The theory of planned behaviour: predicting pre-service teachers' teaching behaviour towards a constructivist approach

This article was downloaded by: [University of Winnipeg]On: 15 September 2014, At: 12:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Sport, Education and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cses20

The theory of planned behaviour:predicting pre-service teachers'teaching behaviour towards aconstructivist approachCarrie Lijuan Wang a & Amy S. Ha ba Shanghai University of Sport , Shanghai , Chinab The Chinese University of Hong Kong , Hong Kong SAR , ChinaPublished online: 08 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Carrie Lijuan Wang & Amy S. Ha (2013) The theory of planned behaviour:predicting pre-service teachers' teaching behaviour towards a constructivist approach, Sport,Education and Society, 18:2, 222-242, DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2011.558572

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.558572

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cses20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13573322.2011.558572

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.558572

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The theory of planned behaviour:

predicting pre-service teachers’

teaching behaviour towards a

constructivist approach

Carrie Lijuan Wanga and Amy S. Hab*aShanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China; bThe Chinese University of Hong Kong,

Hong Kong SAR, China

The two-pronged purpose of this study is to examine factors determining the teaching behaviour of

pre-service physical education (PE) teachers towards a constructivist approach, likewise referred to

as teaching games for understanding (TGfU). Theory of planned behaviour (TPB) was applied to

guide the formulation of research purpose and design. Six pre-service teachers participated in this

study. Data collection consisted of documentation, systematic observation and interviews. These

data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Findings indicated that TGfU

implementation by pre-service teachers is problematic. Three groups of TPB factors, including

attitude (i.e. attitude towards TGfU), social norm (i.e. cooperating teachers, university super-

visors, schoolteachers and pupils), and perceived behaviour control (i.e. space, class duration,

equipment, TGfU conceptual understanding, technical level of pupils and classroom discipline)

were identified to determine intention of pre-service teachers to adopt TGfU and subsequent

TGfU teaching behaviour. Among these factors, perceived behaviour control was the most

significant predictor.

Keywords: Constructivist approach; TGfU; Intention; Behaviour; Pre-service teachers

Introduction

Extensive literature has indicated that learning theories are connected with

instructional activities because the former provides foundation for the design and

development of instruction (Freiberg, 1999; Jonassen & Land, 2000; Taylor, 2007).

Constructivism is a learning theory introduced several decades ago. This theory

draws heavily on the cognitive constructivism of Piaget (1970) and social

constructivism of Vygotsky (1978). Piaget (1970) claimed that knowledge was

created by individuals actively based on their previous knowledge and experience. By

contrast, Vygotsky (1978) emphasised the role of culture and context in developing

personal and shared interpretations of reality. In recent decades, with the shift of

*Corresponding author. Department of Sports Science and Physical Education, G05 Kowk

Sports Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Email: [email protected]

Sport, Education and Society, 2013

Vol. 18, No. 2, 222�242, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.558572

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.558572

educational focus from skills mastery and application to a pupil-centred, problem-

solving, and creativity-focused curriculum (Fullan, 1999; Huba & Freed, 2000),

a host of approaches premised on a constructivist philosophy has emerged

and attracted increasing interest from researchers and teachers (Prawat, 1992;

Richardson, 1997; Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2006). By linking constructivism with

teaching, the purpose of the latter was to help pupils gain a deeper understanding of

content and develop their problem-solving and cooperative skills (Prawat, 1992).

Constructivist teaching allows pupils to become active learners rather than passive

recipients of knowledge supplied by teachers (Driver et al., 1994). It emphasises on

generating learning, questioning or inquiry strategies (Slavin, 1994). Moreover,

teaching is a learning�teaching concept rather than a teaching�learning one

(Richardson, 1997).

Extensive educational studies have been conducted on teachers’ views and the

implementation of the aforementioned constructivist approach. Although several

teachers have reported that the constructivist approach is beneficial for pupils and

that this could be used to achieve a positive learning effect with instruction (Fensham

et al., 1994; De Kock et al., 2004), the majority have exhibited resistance against its

implementation (Little, 1993; Cook et al., 2002; Windschitl, 2002; Rosenfeld &

Rosenfeld, 2006). Recent studies have revealed that teachers are confronted with

challenges during implementation, including the following: conceptual, pedagogical,

cultural and political dilemma (Windschitl, 2002); change of teacher role

and curriculum focus, multiple pupil tasks, non-traditional assessment, and staff

relations (Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2006); and official constructivist emphasis,

conflicting notions of constructivism and conflicts between theory and practice

(Cook et al., 2002). Despite well-documented teachers’ views and implementation of

a constructivist approach, previous studies remain limited in terms of investigating

various issues that influence pre-service implementation of constructivist approach

(Rodriguez & Berryman, 2002).

The physical education (PE) curriculum has been reformed across the world. The

curriculum now embraces multiple dimensions, such as skill, knowledge and

understanding (Penney & Jess, 2004). Problem-solving, lifelong learning and health

issues are all major concerns of most PE curricula (Cothran, 2001; Penney & Jess,

2004). To meet curriculum objectives, a variety of constructivist teaching approaches

has been designed and tested (Ennis, 2006). As a result of emphasis on active

learning, involvement of perception, processes of decision-making and under-

standing, and developmental factors involving the modification of games to suit

learners, teaching games for understanding (TGfU) has been highlighted as an

example of constructivist approaches to learning (Rink, 1996; Kirk & Macdonald,

1998). TGfU was initially developed by Bunker and Thorpe (1982) in an attempt to

shift from teacher-centred and technique-based learning to a pupil-centred approach

linking tactics and technique within a game context. Contrary to the technique-based

approach, TGfU model learning occurs within the context of modified games.

Lessons are designed to teach tactical elements of game play, apart from equipping

pupils with the ability to match game conditions with appropriate responses. Situated

The theory of planned behaviour 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

learning theory, a component of a broader constructivist theory of learning, provides

a compelling theoretical framework for the study of TGfU. According to the situated

learning perspective, games in a TGfU model can be developed within a community

of practitioners, which then provides learners with a framework that allows them to

make sense of the learning activities being presented (Kirk & Macdonald, 1998;

Griffin et al., 2005). Although a body of studies have been conducted to compare

TGfU and the technique-based approach (e.g. Allison & Thorpe, 1997; Blomqvist

et al., 2001), Metzler (2000) and Rink et al. (1996) claimed that these two

approaches could be applied in effective teaching. Furthermore, they reiterated that

there is no best way to teach PE.

Research findings suggest that several pre-service teachers maintain a positive

attitude towards the TGfU model because it increases engagement and stimulates

the creative minds of pupils (Light, 2002, 2003; Howarth, 2005). However, several

researchers have observed a few problems among pre-service teachers implementing

TGfU (McNeill et al., 2008; Wright et al., 2009). Wright et al. (2006) discussed

the facilitators and inhibitors during TGfU implementation. Accordingly, specific

methods course, university course and cooperating teacher allow them to facilitate

TGfU implementation. However, unfamiliarity of pupils with the TGfU model

and the compounded lack of techniques to play the games properly, conceptual

knowledge, and space and equipment inhibit TGfU implementation. However,

Wright et al. (2006) only focused on the actual teaching of pre-service teachers and

did not explain their intention to adopt TGfU.

In Hong Kong, TGfU remains to be a new concept for PE teachers (Ha et al.,

2008). To explore the views of PE teachers in Hong Kong, we conducted two initial

studies with 20 pre-service teachers on their perception of TGfU and its influencing

factors (Wang & Ha, 2009, Forthcoming). Findings indicate that most participants

have positive attitude and belief towards TGfU. The study by Ha et al. (2008)

reported that while Hong Kong pre-service PE teachers have high belief scores,

these could not be translated into intentions or actions. TGfU learning and teaching

calls for an examination on whether this group of pre-service teachers with positive

attitude towards TGfU could partake in school effectively. Taking cue from the

research gap and findings from initial studies, the purposes of the present work

includes the following: (1) to examine the teaching behaviour of pre-service teachers

towards TGfU from the perspective of use of time, questioning and feedback; and

(2) to determine the factors influencing their teaching behaviour towards TGfU.

Results generated from this study may provide grounds and direction for establish-

ing an effective professional development programme for pre-service teachers. This,

in turn, may help improve pupils’ capacity for understanding and problem-solving.

Furthermore, findings are expected to provide supportive evidence for the

government to adjust pertinent policy and to improve programmes that would

help develop acceptance and implementation of TGfU by Hong Kong-based PE

teachers.

224 C. L. Wang and A. S. Ha

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Theoretical framework

Several behaviourist theories and models have attempted to explain the reasons

behind alternation in individual behaviour, such as Social Cognitive Learning

Theory (Bandura, 1986), Health Belief Model (Becker, 1974), and theory of

planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). These theories have been applied across a

wide variety of disciplines, all of which highlight environmental, personal and

behavioural characteristics as the major factors in behavioural determination. Ajzen’s

(1991) TPB served as the theoretical basis of the current study for two reasons. First,

TPB is a theory that links individual attitudes, intentions and behaviours, suggesting

that behaviour intention and perceived behaviour control are determinants of

behaviour. This is consistent with the purpose of this study; that is, to examine

whether a group of pre-service teachers with positive attitude towards TGfU could

be practiced effectively in schools. Second, TPB has been widely used in educational

research to predict the behavioural intention and behaviour of individuals, such as,

to predict teachers’ intentions to engage in collaborative reflective practice (Shireen

Desouza & Czerniak, 2003), to predict the performance of teacher behaviour

associated with effective teaching in heterogeneous classroom (Stanovich & Jordan,

1998), to examine the beliefs of teachers towards teaching behaviour and their actual

teaching behaviour in teacher portfolio assessment (Van der Schaaf et al., 2008), and

to investigate the factors that encourage or hinder resigned teachers from returning

to teaching (Kersaint et al., 2007). TPB has been used especially in some research in

terms of implementing the constructivist approach in science education (Haney

et al., 1996; Beck et al., 2000; Haney & McArthur, 2002; Haney et al., 2002).

TPB is an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975;

Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) in which the intentions of an individual to perform a given

action are determined by a joint function of the attitude towards the behaviour

and the subjective norm. The attitude refers to the individual positive or negative

evaluations of performing that action*the personal component. The subject norm

includes individual perceptions on what others expect him/her to do in that

situation*the social component.

Inasmuch as not all behaviour is under volitional control, perceived behaviour

control (i.e. a third determinant), was added to the model to form TPB (Ajzen,

1991). Perceived behaviour control refers to the resources and the obstacles that

either facilitate or impede engagement in the behaviour. Perceived behaviour control

reflects individual perceptions on how behaviour is complicated by internal (i.e. skill,

ability and knowledge) and external (i.e. resources, opportunity and cooperation)

factors (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). According to TPB, intentions are determined by three

groups of factors: attitude, subject norm and perceived behaviour control. In

addition, perceived behaviour control could also directly determine behaviour when

the corresponding perceived behaviour control functions as ‘a partial substitute’

(Ajzen & Madden, 1986, p. 459) for actual control over factors that could interfere

with performance of the behaviour.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

In PE research, the theory has been applied to predict and understand teachers’

intention to teach PE (Martin et al., 2001; Faulkner et al., 2004; Martin & Kulinna,

2004), their teaching behaviour (Martin & Kulinna, 2005), and their psychological

perception (Kulinna et al., 2008). However, only a few studies used the qualitative

method, such as focus groups and semi-structured interviews, to examine the

potential determinants of intention or behaviour (Smith & Biddlem, 1999).

Therefore, in this present work, the qualitative method was applied to examine

whether the three groups of factors in TPB were sufficient to explain the TGfU

teaching behaviour of pre-service teachers.

Methodology

Participants and settings

Six pre-service teachers (four males and two females) who intended to use TGfU

during their teaching practicum agreed to participate in this study. These teachers

were in their third year of teacher education. All participants successfully attended a

four-week TGfU programme and participated in a three-week teaching practicum in

four elementary schools in Hong Kong, the area scope of this study. Detailed

background information on the six participants and the school contexts in which they

taught are presented below. Pseudonyms are used throughout this article.

School 1 (Dave). Dave is a 21-year-old male pre-service teacher. He was a player in

his university basketball team and has rich basketball and handball game experience.

He taught six classes from grades 2 to 6 with 36�42 pupils in each class.Dave taught

in a government-granted primary school located in the New Territories District

during his teaching practicum. The school was small and had 569 children spread

between 19 classes. The school campus had four basketball playgrounds, a soccer

playground, and a medium-sized auditorium for PE classes during rainy days. Dave

reported, ‘The space is big enough for my normal instruction’. The school employed

five other PE teachers, most of whom were middle-aged. According to Dave’s report,

most of them were ‘very hardworking, but all teach in a technique-oriented

approach’.

School 2 (Tobby and Winnie). Tobby, a male pre-service teacher, is 22 years old. He

is a highly skilled soccer and volleyball player. Tobby taught 12 classes with 35�42

pupils in each class during the course of this study. These classes included pupils

from grades 1 to 6. Winnie is a 21-year-old female pre-service teacher. Her major

sport is swimming, and she lacks relevant ball game experience. Winnie taught

13 classes from grades 1 to 5. There were 40�45 pupils in each class.

Tobby and Winnie taught in a private, English primary school. This school located

in the Kowloon District was a medium-sized school and had 966 pupils spread across

24 classes. Most of the pupils were from families with high socio-economic statuses.

The campus was built around a basketball playground and another small play-

ground, part of which was covered for PE classes during rainy days. According to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Tobby and Winnie’s reports, the space is insufficient for their instruction. The size of

the PE teaching and support staff in the school was larger than in most other schools

in Hong Kong, with eight PE teachers mostly in their youth. Tobby reported, ‘Most

of them use the technique-oriented teaching approach, but some of them know much

about the TGfU model’.

School 3 (Daniel and Penney). Daniel is a 21-year-old male pre-service teacher with

plenty of game experience in soccer and squash. He taught 14 classes ranging from

grades 2 to 5. There were 30�35 pupils in each class. Penney is a 22-year-old female

pre-service teacher. She is good at soccer and wood ball and has a rich soccer game

experience. Penney taught 12 classes from grades 1 to 6. There were 35�39 pupils in

each class.The school at which Daniel and Penney taught is a direct subsidiary

primary school located in Hong Kong Island. The school is a medium-sized with

around 798 pupils in 24 classes. It had three fields: a badminton playground, a

basketball playground, and a small auditorium that could be used by a PE class of

30 pupils for rainy days. Daniel felt that the space was sufficient for his teaching

except during rainy days. There were six PE teachers in this school. Based on Penney

and Daniel’s report, most of the PE teachers used traditional technique-oriented

approaches in their classes.

School 4 (Bobby). Bobby is a 22-year-old male pre-service teacher. His major sport

is swimming, and he lacks relevant ball game experience. Bobby taught 10 classes

ranging from grades 2 to 6. There were 35�40 pupils in each class.Bobby taught in a

religious, direct subsidiary primary school. The school located in the New Territories

District was large and had 1153 pupils spread across 30 classes. It had two basketball

playgrounds and one covered auditorium. There were six PE teachers in this school,

most of who were in their 20s and 30s. Bobby reported that the PE teachers were

aware of TGfU, and some of them applied this approach in their PE teaching.

Data collection

Documentation, systematic observation, and individual semi-structured interviews

were conducted during data collection.

A variety of documents and artefacts were collected to obtain background

information on the schools and participants’ teaching methods. These were used

to verify the data gathered through interviews, and provide a basis to triangulation.

Data included school documents, the teaching timetable of pre-service teachers and

their lesson plans.

The systematic observational method (Darst et al., 1989) was applied to collect

data on the teaching behaviours of the six pre-service teachers during their three-

week teaching practicum. The teachers agreed to use the TGfU approach to teach

three game lessons, with one lesson taught each week. However, they were allowed to

adopt other teaching approaches, should they change their minds, during the

teaching practicum. Three lessons for each participant were videotaped. Overall,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

18 lessons were gathered from the data collection process. Each lesson ranged from

30 to 40 minutes. Based on recent research on TGfU teaching behaviour

(Kuehl-Kitchen, 2005; Wright et al., 2006, 2009; McNeill et al., 2008), the three-

category observation system, including time management, questioning and feedback,

was utilised to assess the extent by which pre-service teachers had implemented the

TGfU model. According to previous studies, whereby treatment validation assessed

the appropriateness of teachers’ constructivist teaching behaviour in game classes

(French et al., 1996a,b; Kuehl-Kitchen, 2005), the majority (over 50%) of pupil

activity time, feedback and questions must be tactically oriented before the TGfU

approach can be considered a valid representation.

Two semi-structured interviews (Patton, 2002) were conducted for each partici-

pant at the beginning and end of the teaching practicum in order to investigate their

background information and intent to adopt TGfU, and identify the factors that

determine their intentions and behaviours towards TGfU. All interviews were

conducted at the researcher’s office and tape-recorded with the participants’ consent.

All interview data were transcribed to facilitate coding.

Data analysis

Analysis of observational data was completed by the researcher and a research

assistant. The teaching behaviours of all teachers were coded using three-category

observational instruments. Questioning and feedback were analysed with event

recording. Questions and feedback were measured with frequency and feedback

episodes. Descriptive statistics were unitised to calculate all variables (i.e. in

percentage). After the questions and feedback provided by the pre-service teachers

were analysed and categorised according to the operational definitions, the

percentages of specific questions and feedback were calculated by dividing the total

number of questions and feedback in each category by the total number of questions

and feedback during the three game classes multiplied by 100. The use of time was

analysed with interval recording. In this study, a 10-second interval was applied. The

unit of measurement for interval recording was frequency of intervals, with

percentage of intervals of observed behaviours used for data reporting. Descriptive

statistics were unitised to calculate all variables (i.e. in percentage). The percentage

of intervals were determined by dividing the total number of intervals at which

the behaviours occurred by the total number of intervals observed, and then

multiplying by 100 (Van der Mars, 1989). Inter-observer agreement reliability was

used to establish the trustworthiness of the observational data (Darst et al., 1989).

The researcher and the research assistant independently observed and coded all

18 lessons. They then met to compare results on a percentage of agreement basis.

The reliability of all lessons was checked at an agreement level of 0.87, which was

higher than the 80% inter-observer reliability criterion (Van der Mars, 1989).

Content analysis by Patton (2002) was adopted in this study. As prescribed, the

analysis of the interview data for each participant included the following steps:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

(1) the researcher and a research assistant independently identified raw data themes

for each participant. Raw data themes included the summary of the passage and

several keywords, phrases or sentences in the interview data that conveyed a specific

concept or idea. The researcher and research assistant discussed their respective raw

data themes until consensus was achieved; (2) Using content analysis, the researcher

identified common themes or patterns. The common themes emerged as first-order

themes; these corresponded to the terms used in the data or from other literature.

For example, the term ‘limited space for games’ originated from the raw data, whilst

the term ‘lack of TGfU conceptual knowledge’ was identified from a previous study

by Wright et al. (2006); (3) The first-order themes were categorised into the general

dimensions of behavioural intention, attitude, subjective norm and perceived

behaviour control. First-order themes that were not covered by these dimensions

were classified as the dimension ‘other factors’; and (4) The summaries from raw

data, first-order themes, general dimensions and categories were combined to form a

hierarchical thematic structure. During data collection and analysis, the trustworthi-

ness of interview data was established by using member checking (Merriam, 1998),

peer debriefing (Creswell, 2007), and triangulation (Patton, 2002).

Results

Behaviour intention and behaviour

An interviewee, Dave, reported that his strong intention to use the TGfU approach

did not change during the teaching practicum. He stated during the interview, ‘Yes,

I planned to adopt TGfU in all three ball game classes observed’. There were a total

of 105 minutes, with each lesson lasting 35 minutes. Activity time of pupils was less

than the teacher time on the organisation, demonstration, explanation, questioning

and closure (49.6%:50.4%). However, Dave spent 77.7% of activity time on game

play and 22.3% on skills practice. A total of 28 questions and 34 feedback statements

were identified from three TGfU lessons. Questions (53.1%) and feedback (64.7%)

were predominantly specific tactics-related. Results revealed that most lesson time

(over 50%), feedback and questions are related to tactics, which met the criteria for

valid TGfU representation.

The interview and lesson plan indicated that Tobby, Bobby and Penney continued

to have strong intention to use TGfU and adopted the TGfU model in all three game

classes observed. For example, Penney stated, ‘ . . .Yes, I decided to adopt TGfU in

my ball game classes during my teaching practicum. I wanted to confirm whether

this model is practical in primary schools’. However, observation data revealed that

their classes failed to meet the criteria considered for valid TGfU representation. In

Tobby’s case, a total of 105 minutes were allocated for three classes with 35 minutes

spent in each class. Tobby spent more class time on pupils’ activity compared with

teacher time, a ratio of 54.5%:45.5%. Most of the activity time was spent on game

play (87.4%). In all three classes, 17 questions were asked by Tobby. Accordingly,

52.9% of the questions were tactically oriented. A total of 29 feedback statements


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

were provided by Tobby and 48.5% of feedback statements were tactics-related. This

is lower than the criteria (50%) considered for valid TGfU representation. In

Bobby’s case, a total of 105 minutes were allocated for all three TGfU lessons, with

35 minutes spent on each lesson. Activity time was less than the time for the

organisation, demonstration, explanation and closure (47.3%:52.7%). However,

Bobby spent more activity time on game play than on skills practice (61.9%:38.1%).

Questions (11) and feedback (18) statements were identified from three TGfU

lessons. Questions (72.8%) and feedbacks (77.8%) presented by Bobby were related

to technique, which are not coherent with the criteria considered for valid TGfU

representation. In terms of Penney, a total of 105 minutes were allocated for three

TGfU lessons, with 35 minutes spent on each lesson. Observation data revealed that

organisation, explanation, demonstration and closure time exceeded pupils’ activity

time at a ratio of 56.4%:43.6%. In the process, 20.9% of activity time was spent on

game play, and 79.1% of activity time was spent on skills practice. Penney

accumulated 23 questions and 35 feedback statements; however, only 21.6%

questions and 30.7% feedback statements were related to tactics. This indicated

that the tactics-related time, questions and statements were not consistent with the

criteria considered for valid TGfU representation.

Winnie and Daniel changed their mind and adopted the technique-based

approach during the teaching practicum. For example, Daniel reported, ‘I tried

the TGfU model in the first week. However, I decided to adopt the technical

approach in the latter two weeks due to space constraints and bad weather’. As for

Winnie, lessons lasted 120 minutes, with 40 minutes spent on each class. Winnie

spent 63.1% of lesson time on activity, but only 36.9% on organisation, demonstra-

tion and closure. However, only 13.3% activity time was used for tactics. In the three

classes, 26 questions and 39 feedback statements were presented by Winnie;

however, only 4.3% of questions and 6.5% feedback were specifically tactics-related.

In Daniel’s case, 105 minutes were spent in three lessons, with 35 minutes allocated

for each lesson. Daniel spent 38.6% of lesson time on teachers’ instruction,

management, explanation, and closure, and 61.4% on pupil activity time. How-

ever, most of the activity time (82.7%) was spent on skills practice. In the three

lessons, 17 questions and 28 feedback statements were provided. Most of the

questions (95.5%) and feedback statements (89.2%) were specifically non-tactical

related. Consistent with the report of Winnie and Daniel, the observation results

revealed that lessons were given by a typical technique-based approach.

Attitude

Six pre-service teachers all expressed positive attitude towards TGfU; they perceived

their positive attitude as a fundamental motive for them to use the TGfU model.

They believed that TGfU could parlay fun into learning, improve pupils’ technique,

and help pupils to understand games. Tobby stated, ‘ . . .TGfU is beneficial for pupil

learning because it provides pupils opportunities to understand games in the game


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

context . . . It helps to take care of pupils’ individual difference. Thus, ‘I am all for it’.

Meanwhile, Penney commented, ‘There is no doubt that the idea of TGfU is good.

It makes learning fun and interesting . . .Most importantly, pupils do not need to

have any particular ability in the sport, or knowledge, but they are still included’.

Winnie likewise noted, ‘I like the TGfU style of teaching. TGfU encourages pupils to

think, to figure it out for themselves’.

Subjective norm

When asked about the individuals who influence their intention to adopt TGfU and

how these people influenced their intention, responses of the six participants were

different.

Two key factors related to Dave’s intention to adopt the TGfU model were

identified: cooperating teachers and pupils. Dave commented that he had received

support from his cooperating teacher, who offered useful suggestions and instil-

led confidence in him. He expressed the significance of the support when he stated,

‘ . . .My cooperating teacher encouraged me to use this model and gave me some

ideas on my lesson planning, game design, and classroom management’. Positive

response from pupils was identified also, and these reinforced Dave’s intention to

use TGfU. He explained, ‘After each TGfU class, some pupils asked me if we were

going to play a game in the next class. When I said yes, they were excited, which

motivated me to use TGfU’.

Tobby mentioned that he encountered opposition from his cooperating teacher,

but he was encouraged by the positive response of pupils. He perceived the

cooperating teacher as a negative source of support as a result of his preference for

the technique-based approach. Describing the cooperating teacher as being typically

technique-oriented, he reported, ‘Mr. Wong believed that the technique approach

was most suitable for pupil learning and was not willing to accept new

teaching ideas’. Tobby expressed his frustration with the guidance of his cooperating

teachers:

When I told my cooperating teacher that I will use TGfU, at first he agreed butlater, he changed his attitude by saying its application is impractical in PE.Although I planned to adopt TGfU before the teaching practicum, I was hesitantdue to my cooperating teacher’s negative attitude.

Despite opposition from his cooperating teacher, Tobby finally decided to employ

the TGfU approach in his game teaching after obtaining the positive response from

pupils. He noted:

. . . I saw the difference in pupils. Pupils actually knew there is a purpose when theylearn technique. This is because they want to win a point or put the ball in aspace . . .They not only improved their technique but also carried with them togames.

Bobby claimed that the support from his cooperating teacher and other school PE

teachers influenced his intention to adopt TGfU positively. When asked if he


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

perceived his cooperating teacher to be a supportive structure, Bobby reflected on

the query then described his cooperating teacher’s attitude toward his adoption of

TGfU as one that shifted ‘from neutral to supportive’. He stated, ‘ . . .He did not say

much about the model at the beginning, but after observing my TGfU teaching, he

was interested in this model and supported my use of it’. Additionally, Bobby

mentioned support from other PE teachers. He stated, ‘PE teachers in this school

know much about the TGfU model and some of them use it in their classes’. He

expounded on this point: ‘Possibly it is because most of the PE teachers in this school

are very young and can be updated with new teaching ideas’. Emphasising the

support from other PE teachers, Bobby stated, ‘ . . . I often communicate with other

PE teachers in this school. They provide me with some advice and help on my TGfU

instruction’.

Penney perceived cooperating teachers, pupils and university supervisors as the

referents who can aid in integrating TGfU with instruction. As Penney reported, her

cooperating teacher supported her model experiment and encouraged her to try out

new instruction ideas. She stated, ‘ . . .My cooperating teacher is quite interested in

this model and asked me something about TGfU. He said he will use this approach

in his future teaching’. Positive comments from pupils prompted Penney to use

TGfU in her classes: ‘ . . .Pupils are active and they know how to move on the court,

like setting up themselves appropriately for attack or defence in class. I had a certain

feeling of success’. Moreover, Penney identified a university supervisor who was a

strong TGfU supporter. Penney stated, ‘My supervisor loves the idea of

TGfU . . .She encouraged me to try out this approach. Her support reinforced my

intention to use TGfU and improve my TGfU instruction’.

Meanwhile, in the case of Winnie, her intention to use TGfU changed

immediately on entering field teaching because of opposition from the cooperating

teacher. Winnie revealed that her cooperating teacher preferred traditional techni-

que-based teaching approaches. She further expressed frustration with this lack of

support. Winnie commented:

My cooperating teacher felt that TGfU would not be suitable for primary schoolpupils. His opinions are very important because he grades my teaching performanceduring practicum. I would rather use the traditional approach because I do notwant to receive low marks from my cooperating teachers.

Daniel attempted to apply TGfU in the first week of teaching practicum and

changed his mind to use the technique approach during the following two weeks.

Despite this, he received support from his cooperating teacher and positive response

from pupils. Daniel reported that his cooperating teacher was supportive of his use of

TGfU. He stated, ‘My cooperating teacher supported my use of TGfU . . .He is

interested in this model, although he does not know much about it. He said that the

TGfU model fits well with the commitment to pupil-centred learning in the school’.

Daniel added that although he conducted TGfU classes only in the first week, seeing

his pupils being deeply engaged in the activity impressed him considerably. He

noted, ‘Pupils are excited and they feel happiness from games. After the TGfU class,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

some pupils said, ‘‘Wow, this is cool! We’re doing something different’’. It seems that

TGfU is worth trying’.

Perceived behaviour control

When asked about what facilitators (and barriers) that made it easy (or difficult) for

him to include the TGfU model in his instruction, Dave identified TGfU conceptual

knowledge, space and equipment as factors that enhanced his actual TGfU teaching.

Dave attributed his confidence in teaching to his deep understanding of the TGfU

approach. He stated:

. . . I read books and watch teaching demonstrations and learned that not only gameforms should be applied but also Q&A session and feedback on tactics are essentialelements in TGfU teaching. This is helpful for my successful teaching of TGfU.

As far as Dave was concerned, space and equipment were not a major problem. He

revealed, ‘The field in school is spacious and the equipment are sufficient, which

offered much benefit and freedom for my planning and organisation of the TGfU

classes, thereby saving time of organisation and management’. However, Dave

expressed his frustration in classroom management. As a result of difficulties in

classroom management and concern over the safety of his pupils, Dave did not

include the TGfU model in all game classes in teaching practicum. Commenting on

this, he said:

Discipline is a problem in TGfU teaching. Pupils run around the playground,making it hard to manage the classroom . . .A more serious matter I am worriedabout is safety. Thus, I only use the TGfU approach in classes with good classroomdiscipline.

Tobby perceived equipment and game knowledge as facilitators of his actual TGfU

teaching. He revealed that equipment was not a problem in his teaching. He stated,

‘ . . . I do not need to consider the equipment provision because those I need are

available in the equipment room’. Game knowledge likewise helped Tobby in

implementing the TGfU approach particularly in lesson planning. He noted,

‘ . . .Game knowledge offers me ideas on the design and modification of games.

I do not need to spend time on searching for information and learn tactics’.

However, Tobby noted that the limited space brought problems in classroom

management and organisation. As he commented, ‘ . . .There is only one basketball

playground in the school. When close to 40 pupils are moving in a small space, it

becomes impossible to play games and maintain the normal organisation’. Class-

room discipline was another barrier to TGfU implementation. He stated, ‘ . . .Pupils

ran around the field, which placed high requirements on classroom management.

I had to spend much time on the classroom management but little time on pupil

activity and game play’. Tobby linked his failure to implement TGfU with his limited

understanding of the model. He admitted that he was confused with certain TGfU

concepts, which caused uncertainty on whether the approach he used corresponded


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

to TGfU. He stated, ‘I am not sure what the standard TGfU class is . . . I watch

games and pick up questions and provide feedback based on what pupils are doing. I

did not think about whether these questions and feedback were tactics-related or

technique-related’.

Bobby highlighted class duration, equipment, space and TGfU conceptual

understanding as factors that facilitate or inhibit TGfU implementation. As opposed

to other participants, Tobby reported that class duration, equipment and space were

not problematic for his teaching. Addressing these issues, he revealed:

. . .Forty minutes are appropriate for a TGfU class. I only made a short explanationfor game rules and tactics. Majority of the class time was spent on pupils’ activity.

. . .Two basketball playgrounds are spacious for 35�40 pupils to play games. Inrainy days, there is a field with cover and some modified basketball stands offeredfor PE class. Therefore, I could use the TGfU approach in my classes despite therainy season during the course of our teaching practicum.

With sufficient resources, Tobby finally attributed his failure to implement TGfU to

his limited knowledge of the model. Tobby admitted that he did not realise the

importance of the Q&A session and feedbacks in the TGfU model, which resulted in

his failure to implement TGfU as a whole. He claimed, ‘I am not used to asking

pupils questions and am not sure what kind of questions and feedbacks should be

presented. I just told them what and how to do the activities’.

Similar to majority of the other pre-service teachers, Penney admitted experien-

cing problems in terms of space while attempting to use the TGfU model. However,

Penney did not consider it a real issue, which could have prevented her from carrying

out initial plans. She expressed confidence in her ability to modify the equipment and

adapt her teaching strategies to maximize the available space. Citing an example,

Penney stated:

. . .The space is limited but the problems could be resolved by teachers’ effectiveuse of space. I organised pupils as two groups. When one group plays games, theother group does skills practice. Then these two groups switch with each other. As aresult, every pupil has a chance to play games.

Penney attributed the problems she encountered mainly to low skill level of pupils.

Essentially, she believed that before integrating games, pupils must first learn

basketball skills through repetitive drills. She stated, ‘In the first week, I found pupils

cannot pass and catch a ball smoothly. Games cannot be processed because of pupils’

low skill level. Thus I spent much time practicing their skills’. Short class duration

was perceived as another barrier for the actual teaching of TGfU. Penney

commented, ‘Thirty-five minutes is not enough for a TGfU class. After explaining

game rules and tactics, demonstrating how to play games, and grouping, there is little

time left for game play.

Meanwhile, Winnie and Daniel changed their intention and used the technique-

based approach in teaching practicum after experiencing situational constraints that

hindered their actual implementation of the TGfU approach.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Winnie reported that space constraints and a large class size were hindrances to

her intention to adopt TGfU. She revealed:

Normally, there is only one basketball ground for PE class. Obviously, this is toosmall for 30�40 pupils to play games. Furthermore, sometimes, we have to sharethe limited field with other class. This reinforced my decision to use technique-based approach in my PE classes.

For his part, Daniel stated his decision to use the traditional technique-based

approach in the latter two classes as a result of limited space and poor weather. He

explained:

. . . It happened to be in a rainy season during our teaching practicum. Theauditorium provided for PE class in rainy day was too small for a class of pupils toplay games. This prevented me from implementing the original plan of using TGfUin the latter two lessons observed.

Discussion

Based on the results, pre-service teachers adopted different teaching approaches

(TGfU or technique-based approach) due to influence of various factors (e.g.

attitude of cooperating teachers and situational constraints). This may indicate that

their adaptation to the school setting was appropriate and effective. However, only

the lessons provided by one pre-service teacher (Dave) are coherent with the criteria

for valid TGfU representation. This is consistent with the research findings of

McNeill et al. (2008) and Wright et al. (2009), who reported several problems

encountered by pre-service teachers in Singapore in implementing TGfU in the

school setting.

Current research confirmed the assertions of TPB, suggesting that intention and

perceived behaviour control were valid predictors of TGfU classroom action by pre-

service teachers. For example, the lessons provided by Dave met the criteria for valid

TGfU representation. The interview and his lesson plan revealed that he had strong

intention to use TGfU; he mostly conveyed positive perceived behaviour control

components (e.g. sufficient resources and space). Although lack of classroom

discipline partially hindered his TGfU teaching, effect was limited. Secondly,

although pre-service teachers such as Tobby, Bobby, and Penney aspired to adopt

TGfU during teaching practicum, their teaching did not meet the criteria for valid

TGfU representation because of negative perceived behaviour control components.

Finally, Winnie and Daniel had low intention to use TGfU, which directly resulted in

their adoption of the technique-oriented approach. Additionally, a set of factors

influencing the intention and subsequent action of pre-service teachers were

identified. Multiple influencing factors were identified in this study: attitudes of

pre-service teachers towards TGfU; cooperating teachers, university supervisors,

other PE schoolteachers and pupils; space; class duration; equipment; class size;

TGfU conceptual understanding; pre-service teachers’ game experience; skill levels

of pupils; and classroom discipline. Although the qualitative method was conducted

with the aim of discovering more variables to explain behaviours, data analysis


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

validates that all these factors are covered by the three TPB constructs. Based on the

discussion provided earlier, TPB was sufficient for explaining teaching behaviours of

pre-service teachers towards TGfU. This is consistent with the findings of other

studies, which stated that TPB could be applied to support teachers’ intentions and

behaviours towards the constructivist approach (Beck et al., 2000; Haney &

McArthur, 2002).

Attitude of pre-service teachers towards TGfU is one of the determinants of their

intention to use TGfU and subsequent behaviours towards TGfU. Overall, all pre-

service teachers possessed positive attitude towards TGfU. This was not surprising,

given the purposeful sampling. Six pre-service teachers, who expressed high

intention to use TGfU before the teaching practicum, were selected; this raised

the possibilities of possessing positive attitude towards TGfU.

Subjective norms, including cooperating teachers, university supervisors, other

school PE teachers and pupils, were perceived as predictors of the intent to

incorporate TGfU in the classes of pre-service teachers. This agrees with the

research by Rovegno (1993), Rovegno and Bandhauer (1997) and Wright et al.

(2006), which argued that cooperating teachers, pupils, colleagues and teacher

educators facilitate or inhibit the implementation of the constructivist approach by

pre-service teachers. Cooperating teachers and pupils were identified as the two

major components in this study, as majority of the participants highlighted the effect

of cooperating teachers and pupils on their adoption of TGfU. Based on findings,

although majority of the cooperating teachers were unfamiliar with TGfU, they

supported the pre-service teachers’ use of the model (i.e. Dave, Penney, Tobby and

Daniel). Furthermore, several cooperating teachers expressed interest in the model

also and stated their intent to try it in future instruction after observing pre-service

teachers’ conduct of TGfU (i.e. Bobby and Penney). Clearly, adoption of TGfU by

pre-service teachers was influenced by cooperating teachers, which in turn, may

influence cooperating teachers’ learning of new ideas and teaching approach.

Further research regarding the mutual beneficial relationship between pre-service

teachers and cooperating teachers in TGfU is necessary. As for the response from

pupils, research findings indicated positive response of pupils to the TGfU model;

this reinforced the intention of pre-service teachers to use TGfU in their PE class.

This confirms the powerful influence of pupils on teachers’ decisions, as demon-

strated by previous studies (Fullan, 1999; Guskey, 2002). In this study, only two pre-

service teachers mentioned university supervisors and other school PE teachers.

Limited contact among university supervisors, other school PE teachers employed by

the school and pre-service teachers during the teaching practicum may be a plausible

explanation for this. As Bobby reported, ‘The university supervisor only goes to the

school once each week to observe my teaching’.

In terms of perceived behaviour control, Haney and McArthur (2002) applied

TPB to examine constructivist beliefs and classroom practice in science education.

They noted an apparent lack of concern regarding perceived behaviour control for

pre-service teachers to implement a constructivist approach. One explanation is that

pre-service teachers are not fully aware of the perceived (or real) lack of support


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

needed to implement innovative ideas (Haney & McArthur, 2002). However, the

present study noted that perceived behaviour control is important in the actual

teaching of TGfU by pre-service teachers. Research results revealed that perceived

behaviour control has contributed to one pre-service teacher’s (Dave) teaching which

met the criteria for valid TGfU representation. Furthermore, four out of six pre-

service teachers’ teaching failed to meet the criteria mainly because of the perceived

behaviour control components (i.e. Tobby, Bobby, Penney and Daniel). One

plausible explanation for the difference between these two studies (i.e. PE vs science

education) is that PE class places a higher requirement on space and equipment

compared with other subject disciplines.

Previous studies have reported that limited space and equipment, large class size,

short class duration, lack of knowledge in constructivist teaching, lack of game

experience among teachers and pupil skills resulted in failure of PE teachers to

implement the constructivist approach (Rovegno, 1993; Rovegno & Bandhauer,

1997; Howarth, 2005; Wright et al., 2006). In line with these studies, perceived

behaviour control factors including space, class size, class duration, equipment,

TGfU conceptual understanding and pupil skill levels were identified as facilitators

or inhibitors of the teaching behaviours towards TGfU by pre-service teachers in this

present work. School context (space, class size and class duration) and the TGfU

conceptual knowledge played a key role, given that most of the participants have

reported the effects of these factors. For most pre-service teachers, equipment was

sufficient for TGfU classes, whereas limited space, large class size and the short

class duration influenced pre-service teachers’ TGfU teaching negatively. Inasmuch

as Hong Kong is a city with a large population and limited space, most of the primary

and secondary schools cannot provide sufficient space for PE classes. Although

limitations of space and class duration are evident, it is worth noting that lack of

classroom experience may have prevented pre-service teachers from effectively using

time and space (Chen, 2002). As Penney suggested in the interview, ‘ . . .Although it

(limited space) caused difficulties for the instruction, I felt that the problems could

be resolved by teachers’ effective use of space’. Nevertheless, pre-service teachers in

universities are provided with micro (peer) teaching opportunities to teach in ‘ideal’

settings that do not match real school situations. This may negatively influence the

teaching behaviours of pre-service teachers towards TGfU. Apart from school

context, conceptual understanding of TGfU was another major barrier in their

effective teaching behaviours. Although a 4-week TGfU programme was provided by

the university to pre-service teachers, the programme seems to be insufficient in

preparing them for the effective use of TGfU. Moreover, classroom discipline is a

unique predictor of the teachers’ behaviours towards the constructivist approach.

There are two possible reasons for this peculiarity, as shown in this study. First, pre-

service teachers place greater importance on classroom management by citing it

often as the most important problem they face (Evertson & Smithey, 2006). Second,

because of cultural differences, teachers in Asian countries are more concerned

about pupil discipline compared with their counterparts in the West (Shin & Koh,

2007).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Conclusion and implication

Three conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, implementation of TGfU by

pre-service teachers is problematic. Second, factors influencing teaching behaviours

towards TGfU include pre-service teachers’ attitude towards TGfU, cooperating

teachers, university supervisors, other PE schoolteachers, pupils, space, class

duration, equipment, class size, TGfU conceptual understanding and classroom

discipline. These factors are covered by the three TPB constructs, indicating that

TPB can sufficiently explain the behaviours of pre-service teachers towards TGfU.

Third, based on research results, perceived behaviours control factors are the most

significant predictors of teaching behaviours of pre-service teachers towards TGfU.

According to TPB, pre-service teachers’ teaching behaviours towards TGfU

are influenced by attitude (teachers’ attitude towards TGfU), subjective norms

(cooperating teachers, university supervisors, other PE teachers and pupils), and

perceived behaviour control (space, class duration, equipment, class size, TGfU

conceptual understanding, and classroom discipline). Thus, to improve teaching

behaviours of pre-service teachers towards TGfU, three TPB components must be

strengthened.

Attitudes and subjective norms are all connected to the attitudes of pre-service

teachers, cooperating teachers, other school PE teachers and university supervisors

towards TGfU. Therefore, teacher education should focus on developing positive

attitudes towards the classroom application of TGfU. Based on the interviews,

several cooperating teachers and other PE teachers do not support the use of TGfU

because they are not aware of the model. Liu (2004) also reported that the TGfU

programme for in-service teachers in Hong Kong is incomplete. Given this context,

more TGfU-related training programmes should be provided to in-service teachers

to help them develop their knowledge of TGfU. Moreover, results indicated that

several in-service teachers are reluctant to accept TGfU because they are resistant to

change. According to Richardson and Placier (2001), teachers often resist change

mandated or suggested by others, but they do engage in change that they initiate.

Hence, there is a need to provide more interesting information or successful teaching

demonstration to in-service teachers to stimulate the interest of in-service teachers.

In addition, based on the mutual influence between pre-service and in-service

teachers, a professional community of pre-service teachers, cooperating teachers,

school PE teachers and university supervisors should be established to enhance

communication on new teaching ideas. Meanwhile, several cooperating teachers

deemed the TGfU model impractical in the school setting, resulting in their negative

attitudes towards TGfU. As such, pre-service and in-service teachers should be given

the opportunity to develop and implement TGfU in their classes. Furthermore,

teachers should be involved in positive experiences that illustrate TGfU implemen-

tation. Once teachers experience the successful implementation of TGfU in their

classes, they will be more likely to adopt it.

Aside from attitudes and subjective norms, perceived behaviour control is an

important TPB construct influencing teaching behaviours of pre-service teachers


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

towards TGfU. Most pre-service teachers have mentioned space, equipment and

class size as major constraints. The school environmental context must be developed

to become more positive towards the TGfU teaching approach, thereby facilitating

TGfU integration. Limited class time is one of the other concerns raised by pre-

service teachers in the implementation of TGfU. Several pre-service teachers may

feel that pupils require too much time to develop an understanding of tactics and

game rules. Although we should consider increasing class time, improving the ability

of pre-service teachers to clarify tactics and to manage class time efficiently and

effectively is more important.

References

Ajzen, I. (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour, in: J. Kuhl &

J. Beckman (Eds) Action control: from cognition to behaviour (New York, Springer-Verlag), 11�39.

Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behaviour, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision

Processes, 50, 179�211.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour (Englewood

Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc).

Ajzen, I. & Madden, T. J. (1986) Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: attitudes, intentions, and

perceived behavioural control, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453�474.

Allison, S. & Thorpe, R. (1997) A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching

games within physical education. A skills approach versus a games for understanding

approach, British Journal of Physical Education, 28(3), 9�13.

Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory (Englewood

Cliffs, NJ, Longman).

Beck, J., Czerniak, C. & Lumpe, A. (2000) An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs regarding the

implementation of constructivism in their classrooms, Journal of Science Teacher Education,

11(4), 323�343.

Becker, M. H. (Ed.) (1974) The health belief model: origins and correlates in psychological theory,

Health Education Monographs, 2, 336�353.

Blomqvist, M., Luhtanen, P. & Laakso, L. (2001) Comparison of two types of instruction in

badminton, Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 6(2), 139�155.

Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982) A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school,

Bulletin of Physical Education, 10, 9�16.

Chen, W. (2002) Six expert and pupil teachers’ views and implementation of constructivist

teaching using a movement approach to physical education, The Elementary School Journal,

102(3), 256�272.

Cook, L. S., Smagorinsky, P., Fry, P., Konopak, B. & Moore, C (2002) Problems in developing a

constructivist approach to teaching: one teacher’s transition from teacher preparation to

teaching, The Elementary School Journal, 102(5), 389�413.

Cothran, D. J. (2001) Curricular change in physical education: success stories from the front line,

Sport, Education & Society, 6(1), 67�79.

Creswell, J. W. (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research method: choosing among five approaches

(2nd edn) (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

Darst, P., Zakrajsek, D. & Mancini, V. (1989) Analyzing physical education and sport instruction

(Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).

De Kock, A., Sleegers, P. & Voeten, M. (2004) New learning and the classification of learning

environments in secondary education, Review of Educational Research, 74(2), 141�170.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994) Constructing scientific

knowledge in the classroom, Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5�12.

Ennis, C. D. (2006) Curriculum: forming and reshaping the vision of physical education in a high

need, low demand world of schools, Quest, 58, 41�59.

Evertson, C. M. & Smithey, M. W. (2006) Mentoring effects on proteges’ classroom practice: an

experimental field study, The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 294�305.

Faulkner, G., Reeves, C. & Chedzoy, S. (2004) Nonspecialist, preservice primary-school teachers:

predicting intentions to teach physical education, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

23, 200�215.

Fensham, P., Gunstone, R. & White, R. (Eds) (1994) The content of science (London, Falmer Press).

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: an introduction to theory and

research (Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley).

Freiberg, J. (1999) Beyond behaviourism: changing the classroom management paradigm (Boston, MA,

Allyn & Bacon).

French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Rink, J. E., Taylor, K. & Hussey, K. (1996a) The effects of a 3-week

unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of

ninth-grade pupils, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 418�438.

French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K. & Jones, J (1996b) The effects of a 6-week

unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of

ninth-grade pupils, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 439�463.

Fullan, M. (1999) Change forces: the sequel (London, Falmer).

Griffin, L. L., Brooker, R. & Patton, K. (2005) Working towards legitimacy: two decades of

teaching games for understanding, Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 213�223.

Guskey, T. R. (2002) Professional development and teacher change, Teacher and Teaching: Theory

and Practice, 8(3/4), 381�391.

Ha, A. S., Butler, J. I., Pratt, D. D. & Collins, J. B. (2008) Teaching games for understanding: a

study of Hong Kong prospective physical education teachers’ beliefs, intentions and actions

in teaching, paper presented at the 4th International Conference 2008*Understanding Games:

Enhancing Learning in Teaching and Coaching, Vancouver, Canada, May 14�17, 2008.

Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M. & Lumpe, A. T. (1996) Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the

implementation of science education reform strands, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

33, 971�993.

Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M. & Egan, V. (2002) From beliefs to actions: the beliefs

and actions of teachers implementing change, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3),

171�187.

Haney, J. J. & McArthur, J. (2002) Four cases studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs

concerning constructivist teaching practices, Science Education, 86(6), 783�802.

Howarth, K. (2005) Introducing the teaching games for understanding model in teacher education

programmes, in: L. Griffin & J. Bulter (Eds) Teaching games for understanding: theory, research

and practice (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics), 91�105.

Huba, M. E. & Freed, J. E. (2000) Learner-centred assessment on college campuses (Boston, MA, Allyn

and Bacon).

Jonassen, D. H. & Land, S. (2000) The theoretical foundations of learning environments (Mahwah, NJ,

Erlbaum).

Kersaint, G., Lewis, J., Potter, R. & Meisels, G. (2007) Why teachers leave: factors that influence

retention and resignation, Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 775�794.

Kirk, D. & MacDonald, D. (1998) Situated learning in physical education, Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, 17, 376�387.

Kuehl-Kitchen, J. M. (2005) Pre-service teachers’ experiences planning, implementing, and assessing the

tactical (TGfU) model. Unpublished dissertation, Florida State University.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Kulinna, P. H., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J. J., Cothran, D. & Faust, R. (2008) The influence of

professional development on teachers’ psychosocial perceptions of teaching a health-related

physical education curriculum, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 292�307.

Light, R. (2002) The social nature of games: Australian pre-service primary teachers’ first

experiences of teaching games for understanding, European Physical Education Review, 8(3),

286�304.

Light, R. (2003) Pre-service primary teachers’ responses to TGfU in an Australian university: no

room for heroes, in: J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo & R. Nastaasi (Eds) Teaching game for

understanding in physical education and sport (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics), 67�75.

Little, J. W. (1993) Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform,

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129�151.

Liu, Y. K. (2004) Teaching games for understanding: implementation in Hong Kong context.

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education

for Understanding. Australia, 53�61.

Martin, J. J. & Kulinna, P. H. (2004) Self-efficacy theory and the theory of planned behaviour:

teaching physically active physical education classes, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,

75, 288�297.

Martin, J. J. & Kulinna, P. H. (2005) A social cognitive perspective of physical-activity related

behaviour in physical education, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 265�282.

Martin, J. J., Kulinna, P. H., Eklund, R. C. & Reed, B. (2001) Determinants of teachers’ intentions

to teach physically active physical education classes, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

20, 129�143.

McNeill, M., Fry, J., Wright, S., Tan, S. & Rossi, T. (2008) Structuring time and questioning to

achieve tactical awareness in games lessons, Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 13(3),

231�249.

Merriam, S. (1998) Qualitative research and case study application in education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Metzler, M. W. (2000) Instructional models for physical education (Boston, MA, Allyn and Bacon).

Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edn) (Thousand Oaks, CA,

Sage).

Penney, D. & Jess, M. (2004) Physical education and physically active lives: a lifelong approach to

curriculum development, Sport, Education and Society, 9(2), 269�287.

Piaget, J. (1970) Biology and knowledge: an essay on the relations between organic regulations and

cognitive processes (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).

Prawat, R. S. (1992) Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist perspective,

American Journal of Education, 100, 354�395.

Richardson, V. (1997) Constructivist teacher education: building new understandings (Washington,

DC, Falmer Press).

Richardson, V. & Placier, P. (2001) Teacher change, in: V. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of research

on teaching (4th edn) (Washington, DC, American Educational Research Association),

905�950.

Rink, J. E. (Ed.) (1996) Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games: introduction,

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 397�398.

Rink, J. E., French, K. E. & Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1996) Foundations for the learning and instruction

of sport and games, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 399�417.

Rodriguez, A. J. & Berryman, C. (2002) Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for

understanding in diverse classrooms: a beginning teacher’s journey, American Educational

Research Journal, 4(39), 1017�1045.

Rosenfeld, M. & Rosenfeld, S. (2006) Understanding teacher responses to constructivist learning

environments: challenges and resolutions, Science Education, 90, 385�399.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Rovegno, I. (1993) Content-knowledge acquisition during undergraduate teacher education:

overcoming cultural templates and learning through practice, American Educational Research

Journal, 30, 611�642.

Rovegno, I. & Bandhauer, D. (1997) Norms of the school culture that facilitated teacher adoption

and learning of a constructivist approach to physical education, Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 16(4), 401�425.

Shin, S. & Koh, M.-S. (2007) A cross-cultural study of teachers’ beliefs and strategies on classroom

behaviour management in urban American and Korean school systems, Education and Urban

Society, 39(2), 286�309.

Shireen Desouza, J. & Czerniak, C. (2003) Study of science teachers’ attitude towards and beliefs

about collaborative reflective practice, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(2), 75�96.

Slavin, R. E. (1994) Educational psychology: theory and practice (4th edn) (Boston, MA, Allyn and

Bacon).

Smith, R. A. & Biddlem, S. (1999) Attitudes and exercise adherence: test of the theories of

reasoned action and planned behaviour, Journal of Sports Science, 17, 269�281.

Stanovich, P. & Jordan, A. (1998) Canadian teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about inclusive

education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms, The Elementary

School Journal, 98(3), 221�238.

Taylor, E. W. (2007) An updated transformative learning theory: a critical review of the empirical

research (1999�2005), International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26, 173�191.

Van der Mars, H. (1989) Systematic observation: an introduction, in: P. W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek

& V. H. Mancini (Eds) Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (Champaign, IL,

Human Kinetics), 3�17.

Van der Schaaf, M., Stokking, K. & Verloop, N. (2008) Teacher beliefs and teacher behaviour in

portfolio assessment, Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1691�1704.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological process (trans. M. Cole.

London, Harvard University Press).

Wang, C. L. & Ha, A. S. (2009) Pre-service teachers’ perception of teaching games for

understanding: a Hong Kong perspective, European Physical Education Review, 15(3), 51�72.

Wang, C. L. & Ha, A. S. (Forthcoming) Factors influencing pre-service teachers’ perception of

teaching games for understanding: a constructivist perspective’, Sport, Education & Society.

Windschitl, M. (2002) Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: an

analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers,

Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131�175.

Wright, S., McNeill, M. & Fry, J. (2009) The tactical approach to teaching games from teaching,

learning and mentoring perspectives, Sport, Education & Society, 14(2), 223�244.

Wright, S., McNeill, M., Fry, J., Tan, S., Tan, C. & Schempp, P. (2006) Implication of pupil

teachers’ implementation of a curricular innovation, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

25, 310�328.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 1

2:56

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Documents

The theory of planned behaviour: predicting pre-service teachers' teaching behaviour towards a constructivist approach