Chapter 7: Influences on Cooperating Teachers’ Adoption of Model-Based Instruction

Lund, Jacalyn; Gurvitch, Rachel; Metzler, Michael W.

doi:10.1123/jtpe.27.4.549

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, it needs to be acknowledged that teachers need support to use innovations such as MBP. Lund, Gurvitch and Metzler (2008), in their work at Georgia State University, found that school-based teachers who cooperated with students in the teacher education programme learnt about MBP by watching the pre-service teachers teach. This suggests that teachers are learning about MBP as a result of their proximity to the students -almost through osmosis -rather than as part of their own professional development.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This suggests that teachers are learning about MBP as a result of their proximity to the students -almost through osmosis -rather than as part of their own professional development. In acknowledging this haphazard learning process Lund et al (2008) surmised that the decision to use MBP had been the faculty's and not the students and that the faculty had had little to do with the cooperating teachers and their understanding of MBP. They concluded that knowledge about MBP is essential for adoption, that adoption is more likely if it take place in a compatible environment and that the work it takes to implement MBP must be seen as being worth the effort.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They concluded that knowledge about MBP is essential for adoption, that adoption is more likely if it take place in a compatible environment and that the work it takes to implement MBP must be seen as being worth the effort. Lund et al (2008) suggested that research be undertaken to explore the type of materials needed to support the implementation of MBP by helping to overcome the potential barriers to teachers' learning about MBP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant?

Casey

2012

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

176

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured AbstractBackground: Many critical curriculum theorists in physical education have advocated a modelor models-based approach to teaching in the subject. This paper explores the literature base around models-based practice (MBP) and asks if this multi-models approach to curriculum planning has the potential to be the great white hope of pedagogical change or, if in fact, it is a white elephant that should be reconsidered or abandoned.Purpose: To review the literature around pedagogical and curricular change in physical education that relates to teachers experience of models-based practice. This review of research on teachers' perceptions and use of MBP was undertaken in an effort to ascertain the ways in which practitioners' interpreted this type of change in practice.Data Collection: Papers were selected by searching EBSCO databases with the identifiers "Instructional Models", "Sport Education", "Teaching Games for Understanding" and their hybrids, "Cooperative learning", "Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility", "Personalised System of Instruction" "Peer Teaching Model" and "Inquiry Teaching." These were chosen as they match the seven innovative models in Metzler's (2010) compendium of instructional models. Further articles were obtained through the citations and references in the original documents.Data Analysis: Analysis of the 45 papers followed a systematic process of inductive analysis and constant comparison. The categories, which emerged from the analysis, were based upon the researcher's perceptions of findings and revealed five key findings/themes; i) Change for Teachers, ii) Difficultly and Time, iii) Diversification in the teacher's role, iv) Evidence of effectiveness and iv) University/teacher collaboration.Findings: While changes in attitude, positive feelings, efficacy, enthusiasm and vigour were reported by teachers there was also an acknowledgement that they lacked experience in using MBP which made them feel like they were 'beginning teachers' again. For some the conceptual shift was too much and they deliberately returned to their old pedagogies. For others change occurred slowly but gradually over the course of the intervention. When professional learning 2 was part of the relationship between the teachers and researchers then these returns to old practices was not reported. However, it was acknowledged that to engage with MBP required greater effort on behalf of the teacher and that to feel comfortable could take upwards of two years. Change was a difficult undertaking but when 'evidence' of success was used to support the teachers' learning then they felt more confidence in their decisions. The biggest factor in engendering change was the sustained support offered through collaborative partnerships between schools and universities. These supportive relationships allowed the teachers to continually reconsider their practice with the help of experienced colleagues.Conclusions: While MBP has begun to help practitioners to change and develop their pedagogies and curriculum we ar...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant?

Casey

2012

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

176

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this reason, this study attempts to identify those factors that facilitated learning of teaching games for understanding (TGf U) (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982) from the perspective of a qualified teacher. While there has been a plethora of research examining (student) teachers' attempts to learn to use TGf U and other game-centred approaches (GCAs), having been formally educated in their uses (see, for example, Cruz, 2004;Light and Butler, 2005;Lund et al, 2008), there has been minimal research conducted examining teachers' informal learning of TGf U. O'Leary (2014) investigated how a recently qualified secondary school teacher informally learned to use TGf U.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning informally to use the ‘full version’ of teaching games for understanding

O’Leary

2015

European Physical Education Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines an experienced teacher's employment of the teaching games for understanding (TGfU) model in a UK secondary school. The study sought to investigate how the teacher delivered TGfU and those factors that influenced his informal learning of this instructional model. Occupational socialisation was utilised to determine the factors that influenced his use of TGfU. Qualitative data were collected from interviews, lesson observations and documentary evidence. Inductive data analysis indicated the teacher delivered the 'full version' of the model largely congruent with the creators' intentions. The traditional approach to games teaching seen in his childhood and partially learned in higher education were 'washed out' by the influence of teaching colleagues and the development of a student-centred approach to teaching games. This study indicates it is possible to overcome traditional approaches to games teaching and informally learn to use TGfU successfully given conducive circumstances and sufficient time.

show abstract

“…It is also unrealistic to expect all cooperating teachers to possess a sufficient level of knowledge in SE to provide feedback for PSTs attempting to deliver SE. Lund, Gurvitch and Metzler (2008) highlight the importance of cooperating teachers facilitating PSTs' learning but found that only a small minority of cooperating teachers used SE in their physical education programs. Future research needs to focus on practices that PETE programs can offer to facilitate the PSTs' delivery of SE during their teaching placement in schools where appropriate support structures are limited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Preservice Teacher’s Delivery of Sport Education: Influences, Difficulties and Continued Use

Deenihan

MacPhail

2013

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How preservice teachers (PSTs) learn and deliver Sport Education (SE) (Siedentop, 1994) is an area researchers believe warrants further investigation (Stran & Curtner-Smith, 2009a). This study explores one PST's experiences delivering SE during a school teaching placement after undertaking a practical SE module in his Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) program. Data were collected through pre, mid-and postteaching placement interviews, along with weekly visits by the first author where observation reflections and interviews were used to investigate his experiences delivering SE. Data were triangulated and analyzed using thematic coding. Occupational socialization (Lawson, 1983a(Lawson, , 1983b) was used to determine the factors which influenced his delivery of SE. Results showed his SE season was influenced by his teaching orientation, sporting experiences, PETE program and school context where he was teaching. Although he encountered difficulties, he valued SE's benefits and continued to use it during his subsequent career as a qualified teacher.Keywords: sport education, physical education teacher education, occupational socialization, models-based approach, pre-service teacher Sport Education (SE) is a curriculum and instructional model for physical education which aims to develop students as competent, literate and enthusiastic sportspeople through experiencing sport authentically (Siedentop, 1994, p. 3-4). SE differs from traditional sporting units as sports are delivered in extended seasons, students affiliate to a team for the duration of the season, and adopt roles and responsibilities within their team. The season is organized around a formal competition phase and ends with a culminating event. Concepts such as record keeping and festivity are continually encouraged throughout the season to make the experience more meaningful and enjoyable for the participants (Siedentop, Hastie, & Van Der Mars, 2011). To date there have been three comprehensive reviews of literature on SE (Hastie, de Ojeda, & Luquin, 2011;Kinchin, 2006;Wallhead & O'Sullivan, 2005), highlighting the overwhelming successes of the module in a variety of settings. It has been Preservice Teacher's Delivery of Sport Education 167 identified that there is a lack of research concerning how preservice or in-service teachers learn and use SE (McMahon & MacPhail, 2007;Stran & Curtner-Smith, 2010), with some researchers suggesting that this type of research is vital for the effective development of SE (McCaughtry, Sofo, Rovegno, & Curtner-Smith, 2004).There are varied findings in the literature regarding preservice and beginning teacher's experiences teaching SE for the first time. Preservice teachers (PSTs) have been observed omitting vital aspects of the model and struggling with the increased workload required (McCaughtry et al., 2004), as well as struggling to embed tactical game play in a SE season and encouraging students to work with each other (McMahon & MacPhail, 2007). The PST in McMahon and MacPhail's (2007) study admitted to n...

show abstract

Chapter 7: Influences on Cooperating Teachers’ Adoption of Model-Based Instruction

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant?

Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant?

Learning informally to use the ‘full version’ of teaching games for understanding

A Preservice Teacher’s Delivery of Sport Education: Influences, Difficulties and Continued Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About