View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Cooperative Learning: A Relevant Instructional Model for Physical Education Pre-Service Teacher Training?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Cooperative Learning: A Relevant Instructional Model for Physical Education Pre-Service Teacher Training?
Language: English
Authors: Legrain, Pascal (ORCID 0000-0001-6769-1502), Escalié, Guillaume, Lafont, Lucile, Chaliès, Sébastien
Source: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2019 24(1):73-86.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Physical Education Teachers, Teacher Education Programs, Preservice Teachers, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Psychomotor Skills, Direct Instruction, Teaching Methods, Cooperative Learning, Teacher Role, Physical Activities, Scaffolding (Teaching Technique), Knowledge Level, Skill Development, Self Efficacy, Teacher Effectiveness, Program Effectiveness, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: France
DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2018.1561838
ISSN: 1740-8989
Abstract: Background: One of the key questions of physical education teacher educators (PETE) programmes refers to whether future teachers are prepared to build knowledge and skills to feel self-efficacious in teaching physical education (PE). This issue concerns the instructional model of teaching used to help PE pre-service teachers to master both pedagogical knowledge and motor skills. According to this twofold challenge, the direct instruction (DI) is mainly used for pre-service teacher training. Beyond this traditional model, other instructional models as cooperative learning (CL) approach arise in the initial PE teacher education. Nevertheless, surrounding attempts at innovation, little information related to the instructor's role. Under the social cognitive perspective of self-efficacy and instructional competency building, more information is currently expected with regard to the strategies the instructor uses to scaffold the mastery of skills for PE pre-service teachers' effective teaching. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to consider whether PE pre-service teachers are trained during short training sessions aimed to discover new physical activities. We examine the influence of a scaffolding procedure (CLS design) on PE pre-service teachers' knowledge, skills and self-efficacy in comparison to a CL and a DI experience. This leads to consider to what extent this instructional support provided by the instructor would help pre-service teachers to perceive themselves as self-efficacious to teach contents in PE. Participants and design: After a pre-test, sixty-nine PE pre-service teachers were randomly assigned to one of the three following conditions: CL (14 males and 7 females); CLS (20 males and 8 females) or direct instruction condition (DI; 12 males and 8 females). For the training session a selected CL procedure (Jigsaw) [Aronson, Elliot, and Shelley Patnoe. 1997. "The Jigsaw Classroom: Building Cooperation in the Classroom." 2nd ed. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley Educational]) was used to split CL and CLS participants into mixed-sex teams, whereas DI participants practiced the same exercises in dyads. According to the training conditions, the same instructor provided different information to participants along the three 2-hour instructional sessions with regard to: (a) warm-up (DI), (b) CL organization (CL), and (c) scaffolding integrated into a CL implementation (CLS). Data collection: A Pre-test/post-test design was used to consider PE pre-service teacher's motor skill, knowledge for practice, and self-efficacy improvements. The post-test also examined participants' pedagogical knowledge. Findings: The results showed that the participants in the three conditions progressed on performance, knowledge for practice, knowledge for teaching, and self-efficacy. Although no difference was found in self-efficacy between the three training conditions over time, significant differences appeared on pedagogical knowledge or/and motor skills with an advantage for the CL and CLS participants, respectively. Conclusion: Although short training sessions dedicated to discovering new sports stay problematic for teacher professional development, implementing CL pre-service teacher training designs would be a relevant alternative. Instructional knowledge would be developed mainly when they have explicitly access to information concerning the teacher intervention. Nevertheless, such a scaffolding procedure integrated into CL training designs would need to be applied repeatedly to various physical activities to have an impact on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 46
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1203249
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG69MRSEsqyV8lKr3Llb0gWAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKg4HovQeXZ5ksrAsgIBEICBm98nFAVXWFS0nX0Vso39WW1Vfb1AQQhT9aIdnuWTQwwKV9rExG29FztunKrtaCD6Zew_PpWnjc1lsooPDp3EMLfYRDdkL_6_t7NqyQfEhIz8kzAfgoAmIdgGEFlxBVTf4z32cTlEYVpeLya69Bs_mNRCd43g7P6xc69X_LDfTQSrLhCooxrmZJbOL4TLd14qyTwCILy_uKArImno
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0134195540;z3x01jan.19;2019Feb05.13:42;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0134195540-1">Cooperative learning: a relevant instructional model for physical education pre-service teacher training? </title> <p>Background: One of the key questions of physical education teacher educators (PETE) programmes refers to whether future teachers are prepared to build knowledge and skills to feel self-efficacious in teaching physical education (PE). This issue concerns the instructional model of teaching used to help PE pre-service teachers to master both pedagogical knowledge and motor skills. According to this twofold challenge, the direct instruction (DI) is mainly used for pre-service teacher training. Beyond this traditional model, other instructional models as cooperative learning (CL) approach arise in the initial PE teacher education. Nevertheless, surrounding attempts at innovation, little information related to the instructor's role. Under the social cognitive perspective of self-efficacy and instructional competency building, more information is currently expected with regard to the strategies the instructor uses to scaffold the mastery of skills for PE pre-service teachers' effective teaching. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to consider whether PE pre-service teachers are trained during short training sessions aimed to discover new physical activities. We examine the influence of a scaffolding procedure (CLS design) on PE pre-service teachers' knowledge, skills and self-efficacy in comparison to a CL and a DI experience. This leads to consider to what extent this instructional support provided by the instructor would help pre-service teachers to perceive themselves as self-efficacious to teach contents in PE. Participants and design: After a pre-test, sixty-nine PE pre-service teachers were randomly assigned to one of the three following conditions: CL (14 males and 7 females); CLS (20 males and 8 females) or direct instruction condition (DI; 12 males and 8 females). For the training session a selected CL procedure (Jigsaw) [Aronson, Elliot, and Shelley Patnoe. 1997. The Jigsaw Classroom: Building Cooperation in the Classroom. 2nd ed. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley Educational]) was used to split CL and CLS participants into mixed-sex teams, whereas DI participants practiced the same exercises in dyads. According to the training conditions, the same instructor provided different information to participants along the three 2-hour instructional sessions with regard to: (a) warm-up (DI), (b) CL organization (CL), and (c) scaffolding integrated into a CL implementation (CLS). Data collection: A Pre-test/post-test design was used to consider PE pre-service teacher's motor skill, knowledge for practice, and self-efficacy improvements. The post-test also examined participants' pedagogical knowledge. Findings: The results showed that the participants in the three conditions progressed on performance, knowledge for practice, knowledge for teaching, and self-efficacy. Although no difference was found in self-efficacy between the three training conditions over time, significant differences appeared on pedagogical knowledge or/and motor skills with an advantage for the CL and CLS participants, respectively. Conclusion: Although short training sessions dedicated to discovering new sports stay problematic for teacher professional development, implementing CL pre-service teacher training designs would be a relevant alternative. Instructional knowledge would be developed mainly when they have explicitly access to information concerning the teacher intervention. Nevertheless, such a scaffolding procedure integrated into CL training designs would need to be applied repeatedly to various physical activities to have an impact on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy.</p> <p>Keywords: Cooperative learning; direct instruction; physical education pre-service teacher; scaffolding; self-efficacy</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In physical education (PE) pre-service teacher training, one of the recurrent questions for instructors is: How to prepare novice teachers to teach lessons at school? (Kirk 2012). During this period focused on the preparation for entering the teaching profession, when pre-service teachers are exposed to physical activities they never practiced, they need to acquire both new knowledge and motor skills for practice, and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teaching (Lander et al. 2017). Among the main dominant instructional models for physical education, Direct Instruction (DI; Metzler 2011) is one of the most widely used approaches. The instructional model stated most often by instructors and pre-service teachers with regard to the main concern of acquiring new knowledge and skills (Mosston and Ashworth 2008). The contents related to pedagogical knowledge are mainly featured in the form of lectures and sometime presented by the instructor, but not experimented by the pre-service teachers, during the physical practice sessions (Adamakis and Zounhia 2016; Hemphill et al. 2015). To cope with the emergency of reducing the theory-practice gap (O'Leary et al. 2015), there is a need to consider how PE pre-service teachers are, not only theoretically, but also operationally prepared to build pedagogical knowledge, skills and self-efficacy (Silverman and Mercier 2015). Although instructional precautions are advocated to help student-coaches develop knowledge of content and instruction in a sport coaching context (Nelson, Cushion, and Potrac 2013), the vocational[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] training for PE pre-service teachers leaves little scope for the consideration of cooperative learning (CL) environments.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-3">Training pre-service teachers through direct instruction (DI)</hd> <p>DI cannot be confused with teacher-led instruction (Hattie 2009; Kirk 2010). Nevertheless, it is based on a strong guided physical practice through which the instructor monitors lessons, making and overseeing 'nearly all decisions about how students are organized, when practice segments start and stop, when learning tasks change, and what class rules are to be in effect' (Metzler 2000, 142). Implemented in the vocational education, DI is based on the underlying assumption that PE pre-service teachers will extract relevant information from the observation of the instructor's activity (Mosston and Ashworth 2008). Nevertheless, pre-service teachers' attention is mainly focused on explanations and movement demonstrations referring to the sport practices (sporting perspective, Evans 1992), and psychomotor learning via technique drills (Behets and Vergauwen 2013; Capel 2007). Even though stressing and sharing with learner motor success criteria seems relevant during the new task presentation/demonstration and regulation (Jayantilal and O'Leary 2017), pre-service teachers' attention is not directed through the instructor's activity. Furthermore, they stay in the position of learners without having the opportunity to experience teaching practice in small groups. Although other alternatives as the Cooperative Learning (CL) model seem theoretically and professionally relevant, this approach is nonetheless rarely experienced by the instructors in practical sessions during the first three years of PE pre-service teacher training. Moreover, DI option is grounded on the assumption that pre-service teachers will express initial self-efficacy judgments through observational learning under the guidance of an expert teacher. Beyond influencing the transformation and reproduction of PE work practices and knowledge through vicarious experiences (Kirk and MacDonald 2001), teacher educators as expert models would not be always the best choice to help learners to express self-efficacy and achievement. In this respect, CL would bring other opportunities to support pre-service teacher's self-efficacy building through enactive mastery, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological state in academic (Bandura 1986) and PE (Zach, Harari, and Harari 2012) settings.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-4">Building a cooperative learning (CL) environment for PE pre-service teacher training?</hd> <p>CL is based on students working in small heterogeneous groups, in which students work together to improve their own learning and that of other members of their groups (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec 2013). 'CL implies five essential characteristics during group work: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>) positive interdependence of goals, resources and roles, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>) face-to-face interaction, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>) individual accountability, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>) interpersonal and small group working skills, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>) group processing determining each role which contributes to achieve the task' (Dyson and Casey 2012).</p> <p>According to the PETE programmes, CL has been considered as an interesting alternative to foster PE pre-service teachers' perceived ability to manage group work (Kirk 2010; Casey and Goodyear 2015). Notably, in reference to social learning theory, studies have examined whether a CL training environment would favour pre-service teacher self-efficacy in academic (Ruys, Van Keer, and Aelterman 2010) and PE (Cohen and Zach 2013; Curtner-Smith et al. 2001) settings.</p> <p>Ruys, Van Keer, and Aelterman (2010) showed that while pre-service teachers and teacher educators believed that education should be more process-oriented than outcome-oriented, pre-service teachers of primary schools valued CL as significantly less important for themselves than other learning strategies. In addition, despite the relevance of including CL designs in practical work as a useful alternative to DI for PE pre-service teacher training, Cohen and Zach (2013) showed that DI participants' self-efficacy improved from pre-test to post-test, contrary to CL participants. The authors emphasized that this result was observed for both factors: (a) designing a challenging, motivational, healthy and active learning environment, and (b) mastery of skills for effective teaching. However, during the training session comprising 15-week methods class, CL participants demonstrated better planning and evaluation of specific social and cognitive objectives for each lesson. Nevertheless, no significant difference appeared between the two training conditions related to the quality of the unit and the lesson plan in general. It should be noted that the programme of physical activities did not include new sports. This probably explains in part why the self-efficacy mean scores for DI and CL participants was high at the beginning of the study (pre-test = 7.6). Moreover, further information would have been provided on the CL model used by the instructor to train pre-service teachers.</p> <p>Research conducted in PETE programmes has regularly emphasized that the lack of preparation given to teachers might influence their sense of self-efficacy in implementing innovations in classroom management (e.g. Abrami, Poulsen, and Chambers 2004). The issue is not which instructional model should be used, but rather under which scaffolding conditions pre-service teachers would be trained when CL is introduced into the physical practice sessions to improve their proficiency in teaching. Choosing to implement CL into a pre-service training design implies to select pedagogical strategies with regard to their relevance of providing support for instruction (Gillies 2008). The Jigsaw technique is one of the CL methods of organizing classroom activity where students are split into small groups to learn new skills before coming back to their original team to teach teammates (e.g. Jigsaw; Aronson and Patnoe 1997). Implementing a Jigsaw environment in vocational education suggests to consider whether the instructor explicitly prepares PE pre-service teachers to interact. Specifically, when pre-service teachers have to endorse tutor and tutee roles in a new physical activity, information about the scaffolding procedure seems important.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-5">Scaffolding pre-service teachers within a cooperative learning (CL) environment</hd> <p>Grounded in the social cognitive (Vygotsky 1978) and socio-cultural (Bruner 1983) perspectives of learning, scaffolding refers to the conceptualization of zone of proximal development (ZPD). Under this theoretical perspective, it is assumed that a person assisted by a more-knowledgeable partner in learning how doing something will be able to perform what he/she could not do previously. With regard to the introduction of scaffolding in education, the parallels with ZPD have traditionally been acknowledged (Hogan and Pressley 1997). Thus, it can be advanced that once the pre-service teacher has mastered the teaching skills with the benefit of the instructor's help, the scaffolding can be progressively removed, giving him/her the opportunity to complete the task again more independently. Nevertheless, according to Gillies and Boyle (2006) teachers still encounter difficulties in implementing CL in the classroom. This may be due to the fact that the procedure used to support PE pre-service teachers' instructional activity within CL designs does not refer to two forms of scaffolding.</p> <p>The conceptual scaffolding refers to the visual representation of a problem provided to help pre-service teachers to better identify the major characteristics of the situation and to lead them to adapt their strategies to novel problems accordingly. The procedural scaffolding refers to explanations and demonstrations brought to help novice teachers to access examples of problem solutions (Hobson 2002). According to the various ways in which an instructor might support pre-service teachers' acquisitions, it can be expected that scaffolding their practice on the pre-requisite pedagogical knowledge, skills and strategies to manage group-interaction through peer modelling and role-playing would help them to build up their perception of self (Dyson 2002).</p> <p>Although teaching expertise and self-efficacy are nurtured by various experiences in CL configurations such as Jigsaw, pre-service teachers have rarely the opportunity to be trained under such a condition during practice sessions of initial training (Wang and Ha 2008). Furthermore, the conditions of scaffolding under which pre-service teachers could gain pedagogical knowledge, teaching skills and self-efficacy implementing teaching strategies within CL environments are understudied (O'Leary et al. 2015). With a social developmental focus, considering whether a CL environment would influence pre-service teachers' self-efficacy expectancies imply bringing the key role of the teacher educator into the equation (Wallhead and O'Sullivan 2005). Notably, this concerns the mastery of skills for effective teaching through personal and vicarious experiences in small groups, and verbal persuasion oriented through teaching intervention.</p> <p>The aim of this article is to consider the conditions under which pre-service teachers are trained to build knowledges, skills and teaching self-efficacy related to a new physical practice. The research question examined whether a scaffolding procedure integrated into a CL design would be more relevant for PE pre-service teacher training in comparison to a CL and a DI experience. In this respect, we hypothesized that, experiencing a Jigsaw training environment would be better than a DI training condition to develop skills and knowledge for practice. Nevertheless, the Jigsaw training condition would not be sufficient to express pedagogical knowledge and self-efficacy in teaching that would be maximized through instructors' scaffolding for pre-service teachers, beginners in French boxing.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0134195540-7">Participants and design</hd> <p>Sixty-nine pre-service teachers (46 males and 23 females; mean age = 21 years ± 1.5) enrolled in the third year of training in the 'Education and motor skills' specialization at the same French university volunteered to participate in the study. The study occurred at the beginning of the second semester comprising a training programme dedicated to the introduction to sports activities PE pre-service teachers had never done. Although French boxing is an inter-individual competitive sport, cooperation is observed during the intervals of one minute between each round, and in the training context. This sport activity was chosen with respect to content knowledge based on cooperative relationships with a sparring partner, and a coach who can provide useful demonstrations and instructions viewed as crucial in the early phases of the acquisition of a motor skill (Schmidt and Lee 1999), especially when the coach is trained (e.g. Legrain, d'Arripe-Longueville, and Gernigon 2003). From an ethical standpoint, this study was approved by the institutional review board of the faculty with written informed consent. All participants were informed that they would be filmed for the purpose of this study. They were also assured that personal data will be protected through appropriate procedures for confidentiality and anonymization. Participants were also ensured that this training period will not be subject of evaluation and that they will not be subject to penalty for not taking part and free to withdraw from the research at any time without giving a reason and without a prejudice.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-8">Procedure</hd> <p>The procedure included in this order: (a) a presentation of the theoretical basis of group work learning conditions (i.e. cooperative learning, peer tutoring), (b) a pre-test to assess pre-service teachers' proficiency in the knowledge and skills that will be taught in the training programme, (c) a teacher training period, (d) three 2-hour instructional session, and (e) a post-test. After the pre-test, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three following conditions: a CL environment (CL; 14 males and 7 females); a CL environment, including pre-activity scaffolds for instruction (CLS; 20 males and 8 females) or a direct instruction condition (DI; 12 males and 8 females).</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-9">Presentation of the theoretical basis of group work learning conditions</hd> <p>During a 4-hour presentation in the first semester, a full Professor at the sports faculty presented to all participants the foundations of constructivist and social constructivist theories in the field of child cognitive development (Piaget [1926] 1950; Vygotsky 1934). He also presented a detailed comparison of both theories (DeVries 2000) and introduced the Vygotskyan paradigm of <emph>zone of proximal development</emph> (ZPD) in the education setting through peer assisted learning strategies. Finally, he emphasized the importance for teachers of training pupils to CL in PE contexts through practical illustrations taken from various studies conducted in PE (Dyson and Casey 2012; Lafont et al. 2017). During the same semester, an Associate Professor introduced all participants to the history of French boxing during a 4-hour lecture.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-10">Pre-Test</hd> <p>Participants completed a written questionnaire assessing their knowledge for practice relating to the rules governing this sport (French-boxing regulations, 2017). Then, they completed four questions that referred to eight items of the PETE questionnaire (Zach, Harari, and Harari 2012). The items concern teacher self-efficacy related to the mastery of skills for 'challenging motivational learning' and 'effective teaching'. Finally, participants paired in same-sex dyads to alternate the boxer and sparring-partner roles were pre-tested in two basic situations. They were asked to perform: (a) a combination of three straight punching actions, and (b) a combination of two actions of a foot-technique (fouetté). The instructor both described and demonstrated each exercise twice, specifying the target placements for the sparring-partner. Participants' answers to the questionnaires and video data relative to the performance were collected by the researchers.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-11">Instructional training</hd> <p>All participants were theoretically and practically trained in French boxing by an Associate Professor expert in French boxing who had 10 years of professional experience as PE teacher, and 20 years as a PE teacher educator at third level. At the beginning of each lesson, participants received selected information relative to PE classroom management (see Table 1). DI participants received information relative to precautions needed during the warm-up period to prepare participants for a safety entry in the physical practice. During the same period, CL participants received information related to a specific CL environment: Jigsaw (O'Leary et al. 2015). The instructor focused on: (a) the procedure for mixed group composition, (b) the most effective way of allocating roles and responsibilities in small groups, and (c) the specific timing necessary to ensure equity for individuals doing the instructional task. However, the instructor did not address the issue of rules that determine how the instruction was qualitatively embedded in this CL environment. Comparatively, CLS participants received information focused on the teaching intervention within the Jigsaw implementation. Firstly, they examined several rules the instructor followed to: (a) demonstrate and explain a task to help participants to endorse a tutor role, and (b) observe learners and give feedback to improve their knowledge and skills about the contributing factors of performance. Using audio-video recording of teaching sequences recorded the year before, the instructor gave significance to personal pedagogical choices made for: (a) presenting a situation verbally (i.e. instructions relative to goals, operations, and environmental constraints), (b) demonstrating a movement (i.e. changing the placement into two demonstrations, breaking the movements down into elements), (c) observing learners' behaviours (i.e. examining the situation from a number of perspectives before deciding to break up the learners motor experience, questioning instead of giving advice with directivity), and (d) regulating the situation (i.e. deciding to interrupt all the classroom or only attracting the attention of several learners, questioning on important elements to improve the motor performance). The teacher training period lasted two-hours in total for all the three conditions.</p> <p>Instructional design in the three conditions of the study.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="4"><tbody><tr><td align="left">Learning approach</td><td align="center">Cooperative Learning with Scaffolding (CLS)</td><td align="center">Cooperative Learning (CL)</td><td align="center">Direct Instruction (DI)</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td align="left">Information given to the participants at the beginning of each lesson</td><td align="left">On teaching intervention (within Jigsaw implementation).</td><td align="left">On Jigsaw environment.</td><td align="left">On warm-up precautions.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Students grouping</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Practice in mixed teams of 4-7 members comprising tutor and tutee roles.</td><td align="left">Practice in dyads alternating boxer and sparring-partner roles.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Instructor's feedback</td><td align="left">On technical aspects of motor skill learning and teaching intervention (audio-video recording).</td><td align="left">On technical aspects of motor skill learning and tutor and tutee take turns.</td><td align="left">On technical aspects of motor skill learning and division of roles.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0134195540-12">Physical practice session</hd> <p>After a 20 min warm-up session, participants of the three conditions had a physical practice over three weeks under the supervision of the same instructor during the same time. In DI condition, participants placed in dyads alternated boxer and sparring partner roles under the guidance of the instructor who gave clear instructions about the task-goal and open skills to perform the technical movements. In CL and CLS conditions, participants were split into four mixed-sex teams of four to seven members respecting the traditional group size concerns for CL (Johnson and Johnson 1999). Following a Jigsaw procedure, each team was asked to freely distribute the members over four specific fit-out stations in order to practice the same exercises as for DI. They were told that they would have to teach the movements to teammates later as follows:</p> <p>During the first period, you will practice a task in order to perform a movement with ease and be able to explain and model this movement to your team-members. During the second period, you will come back to your team to instruct team-mates in turn using relevant technical comments and incentives in order to help them to perform. When your group-mates come to instruct, you will also become a tutee.</p> <p>Then on each station, during a first period, the instructor demonstrated and explained to the participants a new boxing technique they had to practice in dyads. Participants had access to a technical worksheet with pictures representing typical standards of behaviour and brief comments on specific factors and steps for realization. In the second phase, the instructor came back to the station differently for CL and CLS conditions. For CL participants, he observed the motor performances and attracted participants' attention on technical points, providing personalized feedback. For CLS condition, he asked participants to explain whether they will: (a) present and demonstrate the task stressing the most important features, (b) observe peers to identify the nature of specific characteristics of incorrect behaviour (i.e. lack of attention, misinterpretation of explanation, deficiency in the body-preparation, uncontrolled speed), and (c) advise peers to help them make progress (i.e. reminding them of the sparring partner's responsibility in clearly presenting targets to be touched). Then, CL and CLS participants were given 5 minutes to prepare for their return to the team. Finally, according to the Jigsaw procedure, each team-member endorsed in turn a tutor role to instruct teammates on the specific technique they had learnt, respecting the order established by the instructor. The composition of dyads and teams, distribution of team members on stations, and special timing for organization were maintained for the following two sessions of physical practice introducing new skills to learn and teach each time.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-13">Post-test</hd> <p>First, participants completed the written questionnaire regarding knowledge for practice test and the teaching self-efficacy questionnaire used in the pre-test. Then, the performance post-test was videotaped in the same conditions as in the pre-test. However, the two technical tasks were selected with regard to the skills participants had learnt during the physical practice session. In the boxer role, participants were asked to follow the partner's movement and touch as quickly and precisely as possible targets presented with gloves stopping the movement. The tasks asked them to coordinate two punching techniques, and two kicking techniques, respectively. Finally, participants completed the pedagogical knowledge test.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-14">Measures</hd> <p>For the pre-test and the post-test, PE pre-service teacher's self-efficacy, motor skill, and knowledge for practice improvements were considered. Participants' pedagogical knowledge was examined in the post-test. Two researchers piloted the study explaining the four factors of the self-efficacy questionnaire and recording the motor performances at pre and post-tests.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-15">Teaching self-Efficacy</hd> <p>Self-efficacy specifically refers to a belief about a particular task, goal or activity and not a general belief or attitude stating that: 'scales of perceived self-efficacy must be tailored to the particular domain of functioning that is the object of interest' (Bandura 2006, 307-308). Thus, according to the three 2-hour sessions provided for the initiation session, pre-service teacher self-efficacy judgments were specifically centred on eight items of the PETE questionnaire (Zach, Harari, and Harari 2012) explicitly linked to four abilities. Presenting a learning task verbally referred to 'maintain a positive rapport with students' and 'develop students' motor skill'. Demonstrating a movement in front of the whole class referred to 'focus on quality of performance' and 'influence students to exert effort'. Correcting novice behaviours referred to 'identify incorrect performances and provide appropriate feedback' and 'identify students' motor deficiencies'. Providing additional guidance on the evolution of the situation referred to 'attend to all the students during the lesson' and 'influence students to persist in the activity'. Participants were asked to indicate on a 10-point scale the highest level they would expect in a French-boxing lesson with regard to mastery levels pointed out (i.e. '<emph>I do not master</emph>', '<emph>I master</emph>', '<emph>I perfectly master</emph>'). The reliability analysis computed on the four items revealed a high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .90 and α = .84 for pre and post-test, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-16">Performance</hd> <p>The motor performance for the punching and kicking techniques was videotaped and scored on the basis of the average of the following six elements: (a) general balance; (b) distance for execution, (c) precision on targets, (d) execution speed, (e) power control, and (f) full recovery (Legrain 1998). The raters used a 5-point scale ranging from perfect stable performance (5 points) to imperfect stable performance (1 point).</p> <p>All the measures were assessed using the ratings of two independent judges, both PE teachers, experts in French-boxing and blind to the study purposes and experimental conditions. First, they practiced the scoring scheme using pilot videotapes of 10 participants. Then, they created two different technical scales for the pre-test and the post-test, respectively, and clarified discrepant coding before viewing videotapes separately for subsequent data analyses. On pilot videotapes, agreements were reached for punching (96.00%), and kicking (92.33%) technique combinations. Interrater reliability for performance judgments was assessed by calculating the percentage of agreement between the two judges and the intra-class correlation coefficient (r) using a two-way ANOVA (Participants x Raters) with repeated measures on the last factor. These analyses yielded satisfactory results and good intra-class correlation coefficients for punching and kicking techniques (<emph>r</emph> = .79,.75, respectively). Finally, the judges' ratings of performance were averaged. In addition, a videotape, including six participants, was recorded for calculating intra-rater reliability. The performance scores of the six participants were reassessed 6 months later, and both coders replicated their scores 90% of the time.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-17">Knowledge for practice</hd> <p>At pre and post-test, the participants' knowledge for practice was measured through questions which referred the authorized and prohibited targets to be touched with foot and fist. (i.e. which surfaces are prohibited to be touched with the fists?), and the scoring system used in competition (i.e. how many points are scored kicking the different body surfaces, respectively?). They were asked to write their answer considering kicking and punching techniques. A general score was calculated according to a grid developed by the two judges previously mentioned taking into account the level of accuracy and precision of the given answer.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-18">Pedagogical knowledge</hd> <p>According to the instructional categorization of design variables that impact motor skill learning in PE (Silverman and Mercier 2015), participants were tested through three questions introduced by the following instruction: 'In a PE lesson for novice secondary school pupils, you will have to present a French-boxing situation comprising a combination of a middle straight foot-technique from the front leg and a low circular foot-technique from the rear leg'. The first question asked participants to describe precisely the precautions to be taken when demonstrating a movement to the whole class. The second question asked them to describe precisely the instruction included in the task presentation. The last question invited them to specify the way they would attract beginners' attention on the criteria and regulate behavioural difficulties. The relevance and precision of participants' responses were analysed using a grid comprising a 10-point scale drawn up by the above-mentioned raters for identifying relevant answers they selected for: (a) using several demonstrations at different rates beginning by breaking down the technique into separate sub-skills; changing the orientation to help peers to observe the demonstration from different angles, (b) explaining the goal in relation to the displacement between the two techniques, and (c) supervising the stability, control, distance and protection priorities, and questioning on the various criteria for accomplishment when necessary.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-19">Results</hd> <p>Repeated-measures multivariate analyses of variance (RM-MANOVAs) were computed on teaching self-efficacy, knowledge for practice, and performance. Follow-up tests were conducted with RM-ANOVAs and HSD Tukey post hoc comparisons for unequal sample sizes (e.g. Spjotvoll and Stoline 1973, 975) to examine the differences between the three conditions (see Table 2). The MANOVA and ANOVAs were conducted on the pedagogical knowledge measured only at post-test (see Table 3). Effect sizes (<emph>d</emph>) were also calculated using polled standard deviations (Hedges and Olkin 1985).</p> <p>Means (and standard deviations) for teaching self-efficacy, knowledge for practice and motor performance by training type conditions and time (N = 69).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="7"><tbody><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="2">Cooperative Learning with scaffolding (CLS) (<italic>n</italic> = 28)</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Cooperative Learning (CL) (<italic>n</italic> = 21)</td><td align="center" colspan="2">Direct Instruction (DI) (<italic>n</italic> = 20)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center">T1</td><td align="center">T2</td><td align="center">T1</td><td align="center">T2</td><td align="center">T1</td><td align="center">T2</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td align="left"><italic>Teaching self-efficacy for:</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Presenting a situation verbally</italic></td><td align="char">3.61 (1.75)</td><td align="char">6.29 (1.05)</td><td align="char">2.90 (1.95)</td><td align="char">6.33 (1.24)</td><td align="char">3.70 (2.23)</td><td align="char">6.05 (1.28)</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Demonstrating a movement</italic></td><td align="char">3.96 (2.01)</td><td align="char">6.25 (1.17)</td><td align="char">3.19 (2.09)</td><td align="char">6.29 (1.62)</td><td align="char">3.85 (1.90)</td><td align="char">5.35 (1.50)</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Correcting novice behaviours</italic></td><td align="char">3.79 (2.02)</td><td align="char">6.46 (1.10)</td><td align="char">3.29 (2.10)</td><td align="char">6.67 (1.20)</td><td align="char">4.25 (2.00)</td><td align="char">6.30 (1.66)</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Providing additional guidance</italic></td><td align="char">3.29 (1.74)</td><td align="char">5.46 (1.40)</td><td align="char">2.71 (2.00)</td><td align="char">6.05 (1.63)</td><td align="char">3.40 (2.21)</td><td align="char">4.85 (1.93)</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Performance</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Kicking techniques</italic></td><td align="char">1.07 (0.60)</td><td align="char">8.61 (3.44)</td><td align="char">1.33 (0.48)</td><td align="char">9.76 (4.28)</td><td align="char">1.35 (0.59)</td><td align="char">9.05 (2.61)</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Punching techniques</italic>*</td><td align="char">1.21 (0.66)</td><td align="char">9.54 (3.47)</td><td align="char">1.10 (0.54)</td><td align="char">7.95 (3.79)</td><td align="char">1.05 (0.39)</td><td align="char">7.35 (2.80)</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Knowledge for practice</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>General score</italic>***</td><td align="char">1.93 (0.46)</td><td align="char">8.43 (2.53)</td><td align="char">1.86 (0.48)</td><td align="char">9.05 (1.88)</td><td align="char">1.90 (0.55)</td><td align="char">6.65 (0.93)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < .05.</p> <p>**<emph>p </emph>< .01.</p> <p>***<emph>p </emph>< .001.</p> <p>Means (and standard deviations) for pedagogical knowledge by training type conditions (N = 69).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="4"><tbody><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center">Cooperative Learning with scaffolding (CLS) (<italic>n</italic> = 28)</td><td align="center">Cooperative Learning (CL) (<italic>n</italic> = 21)</td><td align="center">Direct Instruction (DI) (<italic>n</italic> = 20)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>M (SD)</italic></td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><italic>Pedagogical Knowledge for:</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Demonstrating a movement</italic> *</td><td align="char">3.32 (1.36)</td><td align="char">2.43 (1.36)</td><td align="char">2.25 (0.97)</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Presenting a task verbally</italic> ***</td><td align="char">3.14 (1.92)</td><td align="char">4.14 (1.88)</td><td align="char">2.00 (1.34)</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Regulating behavioural difficulties</italic></td><td align="char">3.79 (1.99)</td><td align="char">4.81 (1.50)</td><td align="char">4.50 (1.28)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p </emph>< .05.</p> <p>**<emph>p</emph> < .01.</p> <p>***<emph>p </emph>< .001.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-20">Teaching self-efficacy</hd> <p>At the baseline, there were no differences between the three training conditions in the mean score, Wilks' Lambda (λ) = .94, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>, 12) = 0.50, <emph>p </emph>= .85. Results of the RM-Manova on pre-service teacher self-efficacy revealed a significant difference in participants' scores for the three groups from the pre-test to the post-test, Wilks' λ = .28, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>, 63) = 40.43, <emph>p</emph> < .001. Nevertheless, no training condition <emph>X</emph> time interaction, Wilks' λ = .86, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>, 12) = 1.22, <emph>p </emph>= .29 was observed.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-21">Performance</hd> <p>At the baseline, there were no differences between the three training conditions in the mean score, Wilks' λ = .92, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>, 13) = 1.45, <emph>p </emph>= .22. Results of the RM-Manova on motor performance revealed a significant difference of participants' scores for the three groups from the pre to the post-test, Wilks' λ = .10, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>, 65) = 304.88, <emph>p</emph> < .001. Furthermore, a partial training condition <emph>X</emph> time interaction was found, Wilks' λ = .88, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>, 13) = 2.09, <emph>p </emph>< .08. The RM-Anova showed that difference between the training conditions over time was only significant on the punching techniques, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>, 66) = 2.99, <emph>p </emph>= .05; <emph>d </emph>= .08. The post-hoc test revealed that CLS participants' punching score improved from pre-test to post-test, more than DI participants' scores. The difference between CLS and CL participants was not significant (<emph>p </emph>= .28), nor was the difference between CL and DI conditions (<emph>p </emph>= .97).</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-22">Knowledge for practice</hd> <p>At the baseline, there were no differences on the knowledge for practice between the three training conditions in the mean score, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>, 66) = 0.12, <emph>p </emph>= .88. Results of the RM-Anova revealed a significant difference of participants' scores for the three groups from the pre-test to the post-test, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>, 66) = 632.83, <emph>p</emph> < .001. Furthermore, a significant training condition <emph>X</emph> time interaction was found, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>, 66) = 8.09, <emph>p </emph>< .001, <emph>d </emph>= .20. The post-hoc revealed that CLS and CL participants' scores improved from pre-test to post-test, more than DI participants' scores (<emph>p < </emph>.001).</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-23">Pedagogical knowledge</hd> <p>The Manova computed on the three items relative to the content knowledge for teaching indicated a significant training type effect, Wilks' λ = .66, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref17">6</reflink>, 13) = 4.93, <emph>p </emph>= .001. The results of Anovas, confirmed the difference between the three training conditions on the with regard to: demonstrating a movement, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>, 66)<subs> </subs>= 5.12, <emph>p</emph> < .01, <emph>d</emph>=.13, and presenting a task verbally, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>, 66)<subs> </subs>= 7.61, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>d</emph> = .19. The difference for regulating behavioural difficulties was not significant. The post-hoc revealed that CLS participants expressed significantly more detailed precautions needed to be taken when demonstrating a movement than DI participants (<emph>p</emph> = .02). The difference with CL participants was partially significant (<emph>p</emph> = .06), while no difference was observed between CL and DI conditions (<emph>p</emph> = .89). Furthermore, the post-hoc also revealed that CL, and CLS participants to a lesser degree provided more relevant details when presenting a task verbally than DI participants (<emph>p < </emph>.001 and <emph>p </emph>< .10, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-24">Correlations</hd> <p>The results of correlation analysis computed on the three conditions revealed that the post-test performance was positively related to pedagogical knowledge and teaching self-efficacy scores (<emph>r</emph> = .24, <emph>p</emph> = .05, and <emph>r</emph> = .26, <emph>p</emph> = .03, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-25">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of the present study was to examine whether a scaffolding procedure centred on the teaching intervention integrated into a CL design could contribute to higher PE pre-service teacher's knowledge, skills and self-efficacy. The impact of this supported instructional condition was compared to DI and CL conditions also dedicated to the discovery of a new physical activity during a three 2-hour instructional session. It was expected that experiencing a CL environment would favour skills and knowledge for practice acquisitions, but also teaching self-efficacy and pedagogical knowledge as the CL design included pre-activity scaffolds for instruction. Contrary to previous research (Cohen and Zach 2013; Zach, Harari, and Harari 2012), CL design was specified, focusing on a Jigsaw environment that integrates pedagogical knowledge to instruct peers in cooperative small groups.</p> <p>Our results showed that the participants of the three conditions progressed on all dependent variables, confirming that the benefits arising from a structured CL environment are not limited to pupils who are asked to instruct teammates (Dyson 2002; Dyson and Casey 2012). Furthermore, the CL environment favoured knowledge acquisitions for practice in comparison to a DI condition. This result is interesting for novice teachers with respect to the security measures needed to be learnt and applied, specifically when combat sports are planned in the PE teaching programme (Legrain 1998). Moreover, CL and CLS pre-service teachers acquired more knowledge for instruction than DI participants. Considering the influence of initial training on the conceptions and teaching practices in PE (Adamakis and Zounhia 2016; Hemphill et al. 2015), the Jigsaw environment was appropriate to master pedagogical knowledge. This helped participants to provide each other with useful information addressing the difficulties encountered in building an abstract representation of movements.</p> <p>The effect of the conceptual and procedural scaffolding included in the CLS condition was mainly observed on the competence to describe the precautions to be taken to demonstrate a movement. After getting access to information related to the teacher intervention (Wallhead and O'Sullivan 2005), PE pre-service teachers of CLS condition were better at demonstrating a movement. This result calls for training PE pre-service to direct their attention to teaching knowledge required to set up relevant conditions the beginners' knowledge and motor skill acquisitions depend on. Nevertheless, it also suggests that the scaffolding procedure was mainly oriented towards selected PETE items 'focus on quality of performance' to 'influence students to exert effort' (Zach, Harari, and Harari 2012).</p> <p>On the performance, the CLS condition was particularly favourable for motor skill acquisitions (Lander et al. 2017). In particular, CLS participants better mastered the basic movements they learnt in the specific punching domain in comparison to the two other training conditions.</p> <p>In sum, pre-activity scaffolds integrated to the CL design influenced positively the pre-service teachers' punching performance and their readiness to deliver effective fundamental movement skills through demonstration (Lander et al. 2017). It can be advanced that assigning PE pre-service teachers the role of learner and teacher in a Jigsaw design generated personal and vicarious experiences that positively influenced instructional knowledge acquisitions, increasing the practice quality (Silverman and Mercier 2015). This finding is especially interesting with regard to considerations oriented towards the objective of reducing the theory-practice gap (O'Leary et al. 2015). The correlations showed that the more participants mastered motor skills, the more pedagogical knowledge and teacher self-efficacy expectancies they expressed. Consequently, our results extend to PE pre-service teacher training, general conclusions indicating that implementing CL provides physical, cognitive and motivational benefits (Casey and Goodyear 2015).</p> <p>With respect to self-efficacy, we hypothesized that the CLS training condition would lead to higher PE pre-service teacher self-efficacy expectations. Although, contrary to Cohen and Zach's (2013) conclusion, our results did not indicate an advantage for the DI condition, no significant difference was found in teaching self-efficacy between the three training conditions over time. Thus, it cannot be claimed that pre-service teachers involved in a training session dedicated to discovering new physical practice took advantage of the CLS condition to express higher self-efficacy expectancies. Three explanations may be advanced. First, according to the literature, (Casey and Goodyear 2015; Zach, Harari, and Harari 2012), a CL training design would need to be applied repeatedly to various physical activities to have an impact on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy. A second explanation can be suggested with respect to the scaffolding procedure used for CLS participants training. On this issue, the procedure had potentially driven a wedge between the instructor's expertise in managing the group-work and the perceived level of capabilities the pre-service teachers developed during this study. In the light of a social constructivist perspective of teacher training, such a perceived difference with the model would not be in favour of increasing observers' general self-efficacy (Bandura 1986). Pre-service teachers would also have appreciated viewing additionally some video sequences reflective of their personal and teammates teaching interventions. This also suggests that more time spent on peer-coaching observation activities should be incorporated into the future (O'Leary et al. 2015). Consistent with conclusions of previous studies (Cohen and Zach 2013; Zach, Harari, and Harari 2012), a third explanation refers to the measure we used to examine PE pre-service teachers' self-efficacy. According to the participants' limited experience and the characteristics of the initiation session designed to discover a new physical practice, we selected 8 items of the PETE questionnaire to measure self-efficacy improvements. Obviously, this selection was not relevant and further research may be warranted with the full version of the questionnaire, considering a longer training period. With regard to this last limit, further research is needed in a training programme integrating other physical activities to better identify the conditions under which a scaffolding integrated into a CL environment would favour instructional improvements for PE pre-service teachers. This issue is all the more important since the more pre-service teachers will prefer CL and perceive themselves as competent in using this strategy, the more likely they will reach to develop knowledge and skills to implement CL in PE with positive attitudes towards it as an instructional strategy for pupils.</p> <ref id="AN0134195540-26"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Vocational education refers to the training necessary to become qualified professionals in a variety of trades.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <hd id="AN0134195540-27">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0134195540-28">ORCID</hd> <p> <emph>Pascal Legrain</emph> <ulink href="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6769-1502">http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6769-1502</ulink> </p> <ref id="AN0134195540-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abrami, Philip C., Catherine Poulsen, and Bette Chambers. 2004. " Teacher Motivation to Implement an Educational Innovation: Factors Differentiating Users and Non-Users of Cooperative Learning." <emph>Educational Psychology</emph> 24 ( 2 ): 201 - 216. doi: 10.1080/0144341032000160146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Adamakis, Manolis, and Katerine Zounhia. 2016. " The Impact of Occupational Socialization on Physical Education Pre-Service Teachers' Beliefs About Four Important Curriculum Outcomes: A Cross-Sectional Study." <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph> 22 ( 3 ): 279 - 297. doi: 10.1177/1356336X15605519.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aronson, Elliot, and Shelley Patnoe. 1997. <emph>The Jigsaw Classroom: Building Cooperation in the Classroom</emph>. 2nd ed. Wokingham : Addison-Wesley Educational.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, Albert. 1986. " The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Self-Efficacy Theory." <emph>Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology</emph> 4 : 359 - 373. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, Albert. 2006. " Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales." In <emph>Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents</emph>, edited by Franck Pajares, and Tim Urdan, 307 - 337. Greenwich, CT : Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref17" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Behets, Daniël, and Leaven Vergauwen. 2013. " Learning to Teach in the Field." In <emph>The Handbook of Physical Education</emph>, edited by David Kirk, Doune Macdonald, and Mary O'Sullivan, 407 - 424. London : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bruner, Jérôme S. 1983. <emph>Le développement de l'enfant : savoir-faire, savoir dire</emph>. Paris : PUF.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Capel, Susan. 2007. " Moving Beyond Physical Education Subject Knowledge to Develop Knowledgeable Teachers of the Subject." <emph>Curriculum Journal</emph> 18 ( 4 ): 493 - 507. doi: 10.1080/09585170701687936.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Casey, Ashley, and Victoria A. Goodyear. 2015. " Can Cooperative Learning Achieve the Four Learning Outcomes of Physical Education? A Review of Literature." <emph>Quest</emph> 67 : 56 - 72. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2014.984733.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, Rona, and Sima Zach. 2013. " Building pre-Service Teaching Efficacy: A Comparison of Instructional Models." <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> 18 ( 4 ): 376 - 388. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2012.690374.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curtner-Smith, Matthew D., John R. Todorovich, Nate A. McCaughtry, and Simon A. Lacon. 2001. " Urban Teachers' Use of Productive and Reproductive Teaching Styles Within the Confines of the National Curriculum for Physical Education." <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph> 7 ( 2 ): 177 - 190. doi: 10.1177/1356336X010072005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeVries, Rheta. 2000. " Vygotsky, Piaget, and Education: A Reciprocal Assimilation of Theories and Educational Practices." <emph>New Ideas in Psychology</emph> 18 ( 2-3 ): 187 - 213. doi: 10.1016/S0732-118X(00)00008-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson, Ben. 2002. " The Implementation of Cooperative Learning in an Elementary Physical Education Program." <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph> 22 ( 1 ): 69 - 85. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.22.1.69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson, Ben, and Ashley Casey. 2012. <emph>Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: A Research-Based Approach</emph>. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, John. 1992. " A Short Paper About People, Power and Educational Reform. Authority and Representation in Ethnographic Research Subjectivity, Ideology and Educational Reform: The Case for Physical Education." In <emph>Research in Physical Education and Sport: Exploring Alternative Visions</emph>, edited by Andrew Sparkes, 231 - 247. London : Falmer Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillies, Robyn M. 2008. " The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Junior High School Students' Behaviours, Discourse, and Learning During a Science-Based Learning Activity." <emph>School Psychology International</emph> 29 : 328 - 347. doi: 10.1177/0143034308093673.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillies, Robyn M., and Michael Boyle. 2006. " Ten Australian Elementary Teachers' Discourse and Reported Pedagogical Practices During Cooperative Learning." <emph>The Elementary School Journal</emph> 106 : 429 - 452. doi: 10.1086/505439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, John A. C. 2009. <emph>Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement</emph>. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges, Larry V., and Ingram Olkin. 1985. <emph>Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis</emph>. Orlando, FL : Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemphill, Michael A., K. Andrew, R. Richards, Karen L. Gaudreault, and Thomas Templin. 2015. " Pre-service Teacher Perspectives of Case-Based Learning in Physical Education Teacher Education." <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph> 21 ( 4 ): 432 - 450. doi: 10.1177/1356336X15579402.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hobson, A. J. 2002. " Student Teachers' Perceptions of School-Based Mentoring in Initial Teacher Training (ITT)." <emph>Mentoring and Tutoring</emph> 10 ( 1 ): 5 - 20. doi: 10.1080/13611260220133117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, Kathleen, and Michael Pressley. 1997. <emph>Scaffolding Student Learning: Instructional Approaches & Issues</emph>. Cambridge, MA : Brookline Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jayantilal, Kumar, and Nick O'Leary. 2017. " (Reinforcing) Factors Influencing a Physical Education Teacher's Use of Direct Instruction Model Teaching Games." <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph> 23 ( 4 ): 392 - 411. doi: 10.1177/1356336X16652081.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. 1999. <emph>Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning</emph>. 5th ed. Boston, MA : Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Edythe Holubec. 2013. <emph>Cooperation in the Classroom</emph>. 9th ed. Edina, MN : Interaction Book Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk, David. 2010. <emph>Physical Education Futures</emph>. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk, David. 2012. " What is the Future for Physical Education in the 21st Century? " In <emph>Debates in Physical Education</emph>, edited by Susan Capel, and Margaret Whitehead, 220 - 231. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk, David, and Doune MacDonald. 2001. " The Social Construction of PETE in Higher Education: Toward a Research Agenda." <emph>Quest</emph> 53 ( 4 ): 440 - 456. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2001.10491757.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lafont, Lucile, Camille Rivière, Florence Darnis, and Pascal Legrain. 2017. " How to Structure Group Work? Condition of Efficacy and Methodological Considerations in Physical Education." <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph> 23 ( 3 ): 327 - 338. doi: 10.1177/1356336X15626639.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lander, Natalie, Narelle Eather, Philip J. Morgan, Jo Salmon, and Lisa M. Barnetti. 2017. " Characteristics of Teacher Training in School-Based Physical Education Interventions to Improve Fundamental Movement Skills and/or Physical Activity: A Systematic Review." <emph>Sports Medicine</emph> 47 : 135 - 161. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0561-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Legrain, Pascal. 1998. <emph>Boxe française. Apprentissage et enseignement</emph>. Paris : Editions Revue EPS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Legrain, Pascal, Fabienne d'Arripe-Longueville, and Christophe Gernigon. 2003. " The Influence of Trained Peer Tutoring on Tutors' Motivation and Performance in a French Boxing Setting." <emph>Journal of Sports Sciences</emph> 21 ( 7 ): 539 - 550. doi: 10.1080/0264041031000101872.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzler, Michael W. 2000. <emph>Instructional Models for Physical Education</emph>. Needham Heights, MA : Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzler, Michael W. 2011. <emph>Instructional Models for Physical Education</emph>. Scottsdale, AZ : Holcomb Hathway.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mosston, Muska, and Sara Ashworth. 2008. <emph>Teaching Physical Education</emph>. First Online Edition. The Spectrum Institute for Teaching and Learning. Pearson Education. <ulink href="http://www.spectrumofteachingstyles.org/pdfs/ebook/Teaching%5fPhysical%5fEdu%5f1st%5fOnline%5fold.pdf">http://www.spectrumofteachingstyles.org/pdfs/ebook/Teaching%5fPhysical%5fEdu%5f1st%5fOnline%5fold.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, Lee, Christopher Cushion, and Paul Potrac. 2013. " Enhancing the Provision of Coach Education: The Recommendations of UK Coaching Practitioners." <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> 18 ( 2 ): 204 - 218. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2011.649725.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Leary, Nick, Nicole Wattison, Toni Edwards, and Kate Bryan. 2015. " Closing the Theory-Practice Gap: Physical Education Students' Use of Jigsaw Learning in a Secondary School." <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph> 21 ( 2 ): 176 - 194. doi: 10.1177/1356336X14555300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, Jean. ( [1926] 1950 ). <emph>The Language and Thought of the Child</emph>. Reprint. New York : Harcourt, Brace.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruys, Ilse, Hilde Van Keer, and Antonia Aelterman. 2010. " Collaborative Learning in Pre-Service Teacher Education: An Exploratory Study on Related Conceptions, Self-Efficacy and Implementation." <emph>Educational Studies</emph> 36 ( 5 ): 537 - 553. doi: 10.1080/03055691003729021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, Richard A., and Timothy D. Lee. 1999. <emph>Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis</emph>. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman, Stephen, and Kevin Mercier. 2015. " Teaching for Physical Literacy: Implications to Instructional Design and PETE." <emph>Journal of Sport and Health Science</emph> 4 : 150 - 155. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2015.03.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spjotvoll, Emil, and Michael R. Stoline. 1973. " An Extension of the T-Method of Multiple Comparison to Include the Cases with Unequal Sample Sizes." <emph>Journal of the American Statistical Association</emph> 68 : 976 - 978. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2284534">http://www.jstor.org/stable/2284534</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, Lev Semionovitch. 1978. <emph>Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes</emph>. Translated and edited by Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner, and Ellen Souberman. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallhead, Tristan L., and Mary O'Sullivan. 2005. " Sport Education: Physical Education for the New Millennium? " <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> 10 ( 2 ): 181 - 210. doi: 10.1080/17408980500105098.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Carrie-L. J., and Amy S. C. Ha. 2008. " The Teacher Development in Physical Education: A Review of Literature." <emph>Asian Social Science</emph> 4 ( 12 ): 3 - 18. <ulink href="http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass">http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zach, Sima, Israel Harari, and Nurit Harari. 2012. " Changes in Teaching Efficacy of Pre-Service Teachers in Physical Education." <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> 17 ( 5 ): 447 - 462. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2011.582491.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Pascal Legrain; Guillaume Escalié; Lucile Lafont and Sébastien Chaliès</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1203249
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Cooperative Learning: A Relevant Instructional Model for Physical Education Pre-Service Teacher Training?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Legrain%2C+Pascal%22">Legrain, Pascal</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6769-1502">0000-0001-6769-1502</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Escalié%2C+Guillaume%22">Escalié, Guillaume</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lafont%2C+Lucile%22">Lafont, Lucile</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chaliès%2C+Sébastien%22">Chaliès, Sébastien</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Physical+Education+and+Sport+Pedagogy%22"><i>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</i></searchLink>. 2019 24(1):73-86.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pedagogical+Content+Knowledge%22">Pedagogical Content Knowledge</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychomotor+Skills%22">Psychomotor Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Direct+Instruction%22">Direct Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Activities%22">Physical Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scaffolding+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22France%22">France</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17408989.2018.1561838
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1740-8989
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: One of the key questions of physical education teacher educators (PETE) programmes refers to whether future teachers are prepared to build knowledge and skills to feel self-efficacious in teaching physical education (PE). This issue concerns the instructional model of teaching used to help PE pre-service teachers to master both pedagogical knowledge and motor skills. According to this twofold challenge, the direct instruction (DI) is mainly used for pre-service teacher training. Beyond this traditional model, other instructional models as cooperative learning (CL) approach arise in the initial PE teacher education. Nevertheless, surrounding attempts at innovation, little information related to the instructor's role. Under the social cognitive perspective of self-efficacy and instructional competency building, more information is currently expected with regard to the strategies the instructor uses to scaffold the mastery of skills for PE pre-service teachers' effective teaching. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to consider whether PE pre-service teachers are trained during short training sessions aimed to discover new physical activities. We examine the influence of a scaffolding procedure (CLS design) on PE pre-service teachers' knowledge, skills and self-efficacy in comparison to a CL and a DI experience. This leads to consider to what extent this instructional support provided by the instructor would help pre-service teachers to perceive themselves as self-efficacious to teach contents in PE. Participants and design: After a pre-test, sixty-nine PE pre-service teachers were randomly assigned to one of the three following conditions: CL (14 males and 7 females); CLS (20 males and 8 females) or direct instruction condition (DI; 12 males and 8 females). For the training session a selected CL procedure (Jigsaw) [Aronson, Elliot, and Shelley Patnoe. 1997. "The Jigsaw Classroom: Building Cooperation in the Classroom." 2nd ed. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley Educational]) was used to split CL and CLS participants into mixed-sex teams, whereas DI participants practiced the same exercises in dyads. According to the training conditions, the same instructor provided different information to participants along the three 2-hour instructional sessions with regard to: (a) warm-up (DI), (b) CL organization (CL), and (c) scaffolding integrated into a CL implementation (CLS). Data collection: A Pre-test/post-test design was used to consider PE pre-service teacher's motor skill, knowledge for practice, and self-efficacy improvements. The post-test also examined participants' pedagogical knowledge. Findings: The results showed that the participants in the three conditions progressed on performance, knowledge for practice, knowledge for teaching, and self-efficacy. Although no difference was found in self-efficacy between the three training conditions over time, significant differences appeared on pedagogical knowledge or/and motor skills with an advantage for the CL and CLS participants, respectively. Conclusion: Although short training sessions dedicated to discovering new sports stay problematic for teacher professional development, implementing CL pre-service teacher training designs would be a relevant alternative. Instructional knowledge would be developed mainly when they have explicitly access to information concerning the teacher intervention. Nevertheless, such a scaffolding procedure integrated into CL training designs would need to be applied repeatedly to various physical activities to have an impact on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 46
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1203249
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1203249
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17408989.2018.1561838
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 73
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychomotor Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Direct Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: France
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Cooperative Learning: A Relevant Instructional Model for Physical Education Pre-Service Teacher Training?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Legrain, Pascal
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Escalié, Guillaume
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lafont, Lucile
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chaliès, Sébastien
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1740-8989
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 24
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
              Type: main
ResultId 1