1
An Investigation into the Teaching Styles of Secondary School
Physical Education Teachers.
Tony Macfadyen & Clare Campbell, University of Reading.
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005
Address for correspondence:
Tony Macfadyen
Institute of Education
Bulmershe Court Campus
Woodlands Avenue
Reading University
RG6 1HY
Introduction
In 1992 the introduction of the National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE)
meant that pupils should be taught to plan, perform and evaluate movement, (DES/WO
1992). Goldberger and Howarth (1992) and Mawer (1993) noted that prior to this British
Physical Education teachers had concentrated on improving the performance of pupils in
a variety of activities. In order to meet the demands of NCPE, it was argued that teachers
would need to expand the range of teaching styles they used.
The concept of pupils being able to plan, perform and evaluate movement remained in
the next two revisions of the NCPE, (DFE 1995; DfEE/QCA 1999). According to
Penney (2001) the priority of the NCPE (1999) was to avoid disruption of the existing
policy text, and changes were only made to improve and raise standards in Physical
Education. However, an important dimension of the NCPE (1999) was the identification
of four aspects of skills, knowledge and understanding to be developed through the
Programme of Study. These four strands were:




Acquiring and Developing skills.
Selecting and Applying skills.
Evaluating and Improving Performance.
Knowledge and Understanding of Fitness and Health.
(DfEE/QCA 1999).
1
© T. Macfadyen & C. Campbell, 2005
1
Research on the NCPE (1999) and its influence on teaching styles is lacking within the
literature. This paper investigates the teaching styles of secondary school Physical
Education teachers in 2005, specifically in regard to the NCPE (1999).
Working Definitions.
For the purpose of this paper it is important to establish a definition of a teaching style.
A teaching style is concerned with how an activity is delivered, rather than what is
delivered, (Macfadyen and Bailey 2002, p. 57). This paper uses a definition of teaching
style from Siedentop (1991), who suggested it is “typified by the instructional and
managerial climate that exists during the lesson and is most clearly observed in the
teacher’s interactions with pupils”, (p. 228).
This research was based on eight teaching styles taken from Mosston’s Spectrum of
Teaching Styles, (Mosston and Ashworth, 1986). The Spectrum of Teaching Styles does
not favour any one style as it is an objective framework that allows an appropriate style to
be chosen based on connections between objectives, teacher behaviour and learner
behaviour, (Goldberger and Howarth, 1992). The spectrum can be divided into two
distinctive parts: Reproductive teaching styles where pupils are expected to reproduce
information or skills given to them or demonstrated by the teacher, and Productive
teaching styles where pupils are expected to produce knowledge or skills with which they
were previously unfamiliar.
The actual teaching style definitions and the concept of management were taken and
adapted from the work of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997).
For definitions of the
teaching styles and management, readers are referred to Appendix One.
Primary Aim of the paper

To develop information on the teaching styles of secondary school Physical
Education teachers
2
Secondary Aims:

To compare the teaching styles of Physical Education teachers in 2005 with
the results of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al. (2001).

To consider any differences between male and female Physical Education
teachers

To determine the factors which influence the selection of teaching styles
The Importance of Teaching Styles.
As the use of appropriate teaching styles makes an important contribution to pupils’
learning in Physical Education it should not be left to chance, (Macfadyen and Bailey
2002). The NCPE (1999) instructs teachers what to teach but does not dictate how to
teach it giving teachers great potential; part of this potential can be maximised by the
effective use of teaching styles. Physical Education provides pupils with the opportunity
to think critically, problem solve and to improve own learning, (DfEE/QCA. 1999).
Similarly, the QCA/DfES (2005) has suggested that when schools offer ‘high quality’
Physical Education, children will achieve a variety of outcomes. One such outcome is
that children will be able to think about what they are doing and make decisions
independently. A second outcome is children knowing when to use principles such as
choreography, games strategies and problem solving. If pupils are to access the full
NCPE (1999) and to achieve the outcomes of high quality Physical Education
(QCA/DfES 2005), teachers must employ appropriate teaching styles to facilitate the
opportunities available.
Mawer (1993) has highlighted that the teaching style of a Physical Education teacher
should match the lesson content and the learning preferences of the students (supported
Mosston and Ashworth 1986; Macfadyen and Bailey 2002). Furthermore, it seems clear
that teaching styles have a significant role to play in personalised learning (Hopkins
2004). This concept suggests that individuals learn in different ways, so teaching should
be tailored to meet the individual needs of children and to ensure their potential is
fulfilled, (Hopkins 2004). This will require a variety of teaching styles (see Macfadyen
and Bailey, 2002).
3
The Influence of the National Curriculum on teaching styles of Physical Education
teachers.
According to Goldberger and Howarth (1992) the Spectrum of Teaching Styles and the
National Curriculum are key elements in the teaching and learning process. The only
studies to date which looked specifically at the influence of the National Curriculum on
teaching styles were the work of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et
al. (2001). Curtner-Smith and Hasty’s (1997) research investigated whether the initial
introduction and implementation of the NCPE (1992) led to teachers expanding their
range of teaching styles. Results indicated that the percentage of lesson time in which
teachers employed each of the teaching styles did not differ significantly pre and post
NCPE (1992).
The majority of time was spent using reproductive teaching styles.
Curtner-Smith and Hasty’s (1997) work suggested that teachers were not employing the
teaching styles which may improve pupils’ planning and evaluation skills as deemed
necessary to meet the requirements of the NCPE (Goldberger and Howarth 1992).
Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) suggested their findings were due to a number of factors
including teachers not being trained to use a variety of teaching styles and the lack of
time to experiment with teaching styles.
The work of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) was extended by Curtner-Smith et al
(2001). Results concluded that teachers were still working in a very similar way though
one difference was that teachers in the second study used practice style significantly more
than the first group and managed their classes significantly less. The study suggested that
teachers again spent the majority of their time in reproductive teaching styles and only
infrequently used teaching styles which improved pupils’ ability to plan and evaluate
(Curtner-Smith et al. 2001). This finding was similar to the work of Goldberger and
Gerney (1986) and (1990) and Goldberger et al. (1982).
Gender and teaching styles.
Kane (1974) found female teachers preferred using guided discovery teaching styles and
males preferred utilising direct teaching styles.
According to Al-Mulla (1998)
differences in teaching styles occur because male teachers perceive that problems occur if
4
students are given freedom; female teachers are more interested in allowing students to
think for themselves.
Factors that influence the selection of teaching styles in Physical Education.
The selection of a teaching style has been found to be influenced by a number of factors.
Williams (1993) and Mawer (1995) suggest the selection is influenced by a group’s
learning style, Intended Learning Outcomes of lessons, safety, the behaviour of the class
and the activity. Macfadyen and Bailey (2002) suggested the activity being taught and
reduced curriculum time may influence the teaching styles of Physical Education
teachers. Siedentop (1991) added that the characteristics of the class should have a direct
influence on the teaching styles utilised by the Physical Education teacher. Research by
BAALPE (1989) found the key factors affecting the selection of teaching styles were:
the ability of the group, size of group, facilities, activity and time limitations.
Methodology.
A, detailed, self-report questionnaire was used to collect data for this research, which
comprised of 19 open and closed questions. Munn and Drever (1999) point out that
questionnaires allow participants to complete them in their own time, and participants are
more likely to be honest in questionnaires because no interviewer is present and therefore
there is no scope for negotiation.
All participants were promised anonymity and
confidentiality. The questionnaire was designed to ensure quantitative data allowed for
statistical analysis and qualitative data fulfilled Curtner-Smith and Hasty’s (1997) request
for follow up work on teaching styles in Physical Education. Questionnaires were used
to obtain larger samples than Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al
(2001). Each participant was given a clear set of definitions of the teaching styles to
improve the consistency of understanding between participants.
Participants comprised of Physical Education teachers from state schools in the South of
England. Schools were initially randomly selected, but after a poor response rate, further
schools were sampled (either mixed comprehensive schools or single sex secondary
schools).
The researchers arranged with these schools to deliver and collect the
5
questionnaires personally. According to Thomas and Nelson (2001), random sampling in
Sport and Physical Education research is seldom done.
Questionnaires have their
limitations. Self-report measures may be subject to participants giving a lack of clarity in
response (Baranowski, Dworkin, Cieslik, Hooks, Clearman, Ray, Dunn and Nader 1984)
and question format and wording can dramatically affect results (Thomas & Nelson,
2001). A pilot study controlled for this, making sure results were reliable and repeatable.
Pilot Study.
According to Gratton and Jones (2004) it is important to pilot a questionnaire because it
allows the researcher to check the sequence of questions and the administration of the
questionnaire as well as analyze the results to ensure data is suitable for study purposes.
One, large, Physical Education department, in a mixed comprehensive school in the
South of England was used for the pilot study. Feedback from seven teachers indicated
that the questionnaire was very time consuming and some of the wording was not specific
enough. In light of the feedback and analysis of pilot results, appropriate changes were
made.
Methods of Analysis.
An aim of this research was to compare the teaching styles of Physical Education
teachers with the results of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al
(2001).
Due to differences in methodologies, statistical analyses were not used to
compare the results of this research with previous work; instead comparisons of means
were used to analyse the results.
Results
Return rate of questionnaires for the schools sampled was 68.4%, (13 out of 19 schools).
30 teachers (42.9%) returned completed questionnaires. According to Munn and Drever
(1999), the minimum sample size for small-scale research involving questionnaires
should be 30.
6
Participants comprised of 17 male teachers (56.7%) and 13 female teachers (43.3%). 10
of the participants were aged 21-25 (33.3%), 11 of the participants were aged 26-30
(36.7%), 4 of the participants were aged 31-35 (13.3%), one of the participants was aged
36-40 (3.3%) and 4 of the participants were aged 46+ (13.3%). The participants trained
at 18 different teacher education institutions. 53% of the participants completed teacher
training via a PGCE, 47% of the participants trained via another route (mainly B. Ed).
Teaching Styles in Physical Education in 2005.
Participants were asked to identify how much time they spent using different teaching
styles in Physical Education. Table 1 presents a mean percentage of these results and
also gives mean percentages of teaching styles for male and female Physical Education
teachers.
Teaching Style
Reproductive Styles
Command
Practice
Reciprocal
Self-Check
Inclusion
Total Reproductive
Productive Styles
Guided Discovery
Divergent
Going Beyond
Total Productive
Mean Percentage (%)
for Teaching Style for
all Teachers.
Mean
Percentage (%)
of Teaching
Style for
Female
Teachers.
Mean
Percentage (%)
of Teaching
Style for Male
Teachers.
24.74
18.76
15.54
9.26
8.91
77.21
19.82
17.63
14.79
10.26
8.91
71.41
28.74
19.68
16.15
8.44
8.91
81.92
13.44
5.78
3.57
22.79
15.99
7.91
4.69
28.59
11.37
4.04
2.67
18.08
Table 1: Percentages of Teaching Styles used in 2005, (Post NCPE 1999).
7
There were clear differences observed between the use of reproductive and productive
teaching styles by male and female teachers. Males averaged 81.93% and female
teachers 71.41 % in the use of Reproductive Teaching Styles (statistically significant at
<0.05 level; T-Test). There was also a significant, statistical, difference between male
and female teachers in the use of Productive Teaching Styles: Male Average: 18.07%;
Female Average: 28.59% (<0.05, T-Test). There were no significant differences between
male and female Physical Education teachers and the amount of time they spend on
management.
Results from this study were compared with results of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997)
and Curtner-Smith et al. (2001). See Table 2 overleaf.
Teachers also identified the teaching styles they used for the various strands of the NCPE
(1999).
For the Acquiring and Developing strand 73 % of the teachers used the
command or practice teaching styles. For the Selecting and Applying strand, teachers
used a range of reproductive and productive teaching styles (e.g. 26.7 % of teachers used
reciprocal and 23.3 % used guided discovery).
When teaching the Evaluation and
Improvement strand, 43.3% of teachers used reciprocal teaching style. When teaching
the Knowledge and Understanding of Fitness strand, 60 % of teachers used command and
practice teaching styles.
8
Table 2: Table of results compared with Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and CurtnerSmith et al. (2001).
Teaching Style
Teaching
Styles of PE
Teachers PreNCPE 1992
(CurtnerSmith & Hasty
1997).
Observation
Method.
Teaching
Styles of PE
Teachers PostNCPE 1992
(CurtnerSmith & Hasty
1997).
Observation
Method).
Teaching
Styles of PE
Teachers PostNCPE 1995
(CurtnerSmith et al
2001).
(Observation
Method).
Teaching
Styles of PE
Teachers PostNCPE 1999.
(Questionnaire
Method).
Reproductive
Styles
Command
10.91
6.50
4.28
20.54
Practice
55.31
49.65
72.94
15.58
Reciprocal
1.53
2.31
0.64
12.90
Self-Check
0.00
0.90
0.39
7.69
Inclusion
2.03
1.31
0.06
7.40
Total
Reproductive
Productive
Styles
Guided
Discovery
Divergent
69.78
60.68
78.31
64.11
5.37
5.47
4.01
11.16
6.53
3.34
0.98
4.80
Going Beyond
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.96
Total
Productive
Management
Total
11.90
8.81
4.99
18.92
18.44
100
29.97
100
16.82
100
16.96
100
Teaching Styles in the Different Curriculum Activities.
Teachers were asked to break down the percentage of time they spent using different
teaching styles within the activities of the NCPE (1999). See Table 3 for results.
9
Gym
23.08
18.27
17.31
7.62
11.81
Athletics
44.6
15.6
13.2
7
5.4
Invasion
22.86
23.04
16.07
7.86
9.46
S&F
24.81
21.48
14.63
9.63
8.52
N&W
19.4
22.6
16.6
11.8
9.4
Dance
14.67
15.67
12.67
10.67
5.33
Reproductive%
78.09
85.8
79.29
79.07
79.8
G.D.
Divergent
G.B.
11.54
7.31
3.08
9.92
2.24
2.04
12.5
5.46
2.75
12.59
4.44
3.89
14.2
20.71
100
100
Command
Practice
Reciprocal
S-Check
Inclusion
Productive%
Total %
21.91
100
OAA
17
5
6.5
3.5
5.5
Swimming
32.5
17.5
19.17
6.67
9.17
59.01
37.5
85.01
12.6
4.92
2.68
21
14.33
5.67
29
18.5
15
9.17
3.33
2.5
20.93
20.2
40.99
62.5
14.99
100
100
100
100
100
Table 3: Teaching Styles in the Different NCPE (1999) Curriculum Activities (Ave. %).
(Invasion = Invasion Games; S&F = Striking and Fielding Games; N&W = Net and Wall
Games; OAA = Outdoor Adventure Activities)
Factors that Influence the Use of Teaching Styles in Physical Education.
Teachers were asked to rank the most influential factors that affected their choice of
teaching style. The most influential was safety followed by the activity being taught;
these two factors dominated the rankings. The third most influential was class control,
followed by pupil ability and the lesson’s Intended Learning Outcomes; trust in class was
ranked sixth. The questionnaire also highlighted differences between male and female
teachers. Whilst men’s influences mirrored the overall rankings (above), woman ranked
the activity being taught above safety, and placed the lesson’s Intended Learning
Outcomes equal third with pupil ability, placing trust in class fifth.
Discussion
The results of this research must be interpreted carefully in terms of design limitations.
The relatively small sample size and lack of random sampling make generalizations from
this research difficult. Furthermore differences between what people say they do and
what they actually do (Lawson and Stroot (1993) cited in Curtner-Smith et al. (2001))
may account for some difference in this research compared to previous observation
studies. Though it is unlikely teachers gave a socially desirable answer, they may have
10
mistaken how they actually teach. However, to ensure consistency with the work of
Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al. (2001) this research utilised the
same concepts and definitions of teaching styles.
Results strongly suggest that reproductive teaching styles are still the dominant method of
delivery in Physical Education and are relatively in line with the work of Curtner-Smith
and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al (2001). Worryingly, when teachers were asked
to identify the teaching styles they used for the four strands of the NCPE (1999) they
predominantly used reproductive teaching styles for all four. This seems too one-sided
and a little illogical, particularly for the Selecting and Applying and Evaluation and
Improvement strands, where pupils are required to, for example,: ‘…plan and implement
strategies’ (KS 3), ‘apply rules…’ (KS 4), ‘take the initiative to analyse…’ (KS 3), ‘make
informed choices about what role they want to take...’ (KS 4). The figures may, in part,
be explained by teachers considering the reciprocal style as a productive method, even
though it is a reproductive style. In terms of fulfilling all four strands of the NCPE
(1999) three reproductive styles (reciprocal, self-check, inclusion) do offer some support
since they encompass either evaluating skills or decision-making (though the emphasis
remains on reproduction of information or skills provided by the teacher) . The use of all
three of these styles was up in this study compared to Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997)
and Curtner- Smith et al (2001) perhaps as teachers try to kill two birds with one stone.
The DfES/QCA (2005) has suggested that when a school offers ‘high quality’ Physical
Education, children will achieve a variety of outcomes. Two of these outcomes are of
particular interest here. The first suggests that children will be able to think about what
they are doing and make decisions independently. The other outcome is that children
should know when to use principles such as choreography, games strategies and problem
solving. It stands to reason children will only be able to achieve these outcomes if they
are allowed to work independently and make decisions for themselves. This can only be
fully achieved if teachers create genuine and sustained Intended Learning Outcomes in
these areas and back them up with appropriate productive styles. A lack of familiarity
with, or confidence in, productive teaching styles may help to explain why teachers have
been less willing to engage in the non skill development strands of the NCPE (1999)
11
since these are less suited to the direct styles of teaching. Certainly, pupil achievement of
a number of the National Curriculum Key Skills (e.g. citizenship) and Thinking Skills (e.g.
enquiry skills) would seem to require teachers’ utilisation of productive teaching styles.
Considering the wider educational context may also prove fruitful in explaining the
dominance of reproductive teaching styles. One reason could be linked to teacher work
(over) load. Teachers may not teach productively (in both senses) because they do not
have the time to plan new methods/resources due to other requirements. Curtner-Smith
and Hasty (1997) suggested that reproductive teaching styles are predominantly used in
Physical Education because teachers do not have the time to experiment with alternative
teaching styles and, therefore, tend to stick with what they know and feel comfortable
with. This could explain why 60 % of teachers used command and practice teaching
styles to teach the Knowledge and Understanding of Fitness & Health.
The latest
Government Initiative (the Work Force Agreement) introduced to ease teacher workload
may help in this regard. Unfortunately, Fairclough and Stratton (1997) suggest that
reduced curriculum time has caused many Physical Education departments to offer
excessive amounts of extra-curricular activities.
This in turn has affected time for
planning.
Banville, Richard and Raiche (2003) suggested that reproductive teaching styles are used
because teachers lack the knowledge required to develop a curriculum that allows them to
use productive teaching styles to meet the requirements of the NCPE (1999).
Additionally, they believe teachers lack the knowledge of productive teaching styles
because they are not sufficiently covered during Teacher Training. Research by Cleland
et al (1999) has suggested teachers need in-service training (INSET) to promote thinking
in Physical Education. A strong message from this research would be that teachers do
need sophisticated, applied, training about teaching styles, to more effectively deliver the
NCPE (1999). However, only 33.3% of teachers in this study believed they needed
INSET on teaching styles. This may be because they have experienced poor/irrelevant
INSET in the past or because they fail to appreciate the alternatives available to them in
terms of curriculum delivery.
12
Significantly the use of command style was high compared to the previous two
observation studies. This can be explained, in part, by teachers who stated that command
style was appropriate for the very poor behaviour of classes they took. Many writers
have reported the use of more direct teaching styles to keep control of classes,
(Macfadyen and Bailey 2002; Mawer 1995; Kane 1974).
Results in this paper
demonstrate that class control is influential in the selection of teaching styles. Perhaps
this is not surprising given that Physical Education teachers have traditionally seen
themselves as good disciplinarians, and in recent years a lot of emphasis, including
Government policy, has been placed on pupil behaviour.
Additionally, some schools continue to pack their PE curriculum with short Units of
Work (OfSTED, 2004) that has too much content, so teachers are rushed to complete
work (often intended for longer periods of time). In this context the command style
offers a time efficient way of getting information across. Furthermore, research by
Fairclough and Stratton (1997) concluded that due to the reduction in lesson time in
Physical Education 40 % of the schools sampled believed they could not meet the
requirements of the NCPE because they did not have sufficient time. This reduced
curriculum time may mean teachers do not have time, or believe they do not have time, to
utilise productive teaching styles which can take longer to set up.
The Government’s more recent aspiration for two hours quality Physical Education and
School Sport per week may have redressed the balance somewhat, however, a series of
Inspection reports support the lack productive teaching methods found here and else
where. OfSTED (1995) concluded that the range of teaching styles used in Physical
Education needed to be extended because some children were not getting the opportunity
to work independently and evaluate their own work. OfSTED’s (2001) review again
concluded that whilst standards in Physical Education were increasing some pupils still
did not have the ability to plan and evaluate their own work and that of others. OfSTED
(2004) concluded that although 80 % of teaching in Physical Education is good, some
schools are still using a narrow range of teaching styles. If the use of productive teaching
styles remains limited as seems the case, perhaps OfSTED could encourage its greater
use by stronger comment on the narrow or inappropriate use of reproductive styles.
13
Even where teachers are trying to educate pupils within the Selecting and Applying and
Evaluating and Improving strands, their work will be undermined if they do not create the
right learning conditions.
Despite the dominance of reproductive methods, results suggest an encouraging and
significant shift in the use of productive teaching styles, with teachers using them 18.92
% of the time (compared to 8.81 % post NCPE (1992) and 4.99 % post NCPE (1995)).
The results may suggest that the more obvious utilization/presentation of the 4 strands
(NCPE, 1999) compared to the use of ‘plan, perform and evaluate’ in the NCPE (1995)
has been effective. Government Initiatives such as PESSCL (teachernet 2004) and the
Outcomes of High Quality Physical Education research (QCA/DfES 2005) may also be
beginning to improve teachers’ awareness of the need for varied teaching styles.
Conversely, it could be argued a plethora of administration / objectives thrust on Physical
Education departments of late could have hindered teachers improving their basic skills
like teaching styles because of a lack of time.
Gender and teaching styles.
The results of this paper support previous research such as Kane (1974), Al-Mulla (1998)
and Lacey et al. (1998) in that male teachers used reproductive teaching styles more often
than female teachers. This may be because males utilised reproductive styles more in
order to keep close control of their classes, perhaps because their feelings of self worth
are more closely tied to good discipline. Also, if reproductive styles are being used to
control classes, and the majority of teachers within the study take some single sex classes,
then male teachers are likely to use them more as boys generally have poorer behaviour
than girls (Smith and Embrey, 1997).
Male teachers are possibly utilising reproductive styles more than female teachers due to
the differences in teaching activities. For example, only 11.76 % of the male teachers
taught dance compared to 100 % of the female teachers, whereas a lot of male teachers
taught gymnastics that may require more direct styles of teaching due to safety (Williams
1993).
This is supported by Mawer (1995) who suggested direct styles of teaching may
be used if the objectives for a lesson were concerned with safety and discipline. It is also
14
possible that female teachers are simply more willing to experiment with different
teaching styles to achieve the lesson’s objectives than their male counterparts.
The factors that influence the selection of teaching styles in Physical Education.
It is not surprising to see safety top the list of influencing factors on teachers’ selection of
a teaching style. A more worrying point is that teachers ranked a lesson’s Intended
Learning Outcomes as only the fifth main influential factor when selecting a teaching
style (this is particularly so for men; woman ranked it third equal).
Williams (1993),
amongst others, has identified Intended Learning Outcomes as a very important factor
when selecting teaching styles in Physical Education. Given that the activity being taught
was the second highest influential factor this may hint that some teachers are choosing
their teaching style based on inappropriate selection criteria.
For example, a teacher
thinks of athletics as hazardous and hence should be teacher-led, when pupils may
actually being doing (safe) work on evaluating and improving their relay changeovers
which requires the subtleties of a productive style to best tease out their understanding.
The ability of a teacher to respond to the various learning styles of pupils (so they can
achieve their potential) and to differentiate effectively is a vital asset. However, teachers
ranked their own strengths as more influential in picking a teaching style than their
group’s learning style and trust in the class (male teachers) and class characteristics
(female teachers). This is understandable, to some extent, as teachers will want to feel
confident in their work. Teachers may also feel a duty to actually teach their class in a
direct, ‘hands-on’, way that reproductive styles provide. However, such a traditional
notion may also reflect a teacher’s inability (weakness) to hand over responsibility to
pupils that can promote process-orientated goals (e.g. finding space in attack) as well as
initiative, innovation and leadership. If teachers are to be more effective, perhaps their
focus will need to shift more to the pupil/class.
Conclusion
This research investigated the teaching styles of secondary school Physical Education
teachers and built on the work of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et
al (2001). Results suggest that since the implementation of the NCPE (1999), Physical
15
Education teachers still predominantly use reproductive teaching styles and this may be
limiting pupils’ opportunities to fulfil the requirements of the NCPE (1999). A lack of
change may not be surprising as the NCPE (1999) is not significantly different from other
revisions of the policy text (Penney 2001). Positively, the research does suggest an
increase in the use of productive teaching styles perhaps due to greater emphasis being
placed on independent, personalised learning. Nevertheless, there does seem to be the
need for focussed training on teaching styles to help teachers promote all aspects of the
NCPE (1999) .
In order to maximise the strengths of the NCPE (1999) and shift teachers’ expectations in
the use of more productive teaching styles, Teacher Education may need to focus more
on productive teaching styles instead of skill development (and hence reproductive
teaching styles; see Curtner-smith et al 2001). OfSTED needs to consider how it reports
on the over / inappropriate use of reproductive teaching styles, and the Government needs
to continue focussing on teacher work-load to ensure teachers have enough time to plan
and learn new ways to teach. Lastly, teachers must ensure they more closely match their
teaching styles to the lesson’s Intended Learning Outcomes and pupils’ needs.
Greater understanding of this complex area is required and the competence of Physical
Education teachers in using a variety of teaching styles should be explored further. If the
profession is to move forwards at the pace and in ways now expected of it, teachers will
need the strong base that a varied teaching style repertoire can bring.
16
References
Al-Mulla, F.H., (1998). Teacher Perceptions about Different Teaching Methods. The
Bulletin of Physical Education. 34 (2), 91-105.
BAALPE (1989). Teaching and Learning Strategies in Physical Education. Leeds:
White Line Press.
Banville, D., Richard, J. & Raiche, G., (2003). French Canadian Physical Education
Teachers’ usage of Mosston Spectrum of Teaching Styles. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, March 2003 Supplement. A-36.
Baranowski, T., Dworkin, R., Cieslik, C., Hooks, P., Clearman, D., Ray, L., Dunn, J. &
Nader, P., (1984). Reliability and Validity of self-report of aerobic activity: family health
project. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 55. (4), 309-317.
Cleland, F. E., Donnelly, F., Hellion, J. & Fry, F., (1999). Modifying Teacher
Behaviours to Promote Critical Thinking in K-12 Physical Education. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education. 18 (2), 199-215.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. & Hasty, D., (1997). Influence of National Curriculum Physical
Education on Teachers’ use of Teaching Styles. National AAHPERD Convention. St.
Louis. MO.
Curtner-Smith, M. D., Todorovich, J. R., McCaughtry, N. A. & Lacon, S. A., (2001).
Urban Teachers’ use of Productive and Reproductive Teaching Styles within the confines
of National Curriculum for Physical Education. European Physical Education Review. 7.
(2). 177-190.
DES/WO, (1992). Physical Education in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO.
DfE (1995). Physical Education in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO.
DfEE/QCA. (1999). Physical Education. The National Curriculum for England and
Wales. London: HMSO
Fairclough, S. & Stratton, G., (1997). Physical Education Curriculum and ExtraCurriculum Time: A Survey of Secondary Schools in the North-West of England. The
British Journal of Physical Education. 28 (3), 21-24.
Goldberger, M., Gerney, P. & Chamberlain, J., (1982). The Effects of Three Styles of
Teaching on the Psychomotor Performance and Social Skill Development of Fifth Grade
Children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 53. (2), 116-124.
Goldberger, M. & Gerney, P., (1986). The Effects of Direct Teaching Styles on Motor
Skill Acquisition of Fifth Grade Children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 57
(3), 215-219.
17
Goldberger, M. & Gerney, P., (1990). Effects of Learner Use of Practice Time on Skill
Acquisition of Fifth Grade Children. The Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 10.
(1), 84-95.
Goldberger, M. & Howarth, K., (1992). The National Curriculum in Physical Education
and the Spectrum of Teaching Styles. The British Journal of Physical Education. 24. (1).
23-28.
Gratton, C. & Jones, I., (2004). Research Methods for Sport Studies. Oxon: Routledge.
Hopkins, D., (2004). Personalised Learning: How can we help every child do even
better? URL: http://www.qca.org.uk/futures.
Kane, J. E., (1974). Physical Education in secondary school. London: Macmillan.
Lacey, C. H., Saleh, A. & Gorman, R., (1998). Teaching Nine to Five: A Study of the
Teaching Styles of Male and Female Professors. Paper presented at the Women in
Educational Leadership Annual Conference 1998, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Macfadyen, T. & Bailey, R., (2002). Teaching Physical Education 11 – 18. London:
Continuum.
Mawer, M., (1993). Editorial: Teaching Styles, Teaching Strategies and Instructional
Formats in Physical Education: ‘Total Teaching’ or Ideology? The British Journal of
Physical Education. 24 (1). 5-9.
Mawer, M., (1995). The Effective Teaching of Physical Education. London: Longman.
Mosston, M. & Ashworth, S., (1986). Teaching Physical Education – Third Edition.
Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company.
Munn, P. & Drever, E., (1999). Using Questionnaires in Small-Scale Research – A
Teacher’s Guide. Edinburgh: SCRE Publication.
OfSTED (1995) Physical Education – A review of Inspection Findings 1993-94.
London: HMSO
OfSTED (2001) Secondary Education 1993-97 – A review of secondary education
schools in England. www.official_documents.co.uk/documents/OfSTED/SECED/chp5a.htm. 12th January 2001
OfSTED (2004) OfSTED Subject Reports – Physical Education in Secondary Schools.
London: HMI
Penney, D. (2001). The Revision and Initial Implementation of National Curriculum for
Physical Education in England. The Bulletin of Physical Education. 37. (2). 3-45.
18
QCA/DfES (2005) The outcomes of high quality PESS.
http://www.qca.org.uk/pess/the_outcomes.html
Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing Teaching Skills in Physical Education – Third Edition.
Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Smith, B. & Embrey, S., (1997) The Impacts of the National Curriculum for the teaching
of gymnastics. British Journal of Physical Education. Vol. 28, Issue 3, pages 25-30.
Teachernet (2004). Prime Minister announces Boost for School Sport.
www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/subjects/pe.nationalstrategy/2004_Boost/
Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K., (2001). Research Methods in Physical Activity – Fourth
Edition. USA: Human Kinetics.
Williams, A., (1993). Aspects of Teaching and Learning in Gymnastics. The British
Journal of Physical Education. 24 (1), 29-32.
19