HELPING INCREASE GIRLS PHYSICAL SELF-EFFICACY

THROUGH TGfU AND THE GPAI

Brent JacksonPHE National Conference, Banff, 2015

A LITTLE BIT OF WHY my perspective.

Physical Outcome (PE performance)

Cognitive Input

(engaged)

Brent Jackson, 2015

GENDER CONCERN

Brent Jackson, 2015

TEACHER INFLUENCE

Too many girls are not enjoying their Physical Education experience and are dropping out of physical activity.

Dishman et al., 2004

Teaching models rooted in behaviorism are not working for today’s students, in particular today’s female students.

Constantinou, Manson, & Silverman, 2009

Teaching models framed in constructivism have the potential to connect females to a successful experience in PE.

Beveridge & Scruggs, 2000

Brent Jackson, 2015

Brent Jackson, 2015

TLC MATTERST – The role of the teacher is significant.

L – The role of the learning environment is significant.

C – The role of the curriculum is significant.

Beveridge & Scruggs, 2000

Brent Jackson, 2015

SELF-EFFICACY

Self-Efficacy

Performance Accomplish.

(past experience)

Vicarious Experience

(observational learning)

Verbal Persuasion

(teacher feedback)

Emotional Arousal

(psychological feedback)

Brent Jackson, 2015

What does that mean?OUTCOME vs. PROCESS

The OUTCOME is decreased motivation.

Because the PROCESS ensures low (physical) self-efficacy and competency.

“The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.” Einstein

Brent Jackson, 2015

“Yes we can!”Obama, 2008

Change the process.

Change the outcome.

RESULTS

SCHOOL A

TGfU

SCHOOL B

TGfU + GPAIBaseline - -Post VB

Post BB

Self-efficacy over time

Brent Jackson, 2015

RESEARCH PROCESS

School A – TGfU • TGfU VB, BB• PSEQ 3x: Baseline, Post VB, Post BB

School B - TGfU and GPAI • TGfU VB, BB• GPAI• PSEQ 3x: Baseline, Post VB, Post BB

Brent Jackson, 2015

WHY THE GPAI?

• Engagement potential

• Authentic assessment

• Assessment of learning

• Assessment for learning

• Assessment as learning

Brent Jackson, 2015

TGfU IS IMPACTFUL!

• Lower teacher expectations.

• Use optimally challenging activities.

• Raise levels of success. Brent Jackson, 2015

3 POINTS1. Competency + high self-efficacy =

motivation.

2. TGfU can positively affect physical self-efficacy.

3. Using the GPAI can take the ability to positively affect physical self-efficacy to even greater heights.

Brent Jackson, 2015

Areas for Growth Limitations

Increased time frame Cover all game types Increase student experience

with GPAI Expand research groups

Include boys Include different socio-

economic groups Isolate TGfU

More teacher participant notes Triangulate with PSEQ data

and researcher field notes

Narrow scope Quasi-experimental

research design did not allow for truly random participant group

Only one assessment tool

Brent Jackson, 2015

Thank you!Any questions?

Brent Jackson, 2015References

Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1, 139–161. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0146640278900097

Bandura, A. (2010). Self-Efficacy. In W. E. Weiner, Irving B.; Craighead (Ed.), The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (4th ed., pp. 1534–1536). John Wiley & Sons.

Beveridge, S., & Scruggs, P. (2000). TLC for better PE: Girls and elementary physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71(8), 22–27.

Brown, D., & Evans, J. (2004). Reproducing gender? Intergenerational links and the male PE teacher as a cultural conduit in teaching physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physcial Education, (23), 48–70.

Cairney, J., Kwan, M. Y., Velduizen, S., Hay, J., Bray, S. R., & Faught, B. E. (2012). Gender, perceived competence and the enjoyment of physical education in children: a longitudinal examination. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(26), 1–8. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-26

Davis, B. (2009). EDCP501 [lecture notes]. Retrieved from https://connect.ubc.ca Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging Minds. New York, N.Y.: Routledge. Ennis, C. D. (1999). Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged Girls. Sport, Education and Society, 4(1), 31–49.

doi:10.1080/1357332990040103 Ericsson, K. Anders (1998). The Scientific Study of Expert Levels of Performance: general implications for optimal learning and

creativity. High Ability Studies, 9(1), 75-100. DOI: 10.1080/1359813980090106 Griffin, L., Butler, J., Lombardo, B., & Nastasi, R. (2003). An introduction to teaching games for understanding. Teaching Games for

Understanding in Physical Education and Sport, 1–9. Griffin, L., & Patton, K. (2005). Two Decades of Teaching Games for Understanding: Looking at the Past, Present, and Future. In L.

Griffin & J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding: theory, research, and practice. (pp. 1–17). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: toward a developmental model. Human Development, (1), 34–64. Luke, M., & Sinclair, G. (1991). Gender differences in adolescents’ attitudes toward school physical education. Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, (11), 31–46. Pate, R. R., Ward, D. S., Saunders, R. P., Felton, G., Dishman, R. K., & Dowda, M. (2005). Promotion of physical activity among high-

school girls: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health, 95(9), 1582–7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.045807 Ross, P. E. (2006). The expert mind. Scientific American, 295(2), 64–71. Schwartz, B. (2005). Barry Schwartz: The Paradox of Choice. [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html Van Gyn, G. H., Higgins, J. W., Gaul, C. A., & Gibbons, S. (2000). Reversing the trend: girls’ participation in physical education.

Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 66(1), 26–32.