Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn. 2005 35(2): 19-25

Social and relational interactions in different types of PE lessons during student teachers' practice teaching

Josef Mitá¹, Karel Frömel
Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacky University, Olomouc

The main goal of the study was to analyze social and relational characteristics of student PE teachers' practice teaching. The results should be used to increase the quality of pre-professional PE teachers' preparation from the interaction point of view and should allow the effective transfer of theoretical knowledge into school practice. The experiment included evaluations of student teachers from seven PE colleges in the Czech Republic and in Poland. The analysis was focused on the difference between habitual and progressive PE lessons evaluation. All mainc haracteristics of education were observed. Special emphasis was placed on social and relational factor in pupils according to different types of leadership in PE lessons and to changing pupils' role in school PE. Progressive interventions were positively valuated in both the social [H (1, 18489) = 107.18; p = .00; η2 = .01] and relational [H (1, 18489) = 25.89; p = .00; η2 = .00] dimension. Student teachers valuated relational dimension more positively in habitual PE lessons [H (1, 18489) = 25.89; p = .00; η2 = .00], but social dimension was evaluated by them more positively in progressive PE lessons [H (1, 1270) = 48.94; p = .00; η2 = .04]. Although there is distinction between PE teachers' preparation in the Czech Republic and in Poland, the difference in PE lessons evaluation was not significantly different.

Keywords: Education, questionnaire, student teacher, pupil

Prepublished online: February 17, 2009; Published: September 1, 2005  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Mitá¹, J., & Frömel, K. (2005). Social and relational interactions in different types of PE lessons during student teachers' practice teaching. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Gymnica, 35(2), 19-25
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Bellz, H., & Siegrist, M. (2001). Klicove kompetence a jejich rozvijeni. Vychodiska, metody, cviceni a hry. Praha: Portal.
    2. Brooker, R., Muller, R., Mylonas, A., & Hansford, B. (1998). Improving the assessment of practice teaching: A criteria and standards framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(1), 5-25. Go to original source...
    3. Brown, S. E. (2000). Junior female students' experiences of school physical education. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 33, 17-33.
    4. Byra, M. (2000a). A review of spectrum research: The contributions of two eras. Quest, 52, 229-245. Go to original source...
    5. Byra, M. (2000b). Coherent PETE program: Spectrum style. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71(9), 40-44. Go to original source...
    6. Cai, S. X. (1997). College student attitude toward three teaching styles in physical education classes. College Student Journal, 31(2), 251.
    7. Coulon, S. C., & Lorenzo, D. C. (2003). The effects of supervisory tasks statements on preservice teachers' instructional behaviors during retaught lessons. Education, 124(1), 181-193.
    8. Cuddihy, T. F., Corbin, C. B., & Dale D. (2002). A short instrument for assessing intrinsic motivation for physical activity. Physical Educator, 59(1), 26-37.
    9. Dobry, L. (1998). Zak jako subjekt edukace. In D. Tomajko & H. Valkova (Eds.), Zak v soucasnem pojeti telesne vychovy (pp. 19-27). 0lomouc: Univerzita Palackeho
    10. Fromel, K., Novosad, J., & Svozil, Z. (1999). Pohybovd aktivita a sportovni zajmy mladeze. 0lomouc: Univerzita Palackeho.
    11. Fromel, K., Vasendova, J., Sigmund, E., Zikova, Z., Neuls, F., Grofik, D. et al. (2000). Individualizace didaktickeho procesu. 0lomouc: Univerzita Palackeho.
    12. Goldberger, M. (1992). The spectrum of teaching styles: A perspective for research on teaching physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(1), 42-46. Go to original source...
    13. Chytil, J. (2002). Dotaznik 2002 [Computer software]. 0lomouc: SoftWare Centrum.
    14. Hozman, Z., & Fromel, K. (2000). Vyvojove trendy skolni telesne vychovy v Norsku. Telesna vychova a sport mladeze, 66(6), 12-15.
    15. Hynes-Dusel, J. M. (1999). Physical education student teacher concerns. Physical Educator, 56(1), 33-48.
    16. Knitt, D. et al. (2000). Should the physical education curriculum include more non-traditional, multicultural activities? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71(7), 14-15. Go to original source...
    17. Knudson, R. E. (1998). Secondary student teaching and the supervised experience. The High School Journal, 82(1), 49-61.
    18. Mandigo, J. L., & Holt, N. L. (2000). Putting theory into practice: How cognitive evaluation theory can help us motivate children in physical activity environments. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71(1), 44-49. Go to original source...
    19. Mares, J. (1998). Styly uceni zaku a studentu. Praha: Portal.
    20. Mitas, J., Fromel, K., Svozil, Z., & Gorna, K. (2003). The relation of 15 and 18 years old secondary school students to physical education lessons in international context. In W. Mynarski & J. Slezinski (Eds.), Efekty ksztalcenia i wychowania w kulturze fizycznej (pp. 215-221). Katowice: Academy of Physical Education.
    21. Morse, D. T. (1999). MINISIZE2: A computer program for determining effect size and minimum sample size for statistical significance for univariate, multivariate and nonparametric tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(3), 518-531. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    22. Mosston, M. (1992). Tug-0-War, no more: Meeting teaching-learning objectives using the spectrum of teaching styles. Journal ofPhysical Education, Recreation & Dance, 56(1), 27-31. Go to original source...
    23. Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education. San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
    24. Penney, D., & Chandler, T. (2000). Physical education: What future(s)? Sport, Education and Society, 5, 71-87. Go to original source...
    25. Quezada, R. L. (2004). From student teacher to teacher: Making the first cut (Part I). Journal ofInstructional Psychology, 31(1), 75-85.
    26. Senne, T. A. (2002). Transition to teaching: Putting your best foot forward. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(1), 45-53. Go to original source...
    27. StatSoft CR (2002). STATISTICA 60 [Computer software]. Praha: StatSoft Czech Republic.
    28. Svec, V., Fialova, H., & Simonik, 0. (2000). Praktikum didaktickych dovednosti. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
    29. Svec, S. (2000). Kontexty monitorovania rozvoja sposobilosti (dovednosti) adeptov uciterstva. In V. Svec (Ed.), Monitorovdnia rozvoj pedagogickych dovednosti. Brno: Paido.
    30. Zakrajsek, D., & Carnes, L. A. (1986). Individualizing physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content