Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Investigating Self-Perceived Use of Spectrum of Teaching Styles in Italian Secondary School Physical Education Teachers: A Pilot Study

Altmetrics

Downloads

131

Views

64

Comments

0

Submitted:

21 September 2023

Posted:

22 September 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The enhancement of physical and sports literacy in school setting are prerogatives and development aim for the physical education (PE) teachers. Therefore, as part of the teaching of motor activities, the proposal of motor tasks through different organizational modes (individual tasks, in pairs, in small groups, circuits, relay, paths, team games, etc.) is functional to the achievement of the educational objectives set in the didactic learning units. The present study aims to assess PE teachers’ perception about the use of teaching styles during curricular lessons. The sample involved a total of 83 PE teachers (M= 41, F= 42, main age= 43,74±10,76) divided according to years of service (0-4 = 36%, 5-10 = 34%, and over 10 = 30%) and academic training (ISEF= 44% and master’s degree= 56%). Teachers complete a digitalized version of a self-produced questionnaire to assess how many times they use each teaching styles during the last month. Results can be summarized as follows: (a) academic training is significantly associated with the command, inclusion, and guided-discovery styles in PE; (b) command and practice Styles are often used by PE teachers, regardless of years of service and academic training, and (c) guided discovery and convergent/divergent Discovery Styles are most frequently used by graduate teachers, regardless of years of service. The preliminary results of the analysis of PE teachers’ perception of teaching styles reveals the prevalence of the use of some styles over others, and this presuppose not only a different (but similar) teacher’s behavior, but also limits children’s way of learning a certain motor task. Future research and analysis will investigate the perception of different teaching styles according to seniority, school grade and academic training to design training courses for teachers adapted to children’s needs.
Keywords: 
Subject: Social Sciences  -   Education

1. Introduction

Teaching motor skills requires the use of multiple teaching styles [1] to promote personalized teaching interventions through the proposal of specific executive variants and organizational modalities of motor tasks. It is necessary to recognize that educational research and good practice in the field of physical education (PE) and physical activities have made significant progress and developments deepening the disciplinary analysis in different contexts and educational environments. In fact, findings have highlighted that motor tasks and the relative adaptations to individual differences represent the matrices from which to propose new didactic paths functional to motor skills learning [2]. On the contrary, there is a need to broaden and verify with methodological accuracy the studies based on the analysis of the teacher-student relations, and on the organization of groups and spaces/environments to promote different ways of learning in students. The following paper presents the preliminary results of a study carried out in secondary school aimed at detecting and interpreting the teaching styles mainly used by a sample of teachers during physical education lessons.

1.1. Motor Learning’s Theory. Brief Review

Findings in the field of motor learning processes suggests the importance of the body-motor experiences experienced by the child in structured contexts (family, school, sport initiation, etc.) and unstructured (after-school, equipped spaces, etc.) in which to be physically active [3]. Recent theories of motor learning, in fact, exceed previous theoretical models and paradigms based on the standardized and well-defined sequence of phases that attribute to each age (or stage of learning) specific and predefined expected behaviors. For example, Fitts & Posner (1968) describes the process of motor learning as the transition from the cognitive stage (what to learn) to the autonomous one (when and why to perform a certain movement), passing through the associative stage (how to perform the movement you are learning) [4], while, according to Meinel & Schnabel (1987) the motor learning process involves the succession of three phases, such as coarse coordination, fine coordination and variable availability, characterized by the progressive improvement not only in terms of acquisition of motor skills, but also automation of gestures and movements [5]. Schmidt (1975), on the other hand, applies the concept of scheme (proper to psychology) to define the generalized motor program as a class of actions that have similar structural characteristics [6]. Learning, therefore, is understood as the result of a general program that, through adaptation to new situations and the variability of the surrounding environment, offers different opportunities for movement. In addition, the main theoretical approaches that dealt with the definition and description of learning processes and motor control - behaviorist, cognitive and ecological-dynamic - differ mainly in the ways in which they consider the relationship between perception and action in the execution of the movement. The behaviorist approach considers, in fact, motor learning as the response to a given external stimulus and attributes, therefore, great importance to behavior (product) rather than to cognitive-mental activity (process) [7,8].
On the contrary, the cognitive model considers the individual as an active, vigilant, and motivated entity for learning, and defines movement as the result of general cognitive schemes designed to guide or generate motor acts aimed at a purpose [9]. In this model, perception represents the starter of any movement, followed, in order, by decision and any voluntary motor action. The succession of perception - decision - action presupposes the continuous recall from the memory of previous motor experiences to recover, compare and choose the best and most appropriate option to the specific situation among the different possible solutions.
According to the ecological-dynamic approach, instead, perception is considered a process through which the individual, without using what is contained in memory systems, identifies, discovers and experiments in the environment and from the environment a whole series of information functional to the execution of a given movement; this approach is also defined ecological since it considers the complex interaction between individual-task-environment [10]. The decision, therefore, comes from the interaction between the person, the movement, and the environment - without necessarily resorting to memory systems - and, therefore, takes on meaning only within the perception-action association. According to the theory of dynamic systems, in fact, learning is understood as the direct result of the interaction of the individual with the surrounding environment and, this aspect, finds its highest representation and expression in the connection between perception-action [11].
From a practical and applicative point of view, considering the individual differences of the students (cultural, sociological, psychological factors, family context, previous motor experiences, etc.) a same situation can determine and hesitate in movement and motor actions different and diverse.
The conditions dictated by the learning environment, therefore, offer to the students’ different opportunities for action and the possibility of performing multiple variations of a given movement that are, from time to time, adapted to situations that may be similar and similar, but not completely equal.
The variability of the motor responses of children is conditioned by the situation (near-far, large, small field, heavy-light ball, number of players on the field, etc.) already present in the environment or, in educational-educational school, intentionally proposed by the teacher. Any action is adapted based on the analysis of environmental constraints (e.g., running downhill; jumping a ditch; climbing a wall) and, therefore, the learning of different forms and modes of movement is prompted by the variation of the stimuli coming (and intrinsic) by the environment itself.
The model of the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA) is based, in fact, on the modification of the constraints and variants of the movement - in relation to the motor task, the environment and the ability of the performer - to encourage self-regulation and the implementation of the most effective motor solutions, with important implications in the field of education and sports (for example related to the ability to solve problems or make decisions) [12,13]. In this regard, international literature has also highlighted how non-linear educational approaches characterize the spontaneous learning of motor skills by the child, in which the teacher is assigned the role of "guide" which intentionally orients students towards the discovery and resolution of some motor problems [14,15].
Such an approach is expressed in the research, by the child and the teacher, of dynamic and variable learning contexts, able to enhance the body-stimulus/ external-environment relationship in order to guide decision-making processes (what to do) and problem solving (how to do?) towards the definition of a certain movement, leaving the possibility for the child to experiment, try, make mistakes and try a series of tasks and activities that are not predefined, but open, adapted and customized to the individual abilities-abilities of the individual [16,17]
From this perspective, the learning process takes on a more global and inclusive connotation, closely linked to the opportunities and constraints that the environment offers, and resulting from the reciprocal interactions between motor activity (e.g., motor task), child and environment [14].

1.2. Neuroscience, Teacher’s Reflective Behavior and Motor Learning in Physical Education

Recently the fields of intervention and the activities that make up the disciplinary structure of physical education in the school, have undergone major revisions and organizational updates and a significant expansion, assimilating - sometimes in a hasty way - the repertoire of contents and activities proposed to students with motor skills, object of learning. If this is accurate in terms of the relationship between disciplinary content and learning objectives, it is not always accurate in terms of the learning processes that are required and solicited by motor experiences.
In fact, the teaching of motor skills necessarily takes place through a wide repertoire of contents and organizational methods but develops and proceeds further, since it will have to tend to mobilize the different factors that structure the motor competence itself. This will be possible using different teaching styles [1] that will allow to promote the didactic mediation and the learning process of the student. In a teaching process, lesson, learning unit, curriculum, modulation, variation, and interaction of teaching styles determines different ways of information processing and response by the student, allowing different and personalized learning methods and a non-linear pedagogical-didactic approach [14]
Physical literacy is a learning process that allows children to acquire the widest and most articulate motor repertoire possible to promote healthy lifestyles and learn increasingly complex motor skills transferable in relationship life and sports [18] (Whitehead, 2013). Postural patterns (flex, extend, adduce, abdicate, elevate, slender, push, etc.) and fundamental movements skills (walking, running, jumping, crawling, rolling, climbing, throwing, grasping, etc.) represents, in fact, matrices for every movement, that, with the application of executive variants proposed by teachers, allows the learning of motor skills oriented towards the introduction to sport and sport [5]. This process is also influenced by extrinsic (such as environment-related learning opportunities) and intrinsic factors (e.g., individual maturation and growth rates) [18].
Recent evidence in the field of educational neuroscience on the processes and modalities that involve the nervous system, as a learning organ, allow you to appreciate the continuous changes and adaptations that occur at the cortical level during the learning episodes [19]. Moreover, the neuro-cortical plasticity, and the consequent creation and stabilization of maps and neuronal circuits, are the result not only of the learning object (thing), but also of the learning modalities (like) how the brain learns a certain content [20]. These discoveries have opened the way to new didactic-methodological reflections, giving increasing importance to how to teach the brain (learning) [21].
Moreover, from the perspective of the PE teachers, the Reflective Practitioner Model presupposes the improvement of their own knowledge through thoughts and reflections on planned and unplanned actions and the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages in action (when a certain event happens) and on action (after the event happened) to improve personal teaching methods [22].
The educational neuroscience led to the development of Teaching Brain, a model that reflects the dynamism that characterizes the educational relationship and reflects the complexity of the teaching-learning process [23]. This approach, in fact, is based on the study of neural markers that are activated differently depending on the strategies and methodologies used by the teacher and, consequently, the responses and actions provided by the students [24].
In addition, Gola (2020) underlines the pedagogical value of educational neuroscience: it is not only the learning experiences experienced by the child, but also, and above all, the quality and way the child learns to influence brain plasticity and cognitive development [25].

1.3. The Spectrum of Teaching Styles: An Overview

The model of Teaching Styles (Spectrum Teaching Styles) proposed by Mosston & Ashworth (2008), is a current and important methodological reference to address the complexity of motor competence and to study the interactions between the teacher and the group-class, the degree of responsibility and educational decisions. Not only that, the integration of quantitative (daily motor activity) and qualitative (such as contents, experiences, and modes of teacher-student relationship) in the motor field, therefore, is an essential and indispensable junction [1].
The Spectrum was presented as a unifying framework, a denominator to delineate teaching styles and it included 11 teaching styles: Command style–A, Practice Style-B, Reciprocal Style-C, Self-Check Style-D, Inclusion Style-E, Guided Discovery-F, Convergent Discovery Style-G, Divergent Discovery Styles-H, Learner Designed Individual Program Style-I, Learner Initiated Program Style-J, and Self-Teaching Style-K. The fundamental reference point regarding the variation of decisions from teacher to student. According to this conceptual framework Mosston & Ashworth (2008), through the definition of teaching styles, present the transition from teaching in which the teacher expresses the highest degree of responsibility and decisions, in the choice of activities and executive and organizational methods (e.g. in athletics or gymnastics), to an approach in which, on the contrary, decisions and choices involve the student in the foreground (e.g. in bodily expression, activities in the natural environment; etc.) [1].
Therefore, according to the lesser or greater students’ decision-making autonomy, teaching styles are classified into reproduction styles (ranged from styles A to E) and production styles (ranged from F to K).
All areas of physical education have content that can be taught through reproduction styles and production styles [1,26,27].
Teaching Styles understand and outline the contexts in which students can reproduce (by imitating or repeating) and produce (by discovering, reworking and creating) motor skills and knowledge. In the teaching styles of reproduction, the teacher is at the center of the teaching setting, defines the tasks and their executive parameters while in the production ones the student plays an active role, generating modes of response to open motor proposals, original and creative.
The model of Meaningful Learning proposed by Ausubel [9] led teachers to enhance two processes:
  • the way in which the students reach the knowledges or learn motor skills;
  • the ways in which such knowledges and skills are cognitively acquired and learned.
In the first mode (which coincides with the presentation of the motor task), the learning process proceeds from the reception to the discovery (and vice versa); in the second, concerning the modalities of acquiring knowledge or skills into the individual cognitive-motor repertoire, children’s learning proceeds from the mechanical to the significant one (and vice versa).
In the first mode (reception) the teacher presents the task through reproduction styles, promoting first the mechanical acquisition of motor skills and then, through the enrichment of the relationship between previous cognitive- motor experience, more significant learning. In this case the didactic decision-making is attributed only to the teacher who proposes activities and motor tasks, mainly closed and predefined and that provide only one executive mode (e.g., predefined motor sequences in dance, gymnastics, defining number of repetitions and programmed series, intervals, etc.).
In the second mode, (a) the motor task does not provide a single executive mode, (b) the presentation is carried out through styles of production (guided discovery and problem solving), and (c) the students can autonomously discover the executive variants (spatial, temporal, quantitative and qualitative and their reciprocal relationships) of a specific motor skills in a mechanical way but gradually can connect them significantly to the previous motor skills and knowledge already learned, consolidating and reworking its bodily-motor vocabulary [2,27,28]. In the concrete didactic action, it is particularly important to know how to vary and modulate the choice of each style that produces different effects on the student’s learning methods [27,28,29].
Below a brief description of each teaching styles [1].
Reproduction Styles
Command Style-A
Teacher takes all decisions (i.e., difficulty, duration, series, repetitions, use of tools, etc.) and students perform the task according to teacher’s instructions. Students are asked to reproduce a specific performance or response proposed by teacher.
Practice Style-B
Teacher prepares the organizational methods: individual tasks, in pairs, in groups, relay, paths, circuits, games. The teacher starts the learning process (or consolidation) of a motor skill by proposing the task in easy conditions, the number of executive variants is modulated according to the stage of the learning process (i.e., jump with the cord on equal feet joined, perform a flip forward, etc.). Performance difficulty, repetitions, duration, use of a tool are defined by the teacher. Students individually practice a memory/reproduction task while teachers provide private feedback.
Reciprocal Style-C
Students are asked to work together and in partnership, and teacher provide criteria of successfulness.
Two students work together on a motor task proposed by teacher. One student performs the task while the other gives feedback. The motor and observation times alternate. The students practice in pairs at the same time.
Self-Check Style-D
Teacher provides a sheet designed of motor skills (e.g., jumping with the cable, throwing the ball with one hand to a fixed target, etc.), according to predefined criteria. The students work independently and self-check their performance according to the criteria given by teacher.
Inclusion Style-E
Teacher identifies a motor task /activity, among the disciplinary areas, in which there are different levels of difficulty implying the proper use of executive variants (near-far; high-low; far-close; heavy-light; to one or two hands). The teacher proposes the different levels of difficulty for each student/sub-group and students may decide to perform the easiest or most difficult task by varying executive levels thus integrating the motor skills already learned.
Production Styles
Guided Discovery-F
Teacher defines subject matter, target concept and questions sequential design asked to students.
Students make decisions about certain subject within the topic designed by teacher and try to discover the predetermined motor answers.
Convergent Discovery Style-G
Teacher, as well as determine subject matter decision and target concepts to be discovered, designs specific questions to students allowing them to discover the correct way of performing a motor task. Students are asked to reason, question, and make logic-sequential connection to discover the correct motor answer.
Divergent Discovery Styles-H
Teacher makes decisions about the subject matter topic and specific questions to ask students. Students have to discover different and multiple solutions/motor answers to a question/situation posed by teachers.
Learner Designed Individual Program Style-I
The teacher chooses a disciplinary field, but it is the student who makes most of the decisions about his/her motor experience. The student decides what he wants to learn within the teacher’s programming, and then presents a personal motor sequence with the teacher’s supervision.
Learner Initiated Program Style-J
Students decide the disciplinary area, e.g., group games with small tools. The teacher provides the basic executive criteria, but the student and the group are/are responsible for the organization and conduct. The teacher, if necessary, can help the group through feedback.
Self-Teaching Style-K
Students decide completely the aim of learning, a new field/ theme researching insights and experiences to be performed and learned.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Aims

Recently, the analysis of teaching in physical education concerned the self-assessment of teaching styles, with particular reference to the frequency with which some of them were used [30]. Findings revealed that teacher’s perception differed according to personal knowledge and competence related to using teaching styles [31]. Furthermore, the greater or lesser use of a specific teaching style is significantly related to teachers’ belief about the style [32]. A study conducted on 156 PE teachers in Turkey [33] reveals the prevailing use of reproduction (teacher-centered) teaching styles both in public and private schools. Moreover, another study investigated the frequency of use of each teaching styles in a sample of 110 Senior PE teachers (11-12 years of service). Results revealed that the most used teaching styles were Practice (about 94.5%), Command (77%) and Divergent Discovery (73.6%), while Self-Teaching (13.6%), Learned Initiated Program (21.8%) and Inclusion (47.2%) were the least used (SueSee et al., 2018). However, other research highlighted the limited used of all (or almost all) the Spectrum of Teaching Styles during PE lessons [32].
In the light of these evidence and to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first that aims to assess Italian PE teachers’ perceived use use of teaching styles during curricular lessons.
The following research questions arise:
(R1) Can years of service and academic training determine different perception of teaching styles during PE lessons?
(R2) Does the perceived use of teaching styles differ significantly during PE teachers practice?.

3.1. Participants

The sample was recruited from secondary school PE teachers involved in the Regional Observatory of Motor Development and Health Behavior in Apulia Region. From a total of 120 PE teachers, 90 were randomly enrolled in the present study of which 7 have decided not to participate in the study. The final sample involved 83 PE teachers (M= 41, F= 52, main age= 43,74±10,76) divided according to years of service (0-4 = 36%, 5-10 = 34%, and over 10 = 30%) and academic training (Higher Institutes of Physical Education = 44%; Motor and Sports Science Degree = 56%).

3.2. Procedure and Assessment

Teachers complete a digitalized version of a self-produced 11 items questionnaire to assess how many times they use each teaching styles during the last month. (i.e., “during the last month, how many times did you use the following teaching styles during PE lessons?”), and they were asked rate frequency with the following options: never (0 times a month); rarely (1-3 times a month); sometimes (4-6 times a month); often (7-9 times a month); almost always (over 9 times a month). Didactic instrument with a short description of each teaching styles and practical examples were also given to participants before answering the questionnaire. Informed consent to ensure participants’ voluntary participation and anonymity were obtained from all participants involved in the study. Data collection was carried out from January to June 2023.

3.3. Statistical Analysis

After collecting data, the Chi-Quadro analysis was performed on the total sample and in relation to length of service (0-4 years, 5-10 years, and +10 years) and training (Higher Institutes of Physical Education or Graduates in Motor and Sport Sciences) to assess significant differences in the frequency of use of each style. The Yates correction was used for frequencies below 5. A contingency coefficient (C) was also calculated to assess the relationship between the nominal categories (years of service and academic training) and the frequencies of usage for each teaching style. The significance index was set for p <. 05 values. The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 25.00 for Windows (Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

Frequency and percentage with which each teaching styles have been used by participants are reported to provide description of results. The following legend is applied to all tables to identify the teaching styles: Command Style =A, Practice Style = B; Reciprocal Style = C; Self-Check Style = D; Inclusion Style = E; Guided Discovery Style = F; Convergent/Divergent Discovery Style = G+H; Learner Designed Individual Program Style = I; Learner Initiated Style = J; Self-Teaching Style = K.
The Table 1 highlights the significant differences in the use of teaching styles according the two attributes (years of service and academic training). Although no significant differences have been detected in relation to years of service, academic training appears to be significantly associated with the use of command styles (X2 = 9.025, p= .049), practice (X2 = 5.573, p= .049), inclusion (X2 = 7.627, p= .047), and guided discovery (X2 = 11.148, p= .038).
Table 1. Differences among the use of Reproduction and Production Teaching Styles according to years of service and academic training.
Table 1. Differences among the use of Reproduction and Production Teaching Styles according to years of service and academic training.
Reproduction Teaching Styles
A B C D E
X2 df p X2 df p X2 df p X2 df p X2 df p
Years of Service 10.962 8 .204 2.270 4 .685 4.560 8 .803 5.299 8 .725 5.511 8 .702
Academic Training 9.025 4 .049 5.573 2 .049 4.075 4 .396 2.997 4 .558 7.627 4 .047
Production Teaching Styles
F G+H I J K
X2 df p X2 df p X2 df p X2 df p X2 df p
Years of Service 3.923 4 .417 2.516 3 .472 .486 3 .992 4.146 3 .246 4.097 3 .251
Academic Training 11.148 8 .038 3.682 6 .720 2.602 6 .857 2.489 6 .870 4.204 6 .649
Since Chi-square statistic is significant, contingency coefficient has been carried out to better know the association between the academic training and teachers’ perceived use of teaching styles (Table 2). The perception related to the use of the Command Style presents the highest significant association with academic training (C= .320, p= 0.49).
Table 2. Association between Academic Training and Teachers’ Perceived Use of Teaching Styles.
Table 2. Association between Academic Training and Teachers’ Perceived Use of Teaching Styles.
Contingency Coefficient for the Data on Academic Training*Frequency
Value p
A .320 .049
B .257 .049
E .297 .047
F .218 .049
Furthermore, data from questionnaire responses were analyzed on total sample, independently of academic training and years of service (Table 3). Since the value of X2 is significant for all teaching styles, it can be inferred that the frequency with which styles are used is not equally popular. Specifically, the results show a significant prevalence (>50%) of teachers who prefer to use "often" Command (X2= 67.542, p= .000), Practice (X2= 60.530, p= .000) and Convergent/Divergent Production Styles (X2= 29.916, p = .000). As for the Reciprocal and Guided Discovery, although they are often used significantly (X2= 34.048, p= .000; X2= 44-410, p= .000, respectively,) there’s a large percentage of teachers who use they never, rarely or sometimes. The Self-Check Styles (X2= 29.229, p= .000), inclusion (X2= 27.060, p= .000), Learner Designed Individual Program (X2= 10.349, p= .016) and Learner-Initiated Style (X2= 38.494, p= .000) are preferably used by teachers sometimes. The least used is Self-Teaching Style (X2= 32.904, p= .000).
Table 3. Responses for data collected by total sample.
Table 3. Responses for data collected by total sample.
In the last month, during PE lessons how many times did you use the style of…
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always X2 df Sign.
A 3.6% 25.3% 9.6% 53.0% 8.4% 67.542 4 .000
B 0.0% 0.0% 10.8% 73.5% 15.7% 60.530 2 .000
C 8.4% 10.8% 28.9% 41.0% 10.8% 34.048 4 .000
D 9.6% 30.1% 32.5% 25.3% 2.4% 29.229 4 .000
E 6.0% 22.9% 32.5% 31.3% 7.2% 27.060 4 .000
F 2.4% 34.9% 22.9% 36.1% 3.6% 44.410 4 .000
G+H 8.4% 20.5% 21.7% 49.4% 0.0% 29.916 3 .000
I 12.0% 22.9% 36.1% 28.9% 0.0% 10.349 3 .016
J 4.8% 19.3% 51.8% 24.1% 0.0% 38.494 3 .000
K 30.1% 48.2% 7.2% 14.5% 0.0% 32.904 3 .000
Table 4 and Table 5 present the responses to the questionnaire of teachers graduated in Motor Science with 0-4 and 5-10 years of service, respectively. Data analysis showed significant differences in the use of all teaching styles in the graduate teacher group with 0-4 years of experience, but not for teachers with 5-10 years of service except for Self-Teaching Style (X2 = 14.800, p= .001). Questionnaire of teacher’s with 0-4 years of service responses suggest a significant preference for proposing motor tasks through the style of Command (X2 = 11.867, p= .008), Practice (X2 = 18.200, p= .000) and Convergent/Divergent Production Style (X2 = 7.867, p= .049) for graduate teachers with 0-04 years of service, while the teachers report a significant preference to sometimes use the Reciprocal (X2 = 14.333, p= .006), Self-Check (X2 = 13.821, p= .003) and Inclusion Style (X2 = 12.667, p= .013). Only Guided-Discovery Style (X2 = 17.667, p= .001) and Self-Teaching Style (X2 = 10.267, p= .016) are used significantly less than other styles.
Table 4. Responses for data collected by Teachers with Motor and Sports Science Degree (0-4 years of service).
Table 4. Responses for data collected by Teachers with Motor and Sports Science Degree (0-4 years of service).
In the last month, during PE lessons how many times did you use the style of…
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always X2 df Sign.
A 0.0% 26.7% 13.3% 50.0% 10.0% 11.867 3 .008
B 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 70.0% 16.7% 18.200 2 .000
C 6.7% 13.3% 36.7% 36.7% 6.7% 14.333 4 .006
D 10.0% 26.7% 33.3% 30.0% 0.0% 13.821 3 .003
E 6.7% 30.0% 36.7% 23.3% 3.3% 12.667 4 .013
F 6.7% 40.0% 13.3% 36.7% 3.3% 17.667 4 .001
G+H 13.3% 20.0% 20.0% 46.7% 0.0% 7.867 3 .049
I 10.0% 16.7% 36.7% 36.7% 0.0% 6.800 3 .079
J 0.0% 20.0% 53.3% 26.7% 0.0% 5.600 2 .061
K 30.0% 46.7% 10.0% 13.3% 0.0% 10.267 3 .016
Table 5. Responses for data collected by Teachers with Motor and Sports Science Degree (5-10 years of service).
Table 5. Responses for data collected by Teachers with Motor and Sports Science Degree (5-10 years of service).
In the last month, during PE lessons how many times did you use the style of…
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always X2 df Sign.
A 0.0% 33.3% 13.3% 46.7% 6.7% 6.067 3 .108
B 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 73.3% 26.7% 3.267 1 .071
C 0.0% 0.0% 26.7% 60.0% 13.3% 5.200 2 .074
D 0.0% 33.3% 46.7% 13.3% 6.7% 6.067 3 .108
E 0.0% 40.0% 33.3% 20.0% 6.7% 3.933 3 .269
F 0.0% 0.0% 46.7% 53.3% 0.0% .067 1 .796
G+H 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% .600 1 .439
I 13.3% 26.7% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 2.333 3 .506
J 0.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 0.0% 4.800 2 .091
K 6.7% 80.0% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0% 14.800 2 .001
The Higher Institutes of Physical Education teachers' group with 5-10 years of service did not show any statistically significant differences in the use of styles (Table 6). As for the Higher Institutes of Physical Education teachers with +10 years of service (Table 7), significant differences emerged only in the style of Command (X2 = 22.739, p= .000), Practice (X2 = 18.087, p= .000) and Learner Initiated Style (X2 = 13.696, p= .003).
Table 6. Responses for data collected by Higher Institutes of Physical Education teachers' group (5-10 years of service).
Table 6. Responses for data collected by Higher Institutes of Physical Education teachers' group (5-10 years of service).
In the last month, during PE lessons how many times did you use the style of…
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always X2 df Sign.
A 9.1% 18.2% 9.1% 45.5% 18.2% 4.909 4 .297
B 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 72.7% 27.3% 2.273 1 .132
C 18.2% 9.1% 27.3% 27.3% 18.2% 1.273 4 .866
D 9.1% 27.3% 27.3% 36.4% 0.0% 1.727 3 .631
E 9.1% 0.0% 18.2% 45.45% 27.3% 3.933 3 .269
F 0.0% 36.4% 18.2% 27.3% 18.2% 1.000 3 .801
G+H 9.1% 27.3% 9.1% 54.5% 0.0% 6.091 3 .107
I 18.2% 27.3% 18.2% 36.4% 0.0% 1.000 3 .801
J 18.2% 18,.2% 36.4% 27.3% 0.0% 1.000 3 .801
K 54.5% 27.3% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 2.364 2 .307
Table 7. Responses for data collected by Higher Institutes of Physical Education teachers' group (+10 years of service).
Table 7. Responses for data collected by Higher Institutes of Physical Education teachers' group (+10 years of service).
In the last month, during PE lessons how many times did you use the style of…
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always X2 df Sign.
A 4.3% 26.1% 0.0% 65.2% 4.3% 22.739 3 .000
B 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 73.9% 21.7% 18.087 2 .000
C 13.0% 13.0% 21.7% 39.1% 13.0% 5.913 4 .206
D 13.0% 39.1% 21.7% 26.1% 0.0% 3.261 3 .353
E 8.7% 17.4% 34.8% 34.8% 4.3% 9.391 4 .052
F 0.0% 47.8% 26.1% 26.1% 0.0% 2.174 2 .337
G+H 8.7% 26.1% 21.7% 43.5% 0.0% 5.969 3 .127
I 13.0% 21.7% 43.5% 21.7% 0.0% 4.652 3 .199
J 4.3% 17.4% 56.5% 21.7% 0.0% 13.696 3 .003
K 30.4% 39.1% 13.0% 17.4% 0.0% 3.957 3 .266

4. Discussion

The aim of the present study is to analyze teachers' perception of the use of teaching styles during physical education lessons according to two attributes: years of service and academic training. While years of service are not a discriminating factor in determining significantly whether teaching styles are used, academic training represents an attribute that can influence the frequency with which different teaching styles are used (perception). Specifically, the contingency coefficient reported a significant association between academic training and attendance for Command, Practice, Inclusion and Guided Discovery Styles. So, it is possible to infer that academic training and not years of service is a significant predictor for the variation in teachers’ perception use of teaching styles. Moreover, by performing analyses on samples split by years of service and academic training, the results can be summarized as follows.
Command and Practice Styles are those most often used by the total sample and in individual subgroups, regardless of years of service and academic training. However, significant data were highlighted in the Graduate Teachers’ group with 0-4 years of service and in Higher Institutes of Physical Education teachers' group with +10 years of service. In fact, the proposal of motor tasks with the style of command and practice allows the teacher to maintain greater decision-making autonomy during activities, which could correlate with (a) the lesser experience of teachers with fewer years of service (0-4), (b) with the will to better manage the class as the age and years of service increase, and (c) the different academic education among graduates and those attending the Higher Institutes of Physical Education. In particular, the third hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the contingency coefficient analysis.
Guided discovery and Convergent/Divergent Discovery Styles are most frequently used by graduate teachers, regardless of seniority. Although these styles are most frequently used by teachers with 5-10 years of service, the results are significant for teachers with 0-4 years of experience. It would therefore seem that among the younger and newly graduated teachers there is a greater tendency to use production styles and thus leave greater decision-making autonomy to the pupils. This hypothesis would be supported by the contingency coefficient for the Guided Discovery Style, but not the Convergent/Divergent Production Style.
The present is – at the best of our knowledge – the first Italian study aiming at assessing PE teachers’ perceived use of teaching styles. One of the main important outputs (R1) is that academic training can influence and determine a different perceived use of teaching styles during practice. In Italy it is important to consider the innovation process at the end of the nineties that characterized the educational systems of students and universities that led to the transformation of the Higher Institutes of Physical Education in Faculty and Degree Courses in Motor Science [34], as adaptation to the structure and organization of other European Union countries.
It was a cultural passage involving the overcoming of an old legislation that had until that time characterized the Higher Institutes of Physical Education, conditioning the teaching, scientific research and the definition of employment opportunities and professional profile. The new Degree Course highlighted the links and interdependence between theory and practice (designing, conducting, evaluating) that characterize the motor and sports field, the contents and the teaching methods, depending on the competence that the student will have to demonstrate at the end of the curriculum, based on consistent reciprocal relationships between scientific-theoretical evidence and good practices, that is, teaching-educational interventions based on evidence [34,35,36,37].
In Italy - as required by the National Guidelines [38] for primary school and the first grade of secondary school – the enhancement of physical literacy is a prerogative and development aim for for PE teachers. Programming for motor skills in the school curriculum involves a significant cultural and methodological turning point that highlights the educational value of motor activities.
The term competence used in the Ministerial Documents entered the teacher’s lexicon with the passage from the National Indications, to indicate a planning and an educational action that considered the person in its entirety and a personalized teaching.
Therefore, as part of the teaching of motor activities, the proposal of motor tasks through different organizational modes (individual tasks, in pairs, in small groups, circuits, relay, paths, team games, etc.) is functional to the achievement of the educational objectives set in the specific didactic units. In addition, the definition and acquisition of motor skills, declined in terms of skills and knowledge, allows not only to learn gradually more complex motor skills, but also to develop the skills that allow the child to perform variable movements, skills that can also be transferred and applied in different disciplinary areas and, more generally, in relationship life.
Therefore, the University educational courses should guarantee a more extended and deepened formation on the topics of the didactics of the motor activities, and, in this sense, academic training could represent a key attribute to ensure greater knowledge, mastery, and competence in the use of teaching styles. In fact, a recent study highlighted the preferences about the use of styles according to the teaching degree, showing that Command Style was the most widely used by graduate teachers in Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, while teachers with degree in Physical Education use a wider range of teaching styles [39].
The second meaningful output is that some teaching styles, such as command and practice, are used more frequently than others (R2). These results are in line with those of the study of Constantinides & Orestis Antoniades (2022) that have highlighted a significant preference by the PE teachers to use the styles of reproduction, with reference to the styles of command and practice, rather than the production ones [40]. A recent systematic review of literature analyzed the frequency of use of teaching styles according to the Mosston and Ashworth’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles in 13 studies from 15 countries with the following results: (a) reproduction styles are used more frequently than production styles, (b) command, practice and inclusion styles are the most widely used, (c), guided discovery and convergent production styles are sometimes used, while (c) the rest of the styles are rarely used [41]. The results are confirmed by other studies that confirms the preference for the use of command style, practical and reciprocal, while discovery teaching styles are less used [33,43,44]. In addition to academic training, another interesting explanation of why teachers prefer reproduction styles can be provided by motivation to teaching. In fact, a study showed that teachers with a high intrinsic motivation more frequently adopt student-oriented approaches and production teaching styles, while teachers not autonomously motivated adopt teacher-centered approach and reproduction teaching styles usually [45]. Moreover, recent studies showed that senior PE teachers failed to use a wide range of teaching styles during their lessons [46], preferring the Practice Style due to its ability to facilitate activities and provide feedback, and allowing students to exercise motor skills and receive immediate feedback [47,48].

5. Limitations and Future Research

The present study is conducted on secondary school PE teachers who participated in the Regional Observatory of Motor Development and Health Behavior Project. Regarding the sample recruitment, it was applied a convenience sampling, and this could lead to some bias (e.g., sample may not be representative of the reference population). Moreover, due to the small sample involved in this study the invariance test according to gender has not been performed. Despite teachers were given a didactic document describing each teaching style before completing the questionnaire, as confirmed by other studies another important limitation is the lack of knowledge of teaching styles by teachers [31]. These two main limitations do not allow us to generalize results.
Future studies should apply more reliable sampling procedure, increase the sample size, extend the study to PE primary, secondary and secondary school teachers, perform invariance test to assess differences according to gender, and provide teacher training and workshop before assessment. Moreover, future research could evaluate the use of teaching styles during the different phases of the PE lesson and compare PE teachers’ perception with data collected by external observers.

6. Conclusions

Scientific research on educational neuroscience and pedagogical reflective practice highlighted the importance to study the teacher’s behavior and understand how to promote significant and differentiated motor learning. This will allow to generate interdisciplinary circular processes – theory-practice-theory - to oriented to increase the quality and intentionality of teaching in PE. In addition, the expansion of places of teaching motor skills (school, sport, leisure) and the increased sedentary habits, the uncontrolled use of technologies, have limited the mature reflection on teaching methods that becomes an essential link for the quality of teaching and learning process. In every lesson and in the curricular development, the choice of the modalities through which to organize the didactic setting, opens in the students well defined learning windows that become access ways for the development of disciplinary objectives, interdisciplinary and transversal and for their interactions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.M and C.D..; methodology, C.D. and F.L.; data curation, D.M. and F.L.; writing—original draft preparation, C.D. and F.L.; writing—review and editing, D.M. and D.C..; supervision, D.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.”

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mosston, M.; Ashworth, S. Teaching Physical Education, First Online Edition.; Merrill Publishing Company Columbus: San Francisco, 2008.
  2. Hulteen, R. M.; Morgan, P. J.; Barnett, L. M.; Stodden, D. F.; Lubans, D. R. Development of Foundational Movement Skills: A Conceptual Model for Physical Activity Across the Lifespan. Sports Med. 2018, 48, 1533–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Solmon, M. A. Optimizing the Role of Physical Education in Promoting Physical Activity: A Social-Ecological Approach. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2015, 86, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Fitts, P. M.; Posner, M. I. Human Performance; Basic concepts in psychology series; Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1967.
  5. Meinel, K.; Schnabel, G. Bewegungslehre — Sportmotorik (Movement theory — sport motor system); Sportverlag, 1987.
  6. Schmidt, R. A. A Schema Theory of Discrete Motor Skill Learning. Psychological Review, American Psychological Association: US 1975, pp 225–260. [CrossRef]
  7. Skinner, B. F. Operant Behavior. Am. Psychol. 1963, 18, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Skinner, B. F. The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis; BF Skinner Foundation, 2019.
  9. Ausubel, D. P.; Fitzgerald, D. The Role of Discriminability in Meaningful Learning and Retention. J. Educ. Psychol. 1961, 52, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Davids, K.; Renshaw, I.; Pinder, R.; Araújo, D.; Vilar, L. Principles of Motor Learning in Ecological Dynamics: A Comment on Functions of Learning and the Acquisition of Motor Skills (with Reference to Sport). Open Sports Sci. J. 2012, 5, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Edwards, L. C.; Bryant, A. S.; Keegan, R. J.; Morgan, K.; Jones, A. M. Definitions, Foundations and Associations of Physical Literacy: A Systematic Review. Sport. Med. 2017, 47, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Renshaw, I.; Chow, J.-Y. A Constraint-Led Approach to Sport and Physical Education Pedagogy. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2019, 24, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Renshaw, I.; Davids, K.; Newcombe, D.; Roberts, W. The Constraints-Led Approach: Principles for Sports Coaching and Practice Design; Routledge, 2019.
  14. Chow, J. Y. Nonlinear Learning Underpinning Pedagogy: Evidence, Challenges, and Implications. Quest 2013, 65, 469–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Moy, B.; Renshaw, I.; Davids, K.; Brymer, E. Preservice Teachers Implementing a Nonlinear Physical Education Pedagogy. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2019, 24, 565–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Woods, C. T.; McKeown, I.; Rothwell, M.; Araújo, D.; Robertson, S.; Davids, K. Sport Practitioners as Sport Ecology Designers: How Ecological Dynamics Has Progressively Changed Perceptions of Skill “Acquisition” in the Sporting Habitat. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rudd, J.; Renshaw, I.; Savelsbergh, G.; Chow, J. Y.; Roberts, W.; Newcombe, D.; Davids, K. Nonlinear Pedagogy and the Athletic Skills Model: The Importance of Play in Supporting Physical Literacy; Taylor & Francis, 2021.
  18. Whitehead, M. Definition of Physical Literacy and Clarification of Related Issues. Icsspe Bull. 2013, 65. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chéreau, R.; Williams, L. E.; Bawa, T.; Holtmaat, A. Circuit Mechanisms for Cortical Plasticity and Learning. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022, 125, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gola, G.; Angioletti, L.; Cassioli, F.; Balconi, M. The Teaching Brain: Beyond the Science of Teaching and Educational Neuroscience. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 823832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Gola, G. Cosa Succede Nel Cervello Quando Si Insegna? La Prospettiva Teaching Brain. RTH-Education Philos. 2021, 8, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schön, D.A. (1992). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (1st ed.). Routledge. [CrossRef]
  23. Battro, A. M. The Teaching Brain. Mind, Brain, Educ. 2010, 4, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dubinsky, J. M.; Guzey, S. S.; Schwartz, M. S.; Roehrig, G.; MacNabb, C.; Schmied, A.; Hinesley, V.; Hoelscher, M.; Michlin, M.; Schmitt, L.; Ellingson, C.; Chang, Z.; Cooper, J. L. Contributions of Neuroscience Knowledge to Teachers and Their Practice. Neurosci. 2019, 25, 394–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gola, G. Know Teaching through the Brain. A Prospective between Neuroscience and Teaching. Form. Insegn. 2020, 18, SE–Articles). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Goldberger, M.; Ashworth, S.; Byra, M. Spectrum of Teaching Styles Retrospective 2012. Quest 2012, 64, 268–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pill, S.; SueSee, B.; Davies, M. The Spectrum of Teaching Styles and Models-Based Practice for Physical Education. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2023, 1356336X231189146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Byra, M. A Coherent PETE Program: Spectrum Style. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Danc. 2000, 71, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Garn, A.; Byra, M. Psychomotor, Cognitive, and Social Development Spectrum Style. Teach. Elem. Phys. Educ. 2002, 13, 8–13. [Google Scholar]
  30. SueSee, B.; Edwards, K.; Pill, S.; Cuddihy, T. Self-Reported Teaching Styles of Australian Senior Physical Education Teachers. Curric. Perspect. 2018, 38, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kulinna, P. H.; Cothran, D. J. Physical Education Teachers’ Self-Reported Use and Perceptions of Various Teaching Styles. Learn. Instr. 2003, 13, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cothran, D. J.; Kulinna, P. H.; Banville, D.; Choi, E.; Amade-Escot, C.; MacPhail, A.; Macdonald, D.; Richard, J.-F.; Sarmento, P.; Kirk, D. A Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Use of Teaching Styles. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2005, 76, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Yıldız, M.; Karakullukçu, Ö. Physical Education Teachers’ Using of Teaching Styles Levels and Their Perceptions Towards Styles in Public and Private Schools in Turkey. World J. Educ. 2019, 9, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Neumaier, A. The Faculty of Sports Science: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sports. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2003, 3, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Williams, S. J.; Kendall, L. R. A Profile of Sports Science Research (1983–2003). J. Sci. Med. Sport 2007, 10, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Blankenship, B. T.; Ayers, S. F. The Role of PETE in Developing Joy-Oriented Physical Educators. Quest 2010, 62, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vivanet, G. Evidence Based Education: Un Quadro Storico. Form@re - Open J. per la Form. rete 2013, 13, SE–Articles). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cerini, G. Indicazioni Nazionali per Il Curricolo Della Scuola Dell’infanzia e Del Primo Ciclo d’istruzione. 2012.
  39. Fernández, M.; Espada, M. Knowledge, Education and Use of Teaching Styles in Physical Education. Int. J. Instr. 2021, 14, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Constantinides, P.; Antoniades, O. Preservice Physical Education Teachers’ Use of Reproduction and Production Teaching Styles. Eur. J. Educ. Pedagog. 2022, 3, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chatoupis, C. C. Physical Education Teachers’ Use of Mosston and Ashworth’s Teaching Styles: A Literature Review. Phys. Educ. 2018, 75, 880–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Constantinides, P.; Antoniades, O. Preservice Physical Education Teachers’ Use of Reproduction and Production Teaching Styles. Eur. J. Educ. Pedagog. 2022, 3, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Syrmpas, I.; Digelidis, N.; Watt, A. An Examination of Greek Physical Educators’ Implementation and Perceptions of Spectrum Teaching Styles. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2016, 22, 201–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jaakkola, T.; Watt, A. Finnish Physical Education Teachers’ Self-Reported Use and Perceptions of Mosston and Ashworth’s Teaching Styles. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2011, 30, 248–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hein, V.; Ries, F.; Pires, F.; Caune, A.; Heszteráné Ekler, J.; Emeljanovas, A.; Valantiniene, I. The Relationship between Teaching Styles and Motivation to Teach among Physical Education Teachers. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2012, 11, 123–130. [Google Scholar]
  46. SueSee, B.; Edwards, K.; Pill, S.; Cuddihy, T. Observed Teaching Styles of Senior Physical Education Teachers in Australia. Curric. Perspect. 2019, 39(1), 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Salters, D.; Scharoun Benson, S. M. Perceptions and Use of Teaching Strategies for Fundamental Movement Skills in Primary School Physical Education Programs. Children. 2022. [CrossRef]
  48. Chatoupis, C. The Spectrum: Implications for Physical Education Teaching. Runner 2021, 52, 4–10. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated