Contextual Hoops and Hurdles: Workplace Conditions in Secondary Physical Education

Abstract

Workplace factors contribute to job satisfaction and subsequently to decisions to stay or leave by offering organization inducements. (Yee, 1990, p.2) Contextual factors in the workplace can either enhance or inhibit teachers' ability to do their job. Oakes (1989) emphasized the importance of contextual factors in the workplace, stating, "because classroom interactions take place within a particular school, the characteristics of the school affect the nature of those interactions" (p. 183). Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik (1990) summarized the impact of contextual factors in the following statements:Contextual factors in school classrooms profoundly influence teachers' instructional behavior. These include the size of the class group, the size of the room, supplies and equipment, the health of the students, the number of absentees, whether the day is Monday or Friday, whether it is raining or snowing and for how many days, the socioeconomic and racial makeup of the class, whether the class is multigraded, how often the principal comes into the classroom and what she or he does there, the frequency and nature of interruptions from outside, the current smog level, and on and on. And there is nothing in the above list about the personal worries of individual students and the teacher, all of which add to the context.The context of teaching in schools is richly layered. In addition to the obvious classroom elements described above, there are arrangements in schools that strongly influence and set boundaries on teachers' domains of judgment. These are subject to change by orders of the principal or people beyond the principal. They include promoting and reporting policies, the assignment of pupils to classes and grades, recess and lunch schedules, policies and practices in selecting and distributing instructional materials, playground rules, the use of public address systems, grouping and tracking policies and practices, and more, Beyond the school are additional influences that impinge on the classroom either directly or through the principal, parents, and others. (p. 4) Various theoretical frameworks have been used to describe workplace conditions in the school setting. One major line of research has focused on 342

Enhancers and Inhibitors of Teacher Change among Secondary Physical Educators

“…However, change did occur in this study without collegial support, which differed from previous findings regarding workplace conditions Rosenholtz, 1991). The role of teaching partnerships in school physical education programs is problematic Sparkes, 1988;Stroot, Collier, O'Sullivan, & England, 1994). When physical education departments are not united in the change effort, the possibilities for change are reduced , Sparkes, 1988.…”

“…The marginalized status of physical education is not a new phenomenon (O'Sullivan, 1989;Sparkes, Templin, & Schempp, 1990;Stroot et al, 1994). If physical education had been viewed with a higher status, more professional development might have been offered and these experiences could have created more opportunities for more teachers to explore new ideas in programming.…”

The Development of a Physical Education Teachers’ Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Instrument

“…Related research also provided empirical support for these conceptual distinctions (Boggess et al, 1986;Chester & Beaudin, 1996;Guskey & Passaro, 1994;Hastie & Saunders, 1991;Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993;McBride, 1993;Ross, 1994;Smyth, 1995;Stroot et al, 1994;Wendt & Bain, 1983).…”

“…Teachers viewed a lack of time (e.g., short classes), little space (e.g., small gyms), limited institutional support (e.g., lack of funds), and minimal student interest (e.g., students not motivated) as barriers to their ability to teach physically active lessons. These themes were not unexpected, as researchers, operating from a variety of theoretical perspectives, have found that similar variables impair effective teaching, reduce confidence, and create worry and stress (Boggess, Griffey, & Housner, 1986;Chester & Beaudin, 1996;Guskey & Passaro, 1994;Hastie & Saunders, 1991;Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993;McBride, 1993;Ross, 1994;Smyth, 1995;Stroot, Collier, O'Sullivan, & England, 1994;Wendt & Bain, 1983).…”

The Teacher Development in Physical Education: A Review of the Literature

“…In-service teachers Henninger (2007); Pissanos and Allison (1996); Bechtel and O'Sullivan (2007) ;Stroot, Collier, O'Sulliva and England (1994) Students behavior, beliefs and background, students' needs Henninger (2007); Pissanos and Allison (1996) District policy (negative) Bechtel and O'Sullivan (2007) School culture Rovegno and Bandhauer (1997b); Pope and O'Sullivan (1998) Statues of physical education (negative) Pissanos and Allison (1996); Bechtel and O'Sullivan (2007) Working place condition Doutis andWard (1999); Stroot et al (1994) Technology (computer science and video) Pierre (1998); Sariscsany and Pettigrew (1997) The assistance of clinical teachers Pre-service teachers Rikard and Knight (1997);Graber (1995) Culture and social difference Light and Tan (2006) …”