Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Hospitality,Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 125–130
1473-83
doi:10.1
n Corr
E-m1 Te
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste
Practice Papers
Evaluating sport psychology teaching through action research
C.J. Wakefield n, J.W. Adie 1
Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, L16 9JD, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords:
Sport
Action research
Students
Psychology
76/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. A
016/j.jhlste.2012.02.014
esponding author. Tel.: þ44 151 2913715.
ail addresses: [email protected] (C.J. Wake
l.: þ44 151 2913442.
a b s t r a c t
In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on action research (Norton, 2009),
accompanied by an increasing focus on staff evaluation. This paper aimed to evaluate a
single teaching session of a new member to the profession. Forty-three second year
undergraduate students responded to a standard teaching evaluation form and the
‘Stop, Start, Continue’ method (Angelo & Cross, 1993) of evaluation. The results revealed
that students were particularly concerned with issues surrounding interaction, rele-
vance to assessment and practical work. The findings are discussed in terms of their
implications for teaching practice
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Over recent years, the concept of pedagogical action research has become prevalent, with many Higher EducationInstitutions attempting to gain feedback on the student experience. Action research is a ‘‘dual focus on practice andtheory’’ (Norton, 2009, p. 44) with practitioners completing the research. In the case of Higher Education, this would meanthe University teacher collating evidence in reference to their own teaching practice. By doing so, action research candirectly benefit the teacher by serving as a powerful tool to encourage modification of one’s own practice with the view topromoting optimal learning experiences for his or her students (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Moreira, 2009). Drawing from anaction research approach (Norton, 2009), the current study aimed to discern the quality of, and potential modifications to,teaching practices used by a new teacher to the profession.
According to Biggs and Tang (2007), the promotion of a ‘‘deeper’’ level of learning among student populations (i.e.,developing critical thinkers) is a function of teachers (and especially that of new staff) continually monitoring, evaluatingand reflecting upon their own practice. To corroborate this assumption, D’Andrea and Gosling (2005) pointed out that adaily requirement for all educators is to critically reflect on their own teaching practice. One evaluative method tofacilitate reflection and ensuing teaching quality is by obtaining regular student feedback.
Student evaluations have emerged as an appropriate (and to some degree expected) strategy for gaining feedback toindicate teaching quality (Nuemann, 2000). A review by Wachtel (1998) highlighted evidence both in support of and inopposition to the use of student evaluations. This review indicated that continual improvement in teaching can besupported by regular student evaluations. A number of variables have been used to indicate teaching quality includingstudent achievement, student satisfaction, student enjoyment, and promotion of shared attitudes between teacher andstudents (cf. Wachtel, 1998). For the purposes of this study, teaching quality refers to enhancement of the studentexperience and perceived satisfaction of the teaching quality amongst students. It is important to note here that teaching
ll rights reserved.
field), [email protected] (J.W. Adie).
C.J. Wakefield, J.W. Adie / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 125–130126
quality and satisfied students are not necessarily closely related and that instances may occur where large discrepanciesare apparent between the two. For example, with tasks which are not enjoyable but necessary to learning anddevelopment. However, offering students an opportunity to voice their opinions and addressing such concerns canfacilitate subsequent teaching practices (Dunrong & Fan, 2009) by allowing future teaching styles and content to be driven,in part, by the feedback surrounding student satisfaction. Several methods of teaching evaluation exist in the feedbackliterature with student feedback questionnaires the most widely used (Kember, Lueng, & Kwan, 2002). Standard studentevaluations have seldom shown support for the expected relationship between perceptions of teaching quality and studentachievement (Pounder, 2008). Another way of conducting student evaluation is by employing the ‘Stop Start Continue’method, based on the one minute paper (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Wilson, 1986). Thus, the present study will employ acombination of both conventional and contemporary student evaluation methods (i.e., a standard University evaluationform, and the ‘‘Stop, Start, Continue’’ approach) to promote ‘‘learning in action’’.
According to Biggs and Tang (2007), ‘‘learning in action’’ (i.e., receiving feedback during actual teaching) refers not onlyto student learning, or even learning about teaching, but rather to learning about oneself as a teacher and learning how touse reflection to become a better teacher. With this in mind, the present study served two purposes. First, it applied twotypes of student evaluation methods relating to a teaching session in order to ascertain which elements of teaching wereeffective and which were not. Second, the study aimed to provide a critical reflection of perceived teaching areas thatwarrant necessary changes for future practice.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Forty three male and female students volunteered for the study from a University in the Northwest of England, UK.Participants completed the evaluation measures following a Level 2 undergraduate Sport Psychology teaching session. Allparticipants provided informed written consent and were assured that all data would remain anonymous and confidential.
2.2. Measures
Standard Evaluation Form. A standardised module evaluation form of the authors’ institution was adapted tospecifically relate to the teaching session in question. Participants rated the teaching session across eight dimensions (i.e.,session organisation, content of teaching, content of practical work, relevance of practical work to the topic, developedunderstanding of the topic, relevance to assessment and overall satisfaction of the session) along a scale of ‘‘not satisfied’’,‘‘satisfied’’ or ‘‘very satisfied’’.
Stop, Start, Continue Form (Angelo & Cross, 1993). This qualitative method of evaluation asks participants to indicatewhich elements of teaching (including style, pace, delivery) they would benefit from the teacher stopping, starting orcontinuing such practice. According to Norton (2009), this form of evaluation is a useful supplement in action research toprovide expansion on conventional close-ended questionnaire evaluations (i.e., the standard evaluation method).
2.3. Procedure
The chosen teaching session focussed on the Sport Psychology topic of ‘‘attribution’’ and was delivered with promotingstudent engagement in mind. Following the session, interested participants were invited to complete both evaluationmeasures (i.e., standard evaluation form; Stop, Start, Continue form) and return them to a box at the front of the room.Aligned with the recommended time frame for completing (teacher) evaluations (Angelo & Cross, 1993), participantscompleted both forms inside of the allotted 20 min.
The procedure was repeated by an independent observer. Consistent with the pedagogical literature (Backer, 2008), acolleague in the same subject area (i.e., Sport Psychology) was recruited to observe the session and provide feedback toenable and assist with reflection. After the analysis was completed, the interpretation of the findings was checked forconsistency with both participant groups (i.e., the students and observer).
3. Results
3.1. Standard evaluation
Students. Fig. 1 presents the percentage satisfaction scores of each teaching dimension from the standard evaluationform. Participants reported being ‘satisfied’ (mean percentage¼28.57) or ‘very satisfied’ (mean percentage¼71.42) acrossall eight dimensions. In other words, no students reported being ‘‘unsatisfied’’ with the teaching session. The least positiveresponse was for the evaluation dimension ‘‘relevance to assessment’’, scoring 54.8% very satisfactory and 45.2%satisfactory.
Fig. 1. Percentage satisfaction scores based on the standard evaluation.
C.J. Wakefield, J.W. Adie / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 125–130 127
Observer. The session was rated as ‘very satisfactory’ on all of the elements, except for ‘relevance to assessment’ whichwas rated as ‘satisfactory’. This largely mirrored the views of the students, who also rated ‘‘relevance to assessment’’ aslowest (54.8% very satisfied, 45.2% satisfied).
3.2. Stop, Start, Continue evaluation
Students. The qualitative ‘Stop, Start, Continue’ results were collated and are summarised with a ‘traffic light’ codingsystem in Fig. 2. Re-emerging themes were then attained until the point of saturation.
Observer. The results revealed positive comments from the observer with respect to the quality of the teaching session.General positive comments included ‘‘slides were clear and the key points were expanded upon’’ and ‘‘good structure—movesfrom basics, through to the theory and measurement, and lastly, application to real world settings’’. However, there were alsopoints to improve upon, such as ‘‘some interaction with the class could be more effective around individual tasks given duringlecture when working at their seats’’. During a subsequent discussion with the observer, he felt that a greater amount ofinteraction with the students could have been achieved during this time. In the ‘continue’ section, the observer reported thatthe tutor should attempt to continue to ‘‘develop a variety of tasks to maintain student interest and allow their involvement tocontribute to their own understanding of the topic’’.
3.3. Summary of findings
Overall, the results suggest that the session contained a strong amount of information on the topic and that thepractical element assisted in consolidating this information. The component of the standard evaluation that scored thelowest score was ‘‘relevance to the assessment’’. Additionally, findings derived from the qualitative results indicate thatthe key elements were the inclusion of practical work, relevance to assessment and interaction with students.
4. Discussion
This study aimed to use an action research approach (Norton, 2009) by evaluating a teaching session of a new memberof staff and allowing an opportunity for critical reflection of their current practice. The results suggest that the teachingsession contained a strong amount of information on the topic and that the practical element assisted in consolidating thisinformation.
4.1. Practical work
One of the most prominent factors apparent from the results of the study is the use of practical work in teachingsessions. Bligh (1998) points out that the most common method when teaching adults is to lecture, due to constraints suchas large class sizes and the physical structure of the teaching room. However, Biggs (1999) points out that lectures can bedelivered in such a way where the student is actively participating and active methods of teaching have been shown to bemore effective than passive methods (Bligh, 1998). The results of the present study indicate that students appear to enjoypractical tasks, allowing a shift from the teacher-centred (i.e., prescribed learning outcomes) to the student-centredapproach (i.e., facilitating learning outcomes), as recommended by Prosser and Trigwell (1998). This is in line with
“Keep the slides on for longer for
note taking”
“Include even more practical sessions”
“Interactmore with
thestudents”
“Ask us more
questions”
Startedto…
“Havingbreaks in
thesessions”
“Goingthrough the
slides so quickly”
Stopped…
“Have short concise
powerpointsthat are easy to
understand”
“Explain the topic in depth”
“Use the same combinationof theory and
practical”
“Deliver fun and
informativelectures”
“Do what she has been doing
in previous lectures”
Continuedto…
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the ‘Stop, Start, Continue’ evaluations.
C.J. Wakefield, J.W. Adie / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 125–130128
previous research that has shown the majority of students would like the inclusion of a greater proportion of practicalwork (Hay & Van der Merwe, 2007).
In order to address this in future teaching, greater consideration should be given to what the student does, rather thanwhat the teacher does (Biggs, 1999). We will attempt to contemplate the time the students spend completing differenttasks with the lecture (i.e. making notes, listening, engaging in activities) to ensure that we encourage an increase ofenjoyment and curiosity in the topic area. However, we believe that the practical elements of the session need to becarefully considered. Whilst the students might enjoy practical activities as it provides a respite from a more didacticapproach, it should feature at the core of the learning outcomes rather than acting as an ‘add-on’ to the session. Follow-upteaching evaluations are necessary to understand if the integration of more relevant practical activities (problem basedlearning tasks) is useful and therefore should be increased across other teaching sessions run in the department topromote engagement.
4.2. Relevance to assessment
Another key finding was the relevance of the session to the assessment. There was a subsequent assessment on thetopic taught in this session. However, the students were not aware of the assessment at that stage as priming studentstowards a particular assessment will inevitably lead to a disjointed contextual ‘picture’ (i.e., bias response on thisdimension), rather than the students learning about the entire topic area which would allow them to apply this learningmore effectively to future situations. This is a view supported by (Norton, 2004, p. 687), p. 687 who explains that ‘‘makingassessment criteria more explicit in higher education may have a deleterious effect on students’ learning’’. As such, ameaningful learning experience may be sacrificed in order to focus on attempting to retain the information snippets thatthey believe will gain them a high mark.
Schelfhout, Dochy and Janssens (2004) pointed out that a balance is needed between allowing students to problem-solve and ensuring that every student has an optimal learning opportunity, which can be achieved by devising anassessment strategy. Additionally, issues regarding the availability and detail of the assessment criteria may also need tobe addressed: an issue highlighted and discussed by Norton (2004).
C.J. Wakefield, J.W. Adie / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 125–130 129
4.3. Interaction with the students
The final major theme raised by the participants and the observer was that an increased interaction with the studentswould be beneficial. As part of the evaluated session, the students were required to complete some discussion tasks in pairs.After a fixed amount of time, the students fed their answers back to the group. However, an opportunity was missed toexplore these answers fully. The practice of creating discussion opportunities is useful as Bonwell and Eison (1991)recommend encouraging participants to complete unmarked tasks to facilitate discussion, role-playing, problem-solving anddemonstrations incorporated into the teaching sessions. However, these also need to be followed up effectively to encouragethe students to wrestle with the issues surrounding the topic area. This will, again, move towards the multi-structural level oflearning, where they are expected to explain, analyse, relate and apply the information that they have learned (Biggs & Tang,2007).
4.4. Reflective comments
The findings stemming from this study provided by the students give valuable feedback about the teaching session andareas for development, resulting in individual reflection on the nature of teaching. However, whilst action research is anextremely valuable tool, as reinforced by the work of Moreira (2009), the process of evaluation and reflection needs to becontinually addressed in this way. The information gained from this type of evaluation needs to be used to inform practicesin subsequent sessions and then re-evaluated. Additionally, as classes change and therefore the learning styles and studentschange, the approach needs to be addressed differently again. This process of evaluation is one that we will endeavour toengage with continually over subsequent academic years. This study also provides information about practice and futurework could look at teaching development across a longitudinal study; an issue highlighted by Ertl and Wright (2008).
When completing this type of research in future, we will also reconsider the method that has been used. Thestandardised evaluation form employed is one that is widely used across Higher Education settings. Research has shownthat learning (measured by future grades) is not related to students’ evaluations of teaching (Weinberg, Hashimoto, &Fleisher, 2009). As a result of this, other methods of evaluation still need to be addressed in order to evaluate the students’experiences of teaching. Evaluations through the ‘Stop, Start, Continue’ method as in the present study, along with othermethods that promote thought about the evaluation (such as the one minute paper; Angelo & Cross, 1993) should beencouraged.
Biggs (1999) highlighted that we should focus our attention not on the student, but on making adaptations to the wayin which they currently learn. Through this process we have developed a stronger awareness of the benefits of evaluationand the future impact that this can have on teaching practice. This was also aided by gaining the perceptions of thestudents and an observer, who expressed very similar views. Angelo and Cross (1993) point out that this process needs toinclude a genuine willingness to change on the basis of the student feedback; a cause that we are committed to.
In summary, in order to meet the needs of our students we will endeavour to increase interaction with the students,maintain the inclusion of practical tasks and re-evaluate the transparency of assessment criteria. However, it is againimportant to note that using student satisfaction as an indicator of teaching quality can have its pitfalls. As such, furtherexploration of the qualitative measures may be useful in future research to distinguish between satisfied students and highteaching quality. Additionally, as this research was limited to one cohort of students, we encourage teachers to developstrategies based on these findings, but to tailor these specifically to each class to ensure that learning is maximised in theirclassrooms.
References
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques (2nd edition). USA: Jossey-Bass.Backer, E. (2008). A semester with a Dr. Fox: the need to go beyond SETs. eJournal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 2, 21–27.Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18, 57–75. /http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/0729436990180105S.Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at University (3rd ed.). Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.Bligh, D. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? Exeter: Intellect.Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report no. 1. Washington, DC: The
George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.D’Andrea, V., & Gosling, D. (2005). Improving learning and teaching in higher education: a whole institutional approach. Berkshire: Open University Press.Dunrong, B., & Fan, M. (2009). On student evaluation of teaching and improvement of the teaching quality assurance system at higher education
institutions. Chinese Education and Society, 42, 100–115. /http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932420212S.Ertl, H., & Wright, S. (2008). Reviewing the literature on the student learning experience in higher education. London Review of Education, 6, 195–210.
/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14748460802489348S.Hay, H. R., & Van der Merwe, B. C. (2007). The role of student evaluation in improving the quality of teaching and learning practices at the Central
University of Technology, Free State: a case study. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21, 468–487.Kember, D., Lueng, D. Y. P., & Kwan, K. P. (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 411–425. /http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000009294S.Moreira, M. (2009). Action research as a tool for critical teacher education towards learner. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 255–268.
/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501220903404509S.Norton, L. (2004). Using assessment criteria as learning criteria: a case study in psychology. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 687–702.
/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000227236S.
C.J. Wakefield, J.W. Adie / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 125–130130
Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. Oxon: Routledge.Nuemann, R. (2000). Communicating student evaluation of teaching results: rating interpretation guides (RIGS). Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 25, 121–134. /http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930050031289S.Pounder, J. S. (2008). Transformational classroom leadership: a novel approach to evaluating classroom performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 33, 233–243. /http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701292621S.Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Teaching for learning in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Schelfhout, W., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2004). The use of self, peer and teacher assessment as a feedback system in a learning environment aimed at
fostering skills of cooperation in an entrepreneurial context. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 177–201. /http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000188465S.
Wachtel, H. (1998). Student evaluations of college teaching effectiveness: a brief review. Assessment and Evaluations in Higher Education, 23, 191–211./http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230207S.
Wilson, R. C. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: effective use of student evaluations and consultants. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 192–211. /http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1981481S.
Weinberg, B. A., Hashimoto, M., & Fleisher, B. M. (2009). Evaluating teaching in higher education. Journal of Economic Education, 40, 227–261. /http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JECE.40.3.227-261S.
Caroline Wakefield completed her Ph.D. in Sport Psychology at the University of Liverpool. She then worked at the University of Lincoln, before movingto the Liverpool Hope University in September 2009. In addition to gaining a PGCE (Secondary Education) from the University of Chester, she holds aPostgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. She currently works in the Department of Psychology and teaches acrossPsychology, Sport Psychology and Sport Studies degree programmes.
James Adie completed his Ph.D. from the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences at the University of Birmingham. He is a lecturer in the Department ofHealth Sciences at the Liverpool Hope University, and teaches on the Sport Studies and Sport Psychology degree programmes. He recently completed aPostgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. His primary research interest concerns the motivational processes underpinningthe well-being of participants in sport and other social contexts.
Recommended
