Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Archives

Bulletin 65 Pdf

Contacts

| Feature | No.65 October 2013 |

The Effects of a collaborative mastery Intervention Programme on Physical Literacy in Primary PE

Kevin Morgan, Anna S Bryant & Fiona R Diffey

This is a shortened version of a paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal

Abstract

An individual’s Physical Literacy journey should be judged against previous best achievements, rather than comparative standards (Almond & Whitehead, 2012a). This concept is consistent with a mastery motivational climate (Ames, 1992). The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a mastery motivational climate, on the development of physical literacy in Primary PE. A collaborative mastery intervention programme was adopted with one teacher and one class (aged 10-11 year olds), pupils’ levels of physical literacy were measured pre- and post-programme. Results revealed that a mastery motivational climate can enhance the physical literacy journey of primary pupils.

Key-words: Physical literacy, motivational climate, mastery, primary PE

Introduction

Physical literacy is defined as: “a disposition acquired by human individuals encompassing the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding that establishes purposeful physical pursuits as an integral part of their lifestyle.” (Almond and Whitehead, 2012a, p. 68). According to Whitehead (2010), it has the potential to make a significant contribution to the quality of life as a physically literate individual moves with poise economy and confidence in a wide variety of physically challenging situations and has a well established sense of self esteem and self confidence. In addition, physically literate individuals have an understanding of the principles of embodied health, with respect to exercise, sleep and nutrition (Whitehead, 2010). Moreover, a recent report in Wales by the ‘Schools and Physical Activity, Task and Finish Group’ (2013) titled ‘Physical literacy - an all-Wales approach to increasing levels of physical activity in children and young people’ recommended that the Government adopts a National physical literacy framework and physical education (PE) becomes a core subject.

In the PE context, physical literacy is highly dependent on the nature of the interaction between the teacher and the pupil (Almond and Whitehead, 2012b), therefore, PE teachers are considered key to developing physically literate individuals (Whitehead & Murdoch, 2006). Indeed, as ‘significant others’, PE teachers need to make sure that their teaching behaviours and interactions with students have motivation at the centre if physical literacy is to be successfully developed (Haydn-Davies, 2010). Motivation, therefore, is the key to developing physical literacy and when it is threatened, other attributes such as self-confidence, self-esteem and self-respect will decrease and physical literacy will, consequently, not be enhanced (Haydn-Davies, 2010). Given that motivation is considered to be at the heart of physical literacy, it is not surprising that Murdoch and Whitehead (2010) suggest a greater emphasis should be placed on developing ways of enhancing it.

From a motivational perspective, a key concept is that everyone’s physical literacy journey is unique and the charting of progress of an individual’s personal journey must be judged against previous best achievements, rather than normative comparative standards (Almond & Whitehead, 2012a). Such a concept is entirely consistent with a mastery motivational climate which is focused on self-referenced improvement and effort in achievement situations such as PE lessons (Ames, 1992).

Motivatonal climate is a psychological environment that influences cogntive, affective and behavioural responses (Ames, 1992). In accordance with achievement goal theory (Nicholls, 1989), two perceived climates predominate in acheivement situations such as PE lessons; mastery and ego. An ego climate is associated with normative standards and judging performance in comparison to others in the class. Such a perceived climate has been associated with more maladaptive motivational responses in PE lessons such as boredom and low effort and the belief that success is dependent on natural ability (Carpenter & Morgan, 1999; Papaioannou, 1995; Solmon, 1996; Treasure 1993). On the other hand, perceptions of a mastery climate, which is focused on self referenced standards and personal progress, have been associated with beliefs that success is due to effort and persistence, enjoyment of the tasks, low boredom, and the choice of challenging tasks (Carpenter and Morgan, 1999; Christodoulidis, Papaionnou & Digeldis, 2001; Escartí & Gutiérrez, 2001; Goudas, Biddle, fox & Underwood, 1995; Papaioannou, 1995, 1997; Parish & Treasure, 2003; Treasure & Roberts, 1995). Fostering a self-referenced mastery motivational climate would, therefore, seem to be entirely consistent with the development of Physical Literacy.

Drawing on the research of Epstein (1989) and Ames (1992), a mastery motivational climate can be fostered by manipulating the task, authority, recognition, grouping, evaluation and time (TARGET) structures of lessons (see Table 1.). More specifically, in order to create a mastery climate teachers should manipulate the TARGET (Epstein, 1989) structures in PE lessons to focus on self-referenced, differentiated and varied tasks, pupil autonomy, the private recognition of effort and improvement against previous best performances, cooperative mixed ability grouping arrangements, self and peer evaluations and flexible time on tasks.

Table 1. Ames’ (1992) TARGET Structures

Previous research (e.g. Barkoukis, Tsorbatzodis & Grouios, 2008; Griffin, Meaney & Hart, 2013; Morgan & Carpenter, 2002; Weigand & Burton, 2002) has demonstrated that manipulating the TARGET structures in secondary PE lessons to foster such a mastery motivational climate can enhance motivation, commitment, enjoyment, effort, perceived competence and learning. Such adaptive motivational responses are congruent with the aims and values of physical literacy. As such, students’ perceptions of the TARGET structures that prevail in their PE lessons would seem to be directly relevant to their development of physical literacy.

To date, the majority of TARGET intervention studies have been conducted in secondary schools and none have been specifically linked to the development of physical literacy. Although Almond and Whitehead (2012a) contend that physical literacy is applicable to all (the young, the mature and the older adult) they also acknowledge that early childhood in the Foundation and Primary school period is a critical period in the development of the fundamentals of the disposition (Whitehead, 2010), arguably which lies significantly in the hands of the teachers.

Morgan, Sproule, Weigand and Carpenter (2005a) developed a computer based observational measure of the TARGET teaching behaviours. This measure allows researchers to film PE lessons and code the teaching behaviours as ‘mastery’ or ‘ego’ involving. Furthermore, the computer software allows practitioners to view their own teaching behaviours from video footage and to evaluate themselves against Ames’ (1992) guidelines for fostering a mastery climate, thus encouraging reflective practice and self regulation of behaviours. In Morgan and Kingston’s (2008), study a researcher and four secondary PE teachers used this observational measure as part of a collaborative intervention. The findings revealed that the mastery intervention programme was successful in fostering more mastery involving teaching behaviours and resulted in significantly higher levels of satisfaction and lower levels of boredom for the more disaffected pupils in the class.

Recent research (Keay & Spence, 2012) has identified the lack of training and confidence of primary teachers to teach PE. Furthermore, it is strongly suggested that improving the quality of PE and development of physical literacy depends on the knowledge, experience, confidence, enthusiasm and pedagogical skills of the teacher (Almond & Whitehead, 2012b; Keay & Spence, 2012).

The primary purpose of this research, therefore, was to investigate the effects of a collaborative mastery intervention programme, on the development of physical literacy in primary PE lessons. One of the current challenges associated with the concept of physical literacy is how to measure it in order to demonstrate progress and improvement in an individual’s personal journey. Therefore, in order to achieve the primary purpose of this research, a further aim was to pilot the development of a measure of physical literacy, in accordance with Almond and Whitehead, (2012a, p. 68) definition to include the “motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to pursue purposeful physical pursuits.”

Method

A collaborative mastery intervention programme was adopted in one primary school based in South Wales from May to July 2012. The rationale for using this approach was to work with a primary school teacher to help make fundamental changes in an individual’s practice (Oja & Smulyan 1989), ultimately, aiming to improve the pupils on their physical literacy journey. Following approval from the University’s Research Ethics Committee, informed consent was sought from, the school, teacher, parent(s) or guardian(s) for pupils participating in the study, and assent was given by the pupils themselves (British Educational Research Association, 2004).

Based on the Lead researchers knowledge of schools in the area, a purposive sampling technique (Patton, 2002) was used to select one female primary school teacher who was a specialist and experienced physical educator. The teacher selcted one year 6 class to participate in the study (n = 25 mean age = 10 years 4 months, SD = 5 months). To participate in the questionnaires and follow up interviews the teacher selcted a purposive sample of six pupils (3 boys, 3 girls) who she perceived to be at different stages of their physical literacy journeys (Whitehead, 2010).

The TARGET behaviours (Ames, 1992) were introduced to the primary teacher in an initial training day, along with the proposed teaching programme based on ‘Athletics Challenges’ (Morgan, 2012). Athletics Challenges is a PE teaching resources for track and field athletics, based on a mastery teaching approach and consistent with the TARGET structures (Morgan, 2012). To date, the athletics challenges has not been extended to the concept of physical literacy or to Primary PE (Morgan and Carpenter, 2002). The training day also included practical examples of the ‘Athletics Challenges’ and support for the teacher to plan the PE lessons.

The original plan was for the intervention to run over a half term period (a six week cycle including six PE lessons), however, due to logistical reasons (e.g. school trip, transition day to secondary school) only three PE lessons were available for inclusion in the project. Throughout the teaching programme, one member of the research team was present for all lessons that were filmed by an IT assistant whilst a research assistant provided practical support for the sessions. The research team acted as ‘critical friends’ to the teacher after each lesson assisting her to reflect on her TARGET behaviours and to plan for more mastery involving behaviours in subsequent lessons. This was achieved through the use of the Behavioural Evaluation Strategies and Taxonomies (BEST) (Sharpe and Koperwas, 1999) observational measure of mastery behaviours in PE (Morgan, et al., 2005a).

In order to measure the different aspects of physical literacy (Whitehead, 2010), physical competence, self rated effort and improvement of the pupils was assessed using performance diaries (e.g. recording of performances and self rating of effort and improvement). Further, pupils’ enjoyment, perceived competence, and effort were measured using the appropriate sub-scales of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) (Deci & Ryan, 1985) in a controlled classroom environment by a member of the research team both pre- and post-programme. The IMI has been found to be a valid and reliable measure of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation (McAuley, Duncan & Tammen, 1987).

Semi-structured intevriews were also conducted with the six pupils and the teacher to understand the pupils’ and teacher’s perspective and experience of the project (Kvale, 1996; Patton, 2002). Semi-structured interview guides were used to help make the most of the limited time available (30 - 60 minutes). The interviews were transcribed and a direct content analysis was completed on the transcripts and reflections, using a combined inductive and deductive approach (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). For the questionnaire data, Cronbach Alpha (Cronbach, 1951) tests were used to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire sub-scales and paired samples t-tests were conducted to identify any pre-post differences in enjoyment, perceived competence, effort and self confidence. All assumptions for the use of paired sampled t-tests were met.

Results

Behavioural analysis

Results revealed that the teacher adopted highly mastery focused TARGET behaviours for all three lessons thus illustrating a successful implementation of the mastery teaching programme (see table 2)

Questionnaire data

Reliable sub-scales were found for all the measures with the exception of pre- and post-intervention perceived confidence, which was dropped from all subsequent analysis. Results (see Table 3) for the paired sample t-tests revealed a significant increase in enjoyment and self-confidence from pre-to post-programme and a non-significant increase in effort (level of significance set at 0.017 using the Bonferroni method for multiple t-tests).

Table 3. Paired sample t-test

* Significance at the 0.017 level (adjusted from 0.05 level using the Bonferroni method for mutliple t-tests)

Interview data

The key themes from the pupils’ and teacher’s interviews are presented in selected quotations in Table 4 under the main headings associated with physical literacy and links to TARGET structures.

Table 4. Teacher & Pupil Interviews

Due to inconsistency in the diary recordings made by the pupils, it was not possible to objectively analyse the pupil diary data. Despite this, the diaries were perceived as an enjoyable process and an important part of the lessons the pupils as they highlighted personal improvement (see Table 4).

Discussion

The analysis of the teacher behaviours revealed a strong mastery focus in all observed lessons (see Table 2) thus suggesting a successful implementation of the mastery teaching programme and the TARGET structures. The preliminary discussion with the experienced physical educator teacher revealed a style of delivery that was generally mastery involving before the TARGET implementation of the programme. However, as the results indicate, more subtle changes in behaviour did occur as a result of the intervention including increased differentiation of the tasks and more variety of activities taking place simultaneously. According to Ames (1992), this is likely to result in participants being less aware of others in the class and thus less ‘ego involved’ in comparing themselves against others.

There was also a shift towards more pupil authority and more flexible time provided as the intervention progressed thus encouraging pupils to self regulate their own learning. Self-regulated learning has become an important topic within education as it is process that is not only vital during school learning but is also a lifelong skills that learners can sustain for self-education later in life (Boekaerts, 1997; Kaplan, 2008), such as lifelong partcipation in phsyical activity. Empirical studies have shown the prevalence of poor self-regulation in pupils today and its detrimental impact on academic achievement (Matthews, Ponitz & Morrison, 2009). The implementation of TARGET, therefore, has significant implications for education in general.

The questionnaire data showed significant increases in pupils’ enjoyment and self-confidence from pre- to post-programme. Furthermore, there was also a marked increase in effort which was close to significance. Given that this was a small sample of pupils (n= 6) and that their pre-programme scores were already quite high (see Table 3), these significant changes are considered an important finding. Pupils’ interest, confidence and enjoyment (intrinsic motivation) to participate in physical activities (PA) is a key determinant of PA behaviour (Sallis, Prochaska & Taylor, 2000). Enjoyment has also been found to be associated with perceived competence, a correlate of PA (Boyd & Yin, 1996) and an important dimension of Physical Literacy (Whitehead, 2010). Therefore, providing an enjoyable safe and supportive environment for pupils to build confidence (Cale & Harris, 2005) would, therefore, seem to be a crucial element in encouraging long term PA behaviours.

Both teacher and pupil interviews also suggested that the programme had been successful in improving pupils’ enjoyment, effort, confidence and perceived competence and that the TARGET structures (Ames, 1992) played a key role in this process. In relation to the task structure, the progressive and self-referenced nature of the tasks was an important factor, as well as the enjoyable and varied nature of the practical activities. Furthermore, the multi-dimensional design of the lessons allowed pupils to focus on their own performance and to feel safe and relaxed, rather than feeling that their class mates were judging them. Finally, the self-referenced nature of the recognition and evaluation structures meant that all pupils could perceive themselves as being successful, as success was defined as improvement and effort.

In summary, this small scale pilot study revealed that a mastery involving motivational climate, based on the TARGET structures (Ames, 1992) can enhance the physical literacy journey of pupils in primary PE. Furthermore, this study has made a worthy first attempt at trying to measure the various aspects of physical literacy, as identified by Whitehead (2010), namely the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding. Further research is required to develop the measurement of physical literacy in order to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to enhance it. However, as a group of researchers, we would not want to see the focus of physical literacy research being channelled into the development of normatively based measures of physical competence, or fundamental movement skills. Although we acknowledge that physical competence is an important aspect of physical literacy, we believe that ultimately, an individual's motivation and confidence in the area of physical activity are highly significant in enabling all to make progress on their physical literacy journey. This positive attitude, if nurtured throughout the years of schooling, is an important factor in determining lifelong physical activity.

The success of the programme is considered to be dependent on the collaboration between the teacher and the research team, resulting in the development and acceleration of mutual understanding in relation to developing practice (Oja & Smulyan, 1989). The limitations of this small scale study in relation to the duration of the intervention are acknoweldged and future research should be conducted over a longer period of time. Future research that combines the TARGET structures with the pedagogical skills of reaching out to learners, connecting, engaging, drawing out and stretching learners, as suggested by Almond and Whitehead (2012b) would be a particularly rich area of future investigation that would place a greater emphasis on the skills, experience and philosophy of the teacher in developing physical literacy.

References

1. Almond, L., & Whitehead, M. (2012a). Physical literacy: Clarifying the nature of the

2. concept, Physical Education Matters 7, 1, 68-71.

3. Almond, L. Whitehead, M. (2012b). ‘Translating physical literacy into practice for all teachers’, Physical Education Matters 7, 3, 67-70.

4. Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals, motivational climate and motivational processes, In G. Roberts, G (ed) Motivation in Sport and Exercise, pp 161-176. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

5. Barkoukis, V., Tsorbatzoudis, H., & Grouios, G. (2008). Manipulation of motivation climate in physical education: Effects of a seven-month intervention. European Physical Education Review 14, 373-394.

6. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students, Learning and Instruction 7, 2, 161-186.

7. Boyd, M. P., & Yin, Z. (1996). Cognitive-affective sources of sport enjoyment in adolescent sport participants, Adolescence 31, 122, 383-396.

8. British Educational Research Association [BERA] (2004). Revised ethical guidelines for educational research. Southwell: BERA.

9. Cale, L., & Harris, J. (2005). Getting the Buggers fit. London: Continuum.

10. Carpenter, P. J., & Morgan, K. (1999). Motivational climate, personal goal perspectives, and cognitive and affective responses in physical education classes, European Journal of Physical Education, 4, 31-41.

11. Christodoulidis, T., Papaioannou, A., & Digelidis, N. (2001). Motivational climate and attitudes towards exercise in greek senior high school: A year-long intervention, European Journal of Sport Science 1, 4, 195-210.

12. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,

13. Psychometrika 16, 297-334.

14. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

15. Epstein, J. (1989). Family etructures and student motivation: A developmental perspective’, In C. Ames and R. Ames, (eds) Research on motivation in education: Vol.3., pp 259-295. New York: Academic Press,.

16. Escartí, A. and Gutiérrez, M. (2001). Influence of the motivation climate of physical education classes on the intention to practice physical activity or sport, European Journal of Sport Science 1, 4, 1-12.

17. Goudas, M., Biddle, S., Fox, K., and Underwood M. (1995). It ain’t what you do it’s the way that you do it! Teaching style affects on children’s motivation in track and field lessons, The Sport Psychologist 9, 254-64.

18. Griffin, K., Meaney, K., & Hart, M. (2013). The impact of a mastery motivational climate on obese and overweight children's commitment to and enjoyment of physical activity: A pilot study, American Journal of Health Education, 44, 1-8.

19. Haydn-Davies, D. (2010). Physical literacy and learning and teaching approaches, In M. Whitehead (ed.) Physical literacy: throughout the lifecourse, pp165-174. London: Routledge.

20. Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis’, Qualitative Health Research 15, 1277-1288.

21. Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: What’s the purpose?’, Educational Psychology Review 20, 477–484.

22. Keay, J. & Spence, J. (2012). Addressing training and development needs in primary physical education’, In G. Griggs (ed.). An introduction to primary physical education, pp179-194. Oxon: Routledge.

23. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. London: Sage.

24. Matthews, J. S., Ponitz, C. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). ‘Early gender differences in self-regulation and academic achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology 101, 3, 689–704.

25. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1987). ‘Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis’, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.

26. Morgan. K. (2012). Athletics challenges: A resource pack for teaching athletics (2nd Ed.). London: Routlege.

27. Morgan, K., & Carpenter, P. J. (2002). Effects of manipulating the motivational climate in physical education lessons’, European Journal of Physical Education, 8, 209-232.

28. Morgan, K., Sproule, J., Weigand, D. & Carpenter, P.J. (2005a). A computer-based observational assessment of the teaching behaviours that influence motivational

29. climate in physical education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 83-105.

30. Morgan, K. & Kingston, K. (2008). Development of a self-observation mastery intervention programme for teacher education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13, 109-129.

31. Murdoch, E., & Whitehead, M. (2010). Fostering the attributes and curriculum planning, in M. Whitehead (ed.) Physical .literacy: Throughout the lifecourse, pp. 175-188. London: Routledge.

32. Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

33. Oja, S.N. & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental

34. approach. London: Falmer Press.

35. Papaioannou, A. (1995). Differential perceptual and motivational patterns when different goals are adopted, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 18-34.

36. Papaioannou, A. (1997). Perception of motivational climate, perceived competence and motivation of students of varying age and sport experience, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 419-430.

37. Parish, L.E. and Treasure, D. (2003). Physical activity and situational motivation in physical education: Influence of the motivational climate and perceived ability, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 74, 2, 173-82.

38. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage.

39. Sallis, J. F., Prochaska, J. J., & Taylor,W. C. (2000). A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32, 5, 963-975.

40. Schools and Physical Activity Task and Finish Group (2013). ‘Physical literacy – an all-Wales approach to increasing levels of physical activity for children and young people, Crown copyright.

41. Sharpe, T. & Koperwas. (1999). BEST: Behavioral evaluation strategy and taxonomy software. California: Sage.

42. Solmon, M.A. (1996). Impact of motivational climate on students’ behaviors and perceptions in a physical education setting, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 731-8.

43. Treasure, D. (1993). A Social-cognitive approach to understanding children’s achievement behaviour, cognitions, and affect in competitive sport, unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Champaign.

44. Treasure, D. and Roberts, G.C. (1995). Applications of achievement goal theory to physical education: Implications for enhancing motivation, Quest, 47, 475-89.

45. Weigand, D & Burton, S. (2002). Manipulating achievement motivation, European Journal of Sport Science 2, 1,1-14.

46. Whitehead. M. (2010). ‘The concept of physical literacy’, In M. Whitehead (ed), Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse. London: Routledge.

47. Whitehead, M. & Murdoch, E. (2006). ‘Physical literacy and physical education: conceptual mapping’, Physical Education Matters, 1, 6-9.

Contact

Anna Bryant
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Cyncoed Road, Cardiff, CF23 6XD
Wales, UK
Email anbryant@cardiffmet.ac.uk

http://www.icsspe.org/