4 year integrated teacher education program at University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. I have taught physical education and other subjects for 4 years in Australia with 2 years as head of a physical education department. I came to Canada, substitute taught for 12 months in Burnaby School District and I am now at U. B. C. working on my M. A. I am conducting a study involving physical education specialist and nonspecialist student-teachers at the elementary level. In order for me to start my study, I need volunteers to help me. However, I do realize that while you are on practicum, it is a very busy time. What I will be asking is for you to allow me to observe, perhaps videotape, three to six physical education lessons that you would teach to your assigned class as part of your regular teaching schedule. These observations will start approximately half-way through the practicum in Weeks 6 and 7. I will also ask you to discuss each lesson with me for approximately ten to 190 twenty minutes after each of these three to six observation lessons. I intend to audiotape these interviews. Every effort will be made to prevent disruption to you, your sponsor teachers or to the students. I want you to understand that I have no link whatsoever with your practicum evaluation or those involved with the evaluation such as faculty advisors or sponsor teachers. I will be the only one with access to the videotapes or interview information. I am not going to tell you what or how to teach the physical education classes-you will just plan and teach as you feel is necessary while on practicum. You have the right to withdraw at any time. In return for your help I would like to give you any type of help you may need in the latter stages of practicum. I do hope you will seriously consider helping me out in my research. I truly appreciate your help. Does anyone have any questions? I have a form for everyone to complete-an Expression of Interest form. Please tick one of the boxes. If you are interested in getting involved, tick the top box and fill in the other details such as your name, phone number, the best time to phone, your placement school, the school district of your school, and circle whether you are a physical education specialist or nonspecialist. If you are not interested, just tick the bottom box. I'll pass around this envelope to collect them. Thanks for your time. 191 STUDENT-TEACHER EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FORM RESEARCH STUDY IN E L E M E N T A R Y PHYSICAL EDUCATION Angela O'Connor Master of Arts student Please tick one of the boxes below I I am interested in being involved in your study and would like to know more about it. My name is z I can be contacted at The best time to phone me is My placement school is It is in the School District of Physical education specialist or nonspecialist (please circle) I am not interested in being involved in your study. Thank you for your time. 192 APPENDIX D QMTPS TABLES FOR SIX STUDENT-TEACHERS 193 QMTPS - Lesson 1 Creative Movement (Game-Making) Joanne - Nonspecialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I I E E E E Re I E Presentation of Task Clarity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1- 8 2- 1 1- 88.8 2- 11.1 88.8 Demonstration 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 3 1- 4 2- 1 3- 4 1- 44.4 2- 11.1 3- 44.4 44.4 Number of cues 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3-9 3-99.9 0 Accuracy of cues 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3-9 3-99.9 0 Qualitative cues 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2-9 2-99.9 0 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1- 8 2- 1 1- 88.8 2- 11.1 88.8 Specific congruent feedback 3 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 1- 2 2- 2 3- 5 1- 22.2 2- 22.2 3- 55.5 22.2 TOTAL QMTPS 3 4 . 8 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1-Yes 2 - Partial 3-No 194 QMTPS - Lesson 2 Dance (Virginia Reel) Joanne - Nonspecialist Number of task 1 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I Presentation of Task 2 2-1 2-100 0 Clarity Demonstration 1 1-1 1-100 100 Number of cues 2 2-1 2-100 0 Accuracy of cues 1 1-1 1-100 100 Qualitative cues 1 1-1 1-100 100 Student response appropriate to focus 2 2-1 2-100 0 Specific congruent feedback 3 3-1 3-100 0 TOTAL QMTPS 42.85 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2 - Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3- No 195 QMTPS - Lesson 3 Creative Movement (Game-Making) Joanne - Nonspecialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 Totals Percent for each category Percent mosl desirable Type of task I I E A — Presentation of Task Clarity 1 2 1 1 1- 3 2- 1 1- 75 2- 25 75 Demonstration 3 3 1 1 1-2 3-2 1-50 3-50 50 Number of cues 3 3 1 1 1-2 3-2 1-50 3-50 50 Accuracy of cues 3 3 1 1 1-2 3-2 1-50 3-50 50 Qualitative cues 2 2 1 1 1- 2 2- 2 1- 50 2- 50 50 Student response appropriate to focus 1 2 1 1 1- 3 2- 1 1- 75 2- 25 75 Specific congruent feedback 1 , 3 1 1 1-3 3-1 1-75 3-25 75 TOTAL QMTPS 60.71 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3- No 196 QMTPS - Lesson 1 Soccer Skills (Stations) Kendall - Nonspecialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Totals Percent Percent for each most category desirable Type of task I I I I I I I A E — Presentation of Task Clarity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-9 1-99.9 99.9 1-2 1-22.2 Demonstration 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2-2 2-22.2 22.2 3-5 3-55.5 1-1 1-11.1 Number of cues 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 2-3 2-33.3 11.1 3-5 3-55.5 1-4 1-44.4 Accuracy of cues 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3-5 3-55.5 44.4 Qualitative cues 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1-4 1-44.4 44.4 2-5 2-55.5 Student response appropriate to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-9 1-99.9 99.9 focus Specific 1-1 1-11.1 congruent 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2-1 2-11.1 11.1 feedback 3-7 3-77.7 TOTAL QMTPS 47.5 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2 - Partial 3 - None 1-Yes 2 - Partial 3 - No 197 QMTPS • Lesson 2 Sports Day Practice Activities Kendall • Nonspecialist Number of task 1 2 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I I Presentation of Task Clarity 2 2 2-2 2-100 0 Demonstration 3 1 1-1 3-1 1-50 3-50 50 Number of cues 3 1 1-1 3-1 1-50 3-50 50 Accuracy of cues 3 1 1-1 3-1 1-50 3-50 50 Qualitative cues 2 1 1- 1 2- 1 1- 50 2- 50 50 Student response appropriate to focus 2 2 2-2 2-100 0 Specific congruent feedback 3 2 2- 1 3- 1 2- 50 3- 50 0 TOTAL QMTPS 28.5 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1-Yes 2 - Partial 3-No 198 QMTPS • Lesson 3 Soccer Skills (Stations) Kendall - Nonspecialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 5 6 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I I I I I A Presentation Of Task Clarity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-6 1-99.6 99.6 Demonstration 3 3 3 3 3 2 2- 1 3- 5 2- 16.6 3- 83.0 0 Number of cues 1 3 3 3 1 - 1-2 3-3 1-50 3-75 50 Accuracy of cues 1 3 3 3 1 - 1-2 3-3 1-50 3-75 50 Qualitative cues 2 2 2 2 2 - 2-5 2-100 0 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 1 1 1 2 1- 5 2- 1 1- 83.0 2- 16.6 83 Specific congruent feedback 1 1 3 3 3 3 1-2 3A 1-33.2 3-66.4 33.2 TOTAL QMTPS 40.3 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3- No 199 QMTPS - Lesson 1 Track and Field - Relays Jane - Nonspecialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I R e R e R e R e R e R e R e R e Re — — Presentation Of Task Clarity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-10 1-100 100 Demonstration 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1-1 3-9 1-10 3-90 10 Number of cues 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1- 6 2- 1 3- 3 1- 60 2- 10 3- 30 60 Accuracy of cues 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1-6 3-4 1-60 3-40 60 Qualitative cues 1 1 2 2 l 2 2 1 1 1 1 1- 6 2-4 1- 60 2- 40 60 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-10 1-100 100 Specific congruent feedback 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 1- 3 2- 3 34 1- 30 2- 30 3- 40 30 TOTAL QMTPS 6 0 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1-Yes 2 - Partial 3-No 200 QMTPS - Lesson 2 Track and Field - Shotput Jane - Nonspecialist Number of task 1 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I — • — — Presentation Of Ta^k Clarity 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 0 1 0 0 Demonstration 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 0 1 0 0 Number of cues 2 2 - 1 2 - 1 0 0 0 Accuracy of cues 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 0 1 0 0 Qualitative cues 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 0 1 0 0 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 0 1 0 0 Specific congruent feedback 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 0 1 0 0 TOTAL QMTPS 85.7 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1 - Yes 2 - No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1 - Yes 2 - No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Yes 2 - Partial 3 - No 201 QMTPS - Lesson 3 Track and Field - Long jump Jane - Nonspecialist Number of task 1 2 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I Re — — — Presentation of Task Clarity 1 1 1-2 1-100 100 Demonstration 1 1 1-2 1-100 100 Number of cues 1 2 1- 1 2- 1 1- 50 2- 50 50 Accuracy of cues 1 1 1-2 1-100 100 Qualitative cues 1 1 1-2 1-100 100 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 1-2 1-100 100 Specific congruent feedback 1 1 1-2 1-100 100 TOTAL QMTPS 92.8 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy ofcues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3- No 202 QMTPS - Lesson 1 Track and Field - Sprinting David - Specialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I A A E Presentation Of Task Clarity 2 1 2 1 1- 2 2- 2 1- 50 2- 50 50 Demonstration 3 1 3 3 1-1 3-3 1-25 3-75 25 Number of cues 3 3 3 1 1-1 3-3 1-25 3-75 25 Accuracy of cues 3 3 3 1 1-1 3-3 1-25 3-75 25 Qualitative cues 2 2 2 1 1- 1 2- 3 1- 25 2- 75 25 Student response appropriate to focus 2 1 2 1 1- 2 2- 2 1- 50 2- 50 50 Specific congruent feedback 1 1 3 3 1-2 3-2 1-50 3-50 50 TOTAL QMTPS 35.7 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3- No 203 QMTPS - Lesson 2 Track and Field - Sprinting David - Specialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I I R R Re A R Presentation of Task Clarity 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1- 3 2-4 1- 42.6 2- 56.8 42.6 Demonstration 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 1- 1 2- 2 3- 4 1- 14.2 2- 28.4 3- 56.8 14.2 Number of cues 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1-6 3-1 1-85.2 3-14.2 85.2 Accuracy of cues 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1-6 3-1 1-85.2 3-14.2 85.2 Qualitative cues 1 2 i 1 1 1 1 1- 6 2- 1 1- 85.2 2- 14.2 85.2 Student response appropriate to focus 2 1 l 1 2 2 2 1-3 24 1- 42.6 2- 56.8 42.6 Specific congruent feedback 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2- 5 3- 2 2- 71.0 3- 28.4 0 TOTAL QMTPS 50.71 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A-Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2 - Partial 3 - None 1-Yes 2 - Partial 3-No 204 QMTPS - Lesson 3 Track and Field - Relays David - Specialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I E E E A I E Presentation of Task Clarity 1 . i 1 1 1 1 1-7 1-100 100 Demonstration 2 1 1 1 3 3 1- 4 2- 1 3- 2 1- 57.2 2- 14.3 3- 28.6 57.2 Number of cues 1 3 3 3 3 3 1-2 3-5 1-28.5 3-71.5 28.5 Accuracy of cues 1 3 3 3 3 3 1-2 3-5 1-28.5 3-71.5 28.5 Qualitative cues 2 2 2 2 2 2 1- 1 2- 6 1- 14.3 2- 85.8 14.3 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-7 1-100 100 Specific congruent feedback 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1-1 3-6 1-14.3 3-85.8 14.3 TOTAL QMTPS 49 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3- No 205 QMTPS - Lesson 1 Latvian Soccer and Obstacle Course Julie • Specialist Number of task 1 2 5 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I E I — — Presentation of Task Clarity 1 1 1 1-3 1-100 100 Demonstration 3 3 2 2- 1 3- 2 2- 33.3 3- 66.6 0 Number of cues 3 3 1 1-1 3-2 1-33.3 3-66.6 33.3 Accuracy of cues 3 3 i 1-1 3-2 1-33.3 3-66.6 33.3 Qualitative cues 2 2 l 1- 1 2- 2 1- 33.3 2- 66.6 33.3 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 l 1-3 1-100 100 Specific congruent feedback 3 1 l 1-2 3-1 1-66.6 3-33.3 66.6 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2-Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3- No 206 QMTPS - Lesson 2 Fitness Circuit and Baseball Julie - Specialist Number of task 1 2 3 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I I A — — — Presentation of Task Clarity 1 1 1 1-3 1-99.9 99.9 Demonstration 3 1 3 1-1 3-2 1-33.3 3-66.6 33.3 Number of cues 3 3 3 3-3 3-99.9 0 Accuracy of cues 3 3 3 3-3 3-99.9 0 Qualitative cues 2 2 2 2-3 2-99.9 0 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 1 1-3 1-99.9 99.9 Specific congruent feedback 1 2 3 1- 1 2- 1 3- 1 1- 33.3 2- 66.6 3- 33.3 33.3 TOTAL QMTPS 37.3 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3- No 207 QMTPS - Lesson 3 Track and Field • Mini-Olympics Julie - Specialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I A A A A — — Presentation Qf Task Clarity 1 1 1 1 1 1-5 1-100 100 Demonstration 3 2 2 1 1 1- 2 2- 2 3- 1 1-40 240 3-20 40 Number of cues 1 1 1 3 3 1-3 3-2 1- 60 2- 40 60 Accuracy of cues 1 1 1 1 1 1-5 1-100 100 Qualitative cues 1 1 1 1 1 1-5 1-100 100 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 1 1 1 1-5 1-100 100 Specific congruent feedback 1 1 1 3 2 1- 3 2- 1 3- 1 1- 60 2- 20 3- 20 60 TOTAL QMTPS 80 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3 - No 208 QMTPS • Lesson 1 Track and Field - Shotput Wayne - Specialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I R R A — — — Presentation of Task Clarity 1 • i 1 1-4 1-100 100 Demonstration 1 > 2 2 1- 2 2- 2 1- 50 2- 50 50 Number of cues 2 • 1 2 1- 2 2- 2 1- 50 2- 50 50 Accuracy of cues 1 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Qualitative cues 1 1 2 1- 3 2- 1 1- 75 2- 25 75 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Specific congruent feedback 1 1 i 1 1-4 1-100 100 TOTAL QMTPS 82.1 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A-Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3 - No 209 QMTPS - Lesson 2 Track and Field - Long Jump Wayne - Specialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I E E R — — — Presentation of Task Clarity 1 i 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Demonstration 1 2 2 1- 2 2- 2 1- 50 2- 50 50 Number of cues 1 > 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Accuracy of cues 1 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Qualitative cues 1 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Specific congruent feedback 3 2 1 1 1- 2 2- 1 3- 1 1- 50 2- 25 3- 25 50 TOTAL QMTPS 85.7 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2 - Partial 3 - None 1-Yes 2 - Partial 3-No 210 QMTPS - Lesson 3 Sports Day Practice - Buddy Gym Wayne - Specialist Number of task 1 2 3 4 Totals Percent for each category Percent most desirable Type of task I E A I — — — Presentation of Task Clarity 1 1 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Demonstration 2 3 3 2 2- 2 3- 2 2- 50 3- 50 0 Number of cues 1 1 i 1 1-4 1-100 100 Accuracy of cues 1 1 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Qualitative cues 1 1 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Student response appropriate to focus 1 1 1 1 1-4 1-100 100 Specific congruent feedback 3 1 2 3 1- 1 2- 1 3- 2 1- 25 2- 25 3- 50 25 TOTAL QMTPS 75 Type of task Clarity Demo Number of cues Accuracy of cues Qualitative cues Student responses Specific congruent feedback I - Informing R - Refining E - Extending Re - Repeating A - Applying 1- Yes 2- No 1 - Full 2-Partial 3 - None * 1 - Appropriate 2 - Inappropriate 3 - None given 1 - Accurate 2 - Inaccurate 3 - None given 1- Yes 2- No 1 - All 2-Partial 3 - None 1- Yes 2- Partial 3- No 211 APPENDIX E SAMPLE OF LESSON CODING Excerpt from Lesson 2 Wayne - Specialist Lesson 2 (Track and Field-Long Jump) EXTENDING Now what I'd like you to do is to take about 3 steps a little bit faster and and use that dominant foot or the foot you want to take off of. I don't want to see people jumping a big distance this way. (PARTIAL DEMONSTRATION) QUALITATIVE CUE Use your arms to get you up in the air. O.K? Go ahead. SPECIFIC CONGRUENT FEEDBACK O.K. Good. Good height! REFINING O.K. I need your attention up here for a minute. I want to go through this quickly. One thing. When you land, which way do your arms go? QUALITATIVE CUE (2) \ O.K. I've taken off. I'm leaning forward. I'm reaching with my feet forward in the pit and I'm about to land. What do I do ! with my arms? CUES (2) Yes, you have to throw you arms back and it will bring your body forwards. That will keep you from falling over backwards. There's only 1 or 2 people who put their hands back, so that's great but as you get more speed you have a tendency to fall backwards. Alright? Let's have another try. 212 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054943/manifest

Comment

Related Items