I

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2006, 25, 166-181

Cl2006 Human Kinetics, inc.
Students' Perspectives on Direct, Peer,
and Inquiry Teaching Strategies
Donetta J. Cothran
Indiana University
Pamela Hodges Kulinna
Arizona State University
It was the purpose of this study to examine students' perspectives on three teaching
strategies. Seventy middle school students were interviewed, and they rank ordered
the strategies. A constant comparison process guided the interview data analysis,
while the rank order data were analyzed via descriptive statistics and a Friedman
Analysis of Variance by Ranks. Two key concepts that influenced students' per
spectives on the effectiveness of the teaching strategies were their conceptions of
the affective dimensions of each strategy and their knowledge beliefs.
Key words: teaching strategies, student perspective, learning, physical education
A single class of students is anything but singular. Rather a "single" class is
actually a diverse collection of students that vary widely in many attributes. How
does a teacher effectively reach the broad spectrum of students in such a class?
Lasley and Matczynski (1997) contend that "only teachers who utilize a variety
of instructional models will be successful in maximizing the achievement of all
students" (p. 29). Relatedly, Berliner (1986) suggests that expert teachers use a
range of instructional strategies based on the task and learners' needs.
A number of theorists have discussed the range of instructional approaches
available for use by teachers. In their classic text, Joyce and Weil (2004) describe
over 20 different approaches to teaching, grouped into four types: information
processing, social interaction, focus on the individual, and behavior modification.
Other theorists (e.g., Gunter, Estes, & Schwab, 2003) suggest different groupings
of teaching styles, but also provide a wide variety of styles that teachers should
consider. Within physical education, the oldest and most widely known formal
system of instructional frameworks is Mosston's Spectrum of Teaching Styles
(Moss ton & Ashworth, 2(02), which has been in use for over 30 years. Although
the details of all these approaches to organizing and describing different teach-
Cothran is with Indiana University. Department of Kinesiology, 2391 E. 10th St., Bloomington, IN
47405-7000. Hodges Kulinna is with Arizona State University at the Polytechnic Campus, Department
of Education, 7001 E. Williams Field Rd., Bldg. 140, Mesa, AZ 85212.
ing options vary, then
ways to teach, b) all a
a variety of factors.
These different in
names, such as model!
of the differences in k
Methods, strategi
strategy, or style i
ties and outcome:
A model is desigI
all of the
unit. (p. 12)
For consistency in thi
reflects the short-term
Much of the theo
on teachers' know led!
outcomes (e.g., Gillie!
focused studies are Vall
of a class. What has be:
members of a class: tI
measured learning OUi
been largely absent ftc
This is a critical c
focus on the influential
that students assign to
as to suggest that Studel
influencing the
from this constructivil;
may not assign the sar
on prior knowledge ar
a middle school teach(
lesson using a peer sb
for this year's class
content. In contrast, fir:
lesson with a mix of eI
others may believe the
experiences. Research
findings that students
The two groups vary
of good teaching (Bei!
fun in physical educat
(Cothran & Ennis, 1%
Specific to teachir
students' perspectives
specific to Mosston's:
and Ward (2000) foun<
166
)irect, Peer,
rategies
ctives on three teaching
1, andthey rank ordered
nterview data analysis,
atistics and a Friedman
tluenced students' per
:re their conceptions of
edge beliefs.
Ig, physical education
Rather a "single" class is
in many attributes. How
students in such a class?
ers who utilize a variety
g the achievement of all
lat expert teachers use a
lIners' needs.
instructional approaches
rod Well (2004) describe
four types: information
d behavior modification.
~ e s t different groupings
~ l e s that teachers should
st widely known formal
rom of Teaching Styles
over 30 years. Although
scribing different teach-
nE. 10th St., Bloomington, IN
iytechnic Campus, Department
Students' Perspectives 167
ing options vary, there are basic principles that unite them all: a) there are many
ways to teach, b) all are valuable, and c) the decision to use a method is based on
a variety of factors.
These different instructional approaches can be confusing, as they go by many
names, such as models, strategies, and styles. Metzler (2000) provides an overview
of the differences in terminology:
Methods, strategies, styles, and models differ mainly in scope. A method,
strategy, or style is typically used for one or a few short-term learning activi
ties and outcomes and then gives way to another method, strategy, or style.
A model is designed to be used for an entire unit of instruction and includes
all of the planning, design, implementation, and assessment functions for that
unit. (p. 12)
For consistency in this paper, we will use the term teaching strategy, as it best
reflects the short-term learning scenarios described in the methods section.
Much of the theoretical and research focus on teaching strategies has been
on teachers' knowledge and use of the various strategies, or on student learning
outcomes (e.g., Gillies, 2004; Kulinna & Cothran, 2003). Certainly these teacher
focused studies are valuable and necessary, for teachers are the instructional leaders
of a class. What has been largely overlooked, however, are the other and majority
members of a class: the students. With the exception of student "products," the
measured learning outcomes in various teaching environments, the student has
been largely absent from teaching-strategy research.
This is a critical oversight, as current conceptualizations of student learning
focus on the influential, constructivist nature of student cognition and the meaning
that students assign to their experiences (Phillips, 1995). Nicholls (1992) goes so far
as to suggest that students are educational theorists who are actively interpreting and
influencing the learning environment. When the teaching-learning process is viewed
from this constructivist perspective, one must assume that teachers and students
may not assign the same meaning to classroom events since the individual relies
on prior knowledge and experiences to interpret new information. For example,
a middle school teacher with 20 years' experience likely looks forward to a day's
lesson using a peer strategy, and has high hopes for positive learning outcomes
for this year's class-hopes based on prior experiences with similar classes and
content. [n contrast, first-year students at the middle school may approach the same
lesson with a mix of emotions. Some may be thrilled, some may be confused, and
others may believe the strategy will not work based on their own, different prior
experiences. Research has supported this constructivist approach with consistent
findings that students and teachers frequently hold different class conceptions.
The two groups vary on curricular goals (Cothran & Ennis, 1998), conceptions
of good teaching (Beishuizen, Hof, van Putten, Bouwmeester, & Asscher, 2001),
fun in physical education (Garn & Cothran, in press), and views on class power
(Cothran & Ennis, 1997).
Specific to teaching style research in physical education, little is known about
students' perspectives on various teaching strategies, and what little is known is
specific to Mosston's Spectrum (Mosston & Ashworth, 2002). Cothran, Kulinna,
and Ward (2000) found that college-aged students held differing views on the fun,
168 Cothran and Hodges Kulinna
motivational, and learning aspects of different strategies. Cai (1997) reported that
college student reactions to teaching styles were influenced by the subject matter of
the class in which they were enrolled. In another college-based study, Boyce (1992)
found that even though the command style was superior for skill acquisition, over
50% of the students reported not liking the learning environment.
It was the purpose of this investigation to explore middle school physical
education students' perspectives on direct, peer, and inquiry teaching strategies.
This study is significant because understanding students' perspectives on teaching
strategies is critically important, yet little information about their views exists.
Examining students' perspectives may provide insights into class practices to
which students are most amenable, therefore potentially increasing the likelihood
of student learning. As Cullingford (1991) noted, "Their [students'] views deserve
to be taken into account because they know better than anyone which teaching
styles are successful, which techniques of learning bring out the best of them ..."
(p. 2). Additionally, to understand teacher decision making and strategy use within
the context of a class, one must examine student reactions to various teaching strate
gies. Vaughn, Schumm, Niarhos, and Daugherty (1993) suggest that students are
actively shaping the classroom with their preferences and act " ... in many subtle
and not so subtle ways, and these preferences likely influence teaching procedure"
(p. 108). Teachers who are planning changes in their teaching strategies can be
better informed as to the potential positive and negative responses to a new strategy,
thus increasing the chances of successful pedagogical change.
Method
Overview
This study involved interviews with students about direct, peer, and inquiry
teaching strategies. Researchers described the three approaches and students
responded to a series of questions about each of the three scenarios and then rank
ordered their preferences. The purpose of the investigation was to explore physical
education students' perspectives on teaching strategies and was not an attempt to
identify a "best" way to teach. Rather, the purpose was to explore students' per
spectives on various aspects of each strategy, with a goal of learning more about
students' views on teaching and learning.
Participants
The Research Team. This study was conducted by a research team consisting
oftwo pedagogy faculty members and seven physical education teachers pursuing
graduate degrees. At the time of the study, all the graduate students were enrolled
in a course on research on teaching in physical education. One goal of the course
was to provide the students with research experiences related to the course topic. So
in addition to content knowledge related to the course topic, the graduate students
also studied interviewing techniques and had extensive practice with interviews
as part of the class. The two faculty members were experienced researchers, and
one served as the instructor for the course.
Student Participants. Stl
students (21 in sixth grade,
in age from 11 to 14 years (J
of schools representing se'
smaller suburban districts)
There were 26 boys and 44
their ethnicity as Caucasian
(n =5), Arab-American (n =
the recruitment process, pel
review board, school distri,
permission to recruit was gn
who attended the students'
dents and their parents.
Data Collection
Scenario Development.
scenario was written to repr
(see Appendix). These seer
the three instructional mod
full theoretical complexity 1
description of each approac
balance between keeping tl
students' attention span and,
ways of teaching. Basketball
unit most likely to have beer
representing each scenario'
ofeach type oflesson. After
to three pedagogy specialiSl
teaching strategies, b) had UJ
in courses about teaching st
text. All three experts agree4
valid representations of the
Interviews. Students wen
interviews started with a sho
or wrong answers in this in
what students thought abou
that although the examples'
physical education. An inte
conversations, which lasted
nario and shown its accomI
perceptions about this way (
to all three strategies and st
across participants. As a fim
strategies with regard to the
why they ordered the stratel
tegies. Cai (1997) reported that
iuenced by the subject matter of
/lege-based study, Boyce (1992)
perior for skill acquisition, over
19 environment.
:xplore middle school physical
and inquiry teaching strategies.
ldents' perspectives on teaching
lation about their views exists.
insights into class practices to
fitially increasing the likelihood
"Their [students'] views deserve
ter than anyone which teaching
g bring out the best of them ..."
t1 making and strategy use within
actions to various teaching strate
(1993) suggest that students are
nees and act"... in many subtle
ly influence teaching procedure"
their teaching strategies can be
:ative responses to a new strategy,
tgical change.
Its about direct, peer, and inquiry
: three approaches and students
the three scenarios and then rank
estigation was to explore physical
ategies and was not an attempt to
ose was to explore students' per
ith a goal of learning more about
ted by a research team consisting
{sical education teachers pursuing
e graduate students were enrolled
education. One goal of the course
nees related to the course topic. So
:ourse topic, the graduate students
xtensive practice with interviews
vere experienced researchers, and
Students' Perspectives 169
Student Participants. Student participants in this study were 70 middle school
student.. (21 in sixth grade, 25 in seventh grade, and 24 in eighth grade) ranging
in age from 11 to 14 years (M =12.33, SD =1.02). They were enrolled in a variety
of schools representing seven school districts (one large urban district and six
smaller suburban districts) from a large metropolitan area in the United States.
There were 26 boys and 44 girls who participated in this project. They reported
their ethnicity as Caucasian (n =48), African-American (n =14), Asian-American
(n =5), Arab-American (n =1), Hispanic (n =1), or other (n =1). Before initiating
the recruitment process, permission was gained from the university'S institutional
review board, school districts, principals, and physical education teachers. After
permission to recruit was granted, students were asked to participate by a researcher
who attended the students' classes. Informed consent was received from the stu
dents and their parents.
Data Collection
Scenario Development. Prior to data collection, a short physical education class
scenario was written to represent lessons using direct, peer, and inquiry strategies
(see Appendix). These seenarios were based on Metzler's (2000) description of
the three instructional models. Clearly, a short scenario is unable to convey the
full theoretical complexity of each teaching strategy; however, a lengthy and full
description of each approach would also be problematic. We attempted to reach a
balance between keeping the instrument a manageable length for middle school
students' attention span and adequately representing key aspects ofeach of the three
ways of teaching. Basketball was chosen as the content of the lessons since it was the
unit most likely to have been experienced by the students. A three-panel illustration
representing each scenario was also developed to provide a visual representation
of each type of lesson. After development, the scenarios and illustrations were sent
to three pedagogy specialists who: a) had public school experience using various
teaching strategies, b) had university teaching experience with pre-service teachers
in courses about teaching strategies, and c) were familiar with the Metzler (2000)
text. All three experts agreed that the scenarios and illustrations were realistic and
valid representations of the teaching frameworks.
Interviews. Students were interviewed by a member of the research team. All
interviews started with a short introduction that emphasized that there were no right
or wrong answers in this interview and that the researcher just wanted to know
what students thought about different ways of teaching. It was also emphasized
that although the examples were from basketball, the content could be any part of
physical education. An interview guide (Patton, 2002) was used to structure the
conversations, which lasted from 20 to 40 minutes. Students were read each sce
nario and shown its accompanying illustration. They were then asked about their
perceptions about this way of teaching physical education. All students responded
to all three strategies and strategies were presented in a counterbalanced manner
across participants. As a final question, students were asked to rank order the three
strategies with regard to the best way to teach physical education and to explain
why they ordered the strategies in that manner. This last question was designed to
170 Cothran and Hodges Kulinna
double check students' earlier responses, as well as to provide an opportunity to
compare and contrast the three strategies.
Data Analysis
Rank Order Data. Descriptive information participants provided about them
selves, along with their ratings of the three teaching strategies from best to worst
(Le., 1 = best to 3 = worst) for teaching physical education, were analyzed using
quantitative methods. Descriptive statistics were calculated on the demographic
information. Ranking data were also recoded to create variables representing the
frequency each strategy was chosen. These new variables (I.e., direct, peer, inquiry)
were used to determine the characteristics of the strategies. A t-test was conducted
to determine if differences existed in the frequency of rankings by gender, as well
as an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to investigate differences in frequency of
rankings by grade level. A Friedman Analysis of Variance by Ranks was also con
ducted to see if there was an inherent order in the rankings of teaching strategies
among the students.
Interviews. The conversations were recorded and later transcribed. The interview
data were analyzed using constant comparison and analytic induction methods to
identify and extract common themes across participants (LeCompte & Preissle,
1993). The data analysis process began with each of the graduate students working
alone to develop a list of initial themes with supporting data. Those initial themes
were shared, discussed, reviewed, and compared to the data. Themes specific to
individual or small groups of students were eliminated and the discussions and data
review focused on themes that cut across a majority of the participants. The faculty
member who also served as instructor of the course engaged with and guided the
students in these discussions. After the graduate students finalized their initial list
of themes, these analyses and all data were shared with the second faculty member.
After reviewing all the materials, additional discussions and thematic revisions
occurred between the two faculty members, with the end result being the themes
presented in this paper.
Several measures were taken to insure the trustworthiness of the data collected.
Triangulation of data sources was provided by comparing the rank order data to
interview responses. Data from different schools in different settings and students
representing different grade levels were also compared. Additionally, the use of
multiple researchers provided for multiple perspectives and a system ofchecks and
balances on data interpretation. Repeated re-analysis of the data occurred to search
for negative cases that might offer alternative conceptions to emerging themes.
Results
The results of this study should be interpreted cautiously because students had
not actually experienced all three styles in class settings. Given that caveat, the
results of this study still support the conception of students as active, influential
class participants and learners who can provide key insights into their own educa
tion. Students' rankings and interview responses supported personal theories of
education that were influem
strategy as well as their vie
Rank Order of Scens
The (-test investigating
suggested that boys and giJ
strategies. TheANOVAresl
ences in frequency of ranki
ranked first, second, and th
Variance by Ranks was n01
order to the rankings. Avera
3 worst) were: Direct M =
M =2.11, SD =.81.
Although there was no
ranking, that does not mean
interview responses reveale
two most powerful influenc
of each strategy and b) belie
Effective or Affective
The first key consider:
strategies was how students
contrast to most theoretical
tion of a strategy is based on
explained the tension betwe
I'd rather learn more tit
want to have fun at this
think learning is more iJ
learning for most kids.
As Alex noted, the posit
gies was primarily based on 1
or not fun, however, differe
was that of public display of
Table 1 Students' R a n ~
Ranking If
1 2e
2 2:
3 r
; to provide an opportunity to
cipants provided about them
strategies from best to worst
:lucation, were analyzed using
alculated on the demographic
variables representing the
abIes (Le., direct, peer, inquiry)
ategies. A t-test was conducted
of rankings by gender, as well
,te differences in frequency of
riance by Ranks was also con
rankings of teaching strategies
later transcribed. The interview
I analytic induction methods to
:ipants (LeCompte & Preissle,
f the graduate students working
rting data. Those initial themes
to the data. Themes specific to
ted and the discussions and data
'ofthe participants. The faculty
;e engaged with and guided the
udents finalized their initial list
vith the second faculty member.
ussions and thematic revisions
the end result being the themes
worthiness of the data collected.
mparing the rank order data to
1 different settings and students
pared. Additionally, the use of
ives and a system of checks and
,is of the data occurred to search
to emerging themes.
because students had
;ettings. Given that caveat, the
,f students as active, influential
yinsights into their own educa
supported personal theories of
Students' Perspectives 171
education that were influenced by their perceptions of the affective climate of each
strategy as well as their views about knowledge.
Rank Order of Scenarios
The t-test investigating differences in top-ranked teaching strategies by gender
suggested that boys and girls had similar frequency of rankings for the teaching
strategies. The ANOVA results were similar, with no significant grade level differ
ences in frequency of rankings. The number of times each teaching strategy was
ranked first, second, and third is presented in Table 1. The Friedman Analysis of
Variance by Ranks was not significant, suggesting that there was no underlying
order to the rankings. Average rankings for the strategies (ranging from 1 =best to
3 =worst) were: Direct M =1.86, SD =.80; Peer M =2.03, SD =.84; and Inquiry
M= 2.11, SD =.81.
Although there was no statistical significance related to the teaching strategy
ranking, that does not mean that students did not see the strategies differently. Their
interview responses revealed a variety of perspectives on the strategies, with the
two most powerful influences being the student views of: a) the affective climate
of each strategy and b) beliefs about knowledge.
Effective or Affective?
The first key consideration in students' perspectives on the three teaching
strategies was how students viewed the affective climate of each class. This is in
contrast to most theoretical and teacher discussions of strategies, in which selec
tion of a strategy is based on educational, not necessarily affective, outcomes. Alex
explained the tension between the two perspectives:
I'd rather learn more than have fun and talk. Most middle schoolers probably
want to have fun at this age, and maybe learning isn't as important to them. I
think learning is more important, but having fun is like a higher priority than
learning for most kids.
As Alex noted, the positive or negative affective evaluation of the three strate
gies was primarily based on perceptions of fun. What made each of the classes fun,
or not fun, however, differed and was very socially driven. A related dimension
was that of public display of skills.
Table 1 Students' Rankings of the Teaching Models
Direct Peer Inquiry
Ranking f (valid %) f (valid %) f (valid %)
1 26 (39.4) 22 (33.3) 18 (27.3)
2 23 (34.8) 20 (30.3) 23 (34.8)
3 17 (25.8) 24 (36.4) 25 (37.9)
172 Cothran and Hodges Kulinna
Fun. The more social aspect of peer instruction made it a clear fun favorite for
many of the students. Julia explained:
I like being with my friends, and I like helping them, and I like them helping
me. I just like communicating with them and everything. It's more like a fun
type thing like you know, like have fun. We would enjoy it a lot more, and they
know that we would and we would probably listen more because we would
have a little more freedom.
Erika agreed. "It's always fun working with your peers you know, because it's
your friends and everything instead of working directly with the teacher. It's just
more contact with people your own age and being able to do stuff with them." Nick
offered a more succinct response: "It would be fun because you can talk, and it's
better than doing it yourself."
Working together, however, was not automatically fun, as students ~ o r r i e d
about what would happen if forced to work with someone other than friends.
Nathan explained:
It [fun or not] depends on who they're paired with. If they're with a friend it
would be a fun class but if they're paired with somebody else they don't get
along with then I don't think it would be that fun of a class for them.
John predicted what could happen if non-friends were paired together: "If stu
dents get paired up with people they don't like then probably you'll get fights like
somebody just going around like I am doing it right and stuff like that, and they be
going back and forth." Luke also thought arguing was more likely. "If the person
kept saying you are not doing this right and you are not moving your arms the
right way, it would make the people frustrated, and they would get mad, and they
could start getting into a fight."
With the inquiry strategy, most fun comments focused on the opportunity to
engage in active, creative movement. Nick appreciated the active approach:
You get to move around and I think most kids have more fun when they're
active in a class than when they're less active. Each person in this class is
active. A lot of people would rather be active than listen to lectures on how
to like pass the ball because they are bored when they're listening to lectures,
but then when they're playing they get to move around more.
Mike agreed. "It'd be fun because everyone is doing something. Since we have
our academic classes before this, you've been storing up all this energy and you
want to get it out." Amber liked the individualized options. "It'd probably be fun
because you get to do it your own way. It doesn't matter if it's wrong or not because
there's no right or wrong 'cause you're just doing it by yourself."
In contrast to peer and inquiry strategies, the direct strategy was credited with
having good learning, but less fun, potential. Sharonda described the prevailing
view about this strategy: "It's probably not as fun as the other ones, but you would
learn more 'cause you were just concentrating and you're not getting distracted.
You'd be more focused, might not be as fun, but they'll be focusing more maybe."
Alyssa shared a similar perspective: "I don't think it would be a ton of fun, but I
would like it because you are learning at the same time while you are doing it."
Some students did think the
more skilled performance. Kirb:
know, you get to learn how to do
tice it and get better at it. It makl
the long term learning benefits"
it might be boring to you, but tht
will be better at it."
Public Display of Skill. How
low-skilled students also infiue
Julia claimed that low-skilled stl
because:
They're getting kind of like
they might not like to do it b
if the kids are put on the sl
didn't catch on then they mi
Alex also noted the potential nel
It might not be fun ifyou we
that they're part of the grou
good, and he or she would be
He probably feels really diffi
feel, I don't know, like laug
The public display of skill"
it was a more attractive setting fa
have to worry about showing off;
and you don't have to like worry.
Nathan claimed that working wi
Most kids like working with
being taught. She's more co
so like when she works wit!
point out a mistake she feel
or anything. She knows thaI
to do it.
Students were divided on wi
display of ski11s. Some students fi
was doing something and it cou
positively. "I like it because you
feel that you have to be better tlu
little thing that you're doing." J
you don't pay attention to every'
notice." In contrast, another grot
ferent skills might be viewed neg.
out if they couldn't do the things
but they couldn't do it at all. Th
l made it a clear fun favorite for
Ig them, and I like them helping
I everything. It's more like a fun
ould enjoy it a lot more, and they
( listen more because we would
llf peers you know, because it's
lirectly with the teacher. It's just
able to do stuff with them." Nick
In because you can talk, and it's
ltically fun, as students ~ o r r i e d
ith someone other than friends.
d with. If they're with a friend it
lth somebody else they don't get
t fun of a class for them.
Is were paired together: "If stu
en probably you'll get fights like
ht and stuff like that, and they be
gwas more likely. "If the person
u are not moving your arms the
nd they would get mad, and they
Its focused on the opportunity to
:ciated the active approach:
jds have more fun when they're
lve. Each person in this class is
~ e than listen to lectures on how
(hen they're listening to lectures,
Dve around more.
ioing something. Since we have
:oring up all this energy and you
~ options. "It'd probably be fun
natter ifit's wrong or not because
g it by yourself."
direct strategy was credited with
laronda described the prevailing
as the other ones, but you would
nd you're not getting distracted.
hey'll be focusing more maybe."
Ik it would be a ton of fun, but I
le time while you are doing it."
Students' Perspectives 173
Some students did think the direct strategy was fun because it would lead to
more skilled performance. Kirby claimed, "I think it would be fun because you
know, you get to learn how to do the skill, and then you get to practice it and prac
tice it and get better at it. It makes you a better player." Kayla acknowledged that
the long term learning benefits would eventually payoff in fun. "In the beginning
it might be boring to you, but then at then end it will start getting fun because you
will be better at it."
Public Display of Skill. How students viewed the public display of skill for
low-skilled students also influenced their affective evaluation of the strategy.
Julia claimed that low-skilled students would not like the direct teaching strategy
because:
They're getting kind of like they have to do it right in front of the teacher, so
they right not like to do it because they right not give a lot of effort. Because
if the kids are put on the spot so if they don't know how to do it or if they
didn't catch on then they right, like, not want to show it.
Alex also noted the potential negative feelings low-skilled students right have:
It might not be fun ifyou weren't doing it the correct way, and they don't think
that they're part of the group then. They'd see how everyone else was really
good, and he or she would be the only one who wasn't doing it the correct way.
He probably feels really different because he probably would be frustrated and
feel, I don't know, like laughed at by other people.
The public display of skill was more limited in the peer setting, and therefore
it was a more attractive setting for some students. Emily explained, "You wouldn't
have to worry about showing off and stuff. You can just practice it in your own way,
and you don't have to like worry about other people looking at you if you mess up."
Nathan claimed that working with friends would lessen some students' anxiety:
Most kids like working with partners. Like my friend Lindsey, she doesn't like
being taught. She's more comfortable with her friends than with the teacher,
so like when she works with partners, when she works with a friend, if they
point out a ristake she feels more comfortable and she won't like get upset
or anything. She knows that they won't tell anyone if she doesn't know how
to do it.
Students were divided on whether inquiry was a positive social climate for the
display of skills. Some students felt that the strategy was positive because everyone
was doing something and it could be different. Emily saw the teaching strategy
positively. "I like it because you can go at your own pace, and you don't have to
feel that you have to be better than anyone else, and it's just kind of like your own
little thing that you're doing." Jessica agreed. "You're all doing the exercise so
you don't pay attention to everyone, and if you mess up no one's going to really
notice." In contrast, another group of students thought the freedom to display dif
ferent skills might be viewed negatively. Cara explained, "Some kids could feel left
out if they couldn't do the things how other people could, and they could try hard
but they couldn't do it at all. They would feel left out." Sirilarly, Lindsey said,
174 Cothran and Hodges Kulinna
"A lot of kids don't have a lot of skills. They might feel sad because they can't do
what other kids are doing and just might be jealous."
Knowledge
A second key influence on students' perspectives was their conceptions of
knowledge. Three different views related to who had the necessary knowledge to
promote learning were: a) the teacher as sole source, b) special students, and c)
students as independent learners.
Teacher as Sale Source. For some students, a traditional conception of knowl
edge transmission led by the teacher was seen as the only effective instructional
practice. Melinda described why she preferred direct instruction:
You can get the material down and get it into your brain because you're seeing
it and then doing it yourself, and someone is telling you who has the really
trained eye. You're getting the material back from the person who really knows
the most about it, learning the material from the person who knows the most,
and that's the best way to learn.
Tim agreed that the teacher was the knowledge authority:
I think it [direct instruction] is good because the teacher knows what they are
doing, and if a student doesn't know what they are doing the teacher can help
you. The teacher is acting out for you and he has probably done this a number
of times and it really helps to have someone who knows what they are doing
to teach you, because when you are learning it, you don't know what you are
doing.
This group of students was very concerned about learning to move the "right"
way and learning to move the right way could only happen with the teacher directly
guiding learning. Students were therefore concerned that learning could not occur
in inquiry or peer settings. Tana described why she thought inquiry was not a good
way to teach physical education:
Experimenting would be fun, but you couldn't exactly learn. 'Cause you
couldn't like do it like you were supposed to. You could mess up unless she
told you exactly what to do. Ifyou did it by yourself you could learn it wrong.
Some people are like bad at it, and if they thOUght it was right then maybe they
wouldn't be right and they would always do it that way.
Emily agreed that the inquiry strategy was not a good idea. "People, they wouldn't
know if it was right or wrong by themselves. They could be doing it wrong and
they wouldn't know."
Peer lessons were seen more positively than inquiry because many students
thought working with others would be fun. But the same concerns about who had
the right knowledge to guide learning were also present with peer instruction. Josh
explained:
It might be fun, but you wouldn't learn anything. That would be fun to be
with your friends and stuff but you wouldn't really do anything right because
the person, the co
that's trying to de
then you don't kn
Alex agreed that altho
I thought it was fu
the real coach. Ift
trying to teach yOI
get you to be ever
wouldn't learn as
in sports and the (
would probably b
Students who held
were very critical of th
Tana said, "I don't thiJ
wouldn't be doing the
and not leaving it up
teacher and you shoul4
suggested students w(
"The teacher really do
they'll probably get re
by Jason with inquiry:
It wouldn't be lik4
you anything. I w(
mad at me because
I was a horrible tei
would probably hI
Jessica focused on wh
role in inquiry strategy
I really don't feel
the question like y
and how to do it a
and just asking he
should sit down aJ
Spec/al Students. A
those with high skill,
strategies other than dJ
long as the partner gro
Let's say you wer
weren't so good.
get better. But if
be bad.
t feel sad because they can't do
s."
tives was their conceptions of
tad the necessary knowledge to
roe, b) special students, and c)
:aditional conception of know1
the only effective instructional
~ c t instruction:
our brain because you're seeing
telling you who has the really
lm the person who really knows
lIe person who knows the most,
thority:
he teacher knows what they are
yare doing the teacher can help
laS probably done this a number
~ h o knows what they are doing
.t, you don't know what you are
out learning to move the "right"
happen with the teacher directly
ed that learning could not occur
i thought inquiry was not a good
ln't exactly learn. 'Cause you
, You could mess up unless she
urself you could learn it wrong.
~ t it was right then maybe they
~ that way.
Jd idea. "People, they wouldn't
y could be doing it wrong and
nquiry because many students
same concerns about who had
sent with peer instruction. Josh
ling. That would be fun to be
ally do anything right because
Students' Perspectives 175
the person, the coach, might not know how to do it so she's telling the person
that's trying to do the move the wrong things. If your partner doesn't know,
then you don't know how to do it either. You'd never get anywhere.
Alex agreed that although peer was fun, it was not a good way to learn:
I thought it was fun, but I probably didn't learn as much as I should have from
the real coach. Ifthe person you're partnered with isn't that good and they are
trying to teach you, they probably would lead you in the wrong direction and
get you to be even worse than you are. The students would have fun, but they
wouldn't learn as much because what if their partner wasn't really that good
in sports and the other person was really good and so the really good person
would probably be pulled down to the same level.
Students who held the view of the teacher as the primary knowledge provider
were very critical of the teacher's role in peer and inquiry strategies. For example,
Tana said, "I don't think this one [peer] is a good idea because the teacher really
wouldn't be doing their job. They are the ones that are supposed to be teaching
and not leaving it up to the students to do it." Brandon concurred. "You're the
teacher and you should help your student, not have the other people do it." Julia
suggested students would even react negatively to the teacher's different role.
"The teacher really doesn't do anything and the kids would kind of get mad and
they'll probably get really disrespectful." Similar poor outcomes were predicted
by Jason with inquiry:
It wouldn't be like going to a class because the teacher isn't really teaching
you anything. I wouldn't teach this way because I don't want kids to feel like
mad at me because I'm teaching them the role to play. They'd probably think
I was a horrible teacher and I don't even teach them the correct way, and they
would probably hate you for the rest of their life.
Jessica focused on what the teacher should be doing in contrast to the teacher's
role in inquiry strategy teaching:
I really don't feel the teacher is teaching. She might be explaining or asking
the question like you read, but she's not really teaching how you supposed to
and how to do it and the best ways to do it. It takes time to teach something,
and just asking how to do it isn't a good way to teach. I think every teacher
should sit down and show how to do it and give people a visual about it.
Special Students. A second perspective on knowledge was that special students,
those with high skill, might have the knowledge to be successful with teaching
strategies other than direct instruction. Lindsey thought peer would work well as
long as the partner groups had a skilled person in it:
Let's say you were partnered up with someone who has experience, and you
weren't so good. You could get it from an experienced player so you could
get better. But if you weren't that good and I wasn't that good, then that'd
be bad.
.
176 Cothran and Hodges Kulinna
Carn agreed:
Ifthe low-skilled person was, like, the coach then the person telling them what
they were doing wrong, they might, the high-skilled one might not learn as
much. But I think the lower skilled person would learn more from the higher
skilled person.
Students also reported some value for the inquiry strategy, if students were
skilled. Nathan stated, "I think high-skilled kids would like this better. They don't
always mess up, and they would know what to do." Mike agreed that high-skilled
students could be successful with the inquiry strategy:
I think it might be good in some ways, but maybe not be in others. It would
be a good way because it helps kids think for themselves. Most people who
have a higher skill level would probably like this way because it's a lot more
independent. I think it might not be a good way because some kids maybe
with a lower skill level might not exactly know what to do. Not many kids
would know a bunch of moves and all that stuff to do without a little help from
maybe teachers or other students.
Independent Learners. A third view of knowledge was that students did have
the ability to learn from a variety of strategies and that learning was not directly
dependent on the teacher or special groups of students. Lucas preferred the inquiry
strategy because:
I think it's a good way for kids to learn. I mean, it gets the mind thinking in a
good way and then they kind of like do it at their own pace. I think it is better
than just the teacher saying just this is what you do and you go do it. I think
it gets your mind motivated and that gets you motivated so I think it would
be fun.
Alyssa liked the active nature of an inquiry approach:
I think this would be good. They usually make us sit there and lecture you,
like "So try this and this and this," and then they are talking too much and
then they don't let you get a chance to try it. But if they just simply ask you
and then you go on to then do it that would be good because you are thinking
about it, and you are more focused, and it gives you a chance to try it.
A peer approach was also appreciated by students with this knowledge per
spective. Erika explained why she thought peer instruction was good: "I think the
teacher might do this because they want to be more hands off and mentally fill the
children's minds to help them learn how to play the game instead of just taking
over." Jalet noted the learning advantage the coach would have in peer:
I think it would be more effective for the coach because they are seeing the
mistakes that you are making and trying to teach you. As the coach you'd get
to see all the errors and what they are doing, and trying to teach them how
to correct it so it will help it themselves when they start doing it. They'll
probably notice what
what they told the oth
Karina also saw advantag
doesn't so it's like two peo
a better way of doing it th;
Students who subscril
might sometimes even be
Teenagers sometimes
ally say it, but if a kid.
to move then they acl
them.
She went on to add, "Like
it's said. If lor someone e
she better understands frOt
more listen to other kids tI
As discussed earlier,
way to teach, but rather"
spectives on different tea<
preferences and offered I
possible student reactions
future needed research.
There were no signifi
in contrast to student sur
were generally viewed m!
gies (Cothran et al., 2000)
study, however, students'
teaching strategies. FamiU
gies may also influence s
strategies (Kloosterman, R
of this study was that not I
they reported having expe
revealed they likely had n
research is needed to exru
and perspectives on s t r a t e ~
students, but also were lim
experienced the style as til
ence with a variety of styl
of students' lived experier
confident that we truly unl
The importance of a1
with prior research that re1
rate near the top of StudeD
~ h then the person telling them what
le higlr-skilled one might not learn as
:son would learn more from the higher
the inquiry strategy, if students were
kids would like this better. They don't
t to do." Mike agreed that high-skilled
ry strategy:
but maybe not be in others. It would
link for themselves. Most people who
y like this way because it's a lot more
good way because some kids maybe
~ y know what to do. Not many kids
!.at stuff to do without a little help from
mowledge was that students did have
ies and that learning was not directly
f students. Lucas preferred the inquiry
I mean, it gets the mind thinking in a
it at their own pace. I think it is better
what you do and you go do it. I think
ets you motivated so I think it would
approach:
ly make us sit there and lecture you,
I then they are talking too much and
try it. But if they just simply ask you
uld be good because you are thinking
it gives you a chance to try it.
,y students with this knowledge per
eer instruction was good: "I think the
e more hands off and mentally fill the
play the game instead of just taking
: coach would have in peer:
le coach because they are seeing the
: to teach you. As the coach you'd get
ioing, and trying to teach them how
es when they start doing it. They'll
Students' Perspectives 177
probably notice what they are doing wrong because they are thinking about
what they told the other person.
Karina also saw advantages. "The coach might see something that the teacher
doesn't so it's like two people teaching one kid. The other people might even have
a better way of doing it than the teacher does."
Students who subscribed to this view of knowledge also thought that students
might sometimes even be better at sharing knowledge. Jessica suggested:
Teenagers sometimes have a tendency to not listen to adults when they actu
ally say it, but if a kid, you know, tells them how they are doing or how better
to move then they actually listen and try to like try the ideas that they give
them.
She went on to add, "Like my friend Brittany, she doesn't always understand how
it's said. If I or someone else she knows lets her know what she is doing wrong,
she better understands from what the teacher is saying." Nick agreed. "Kids really
more listen to other kids than they do to adults."
Discussion
As discussed earlier, the purpose of this study was not to determine a best
way to teach, but rather was to provide teachers with insights into students' per
spectives on different teaching strategies. These students reported concerns and
preferences and offered points of reflection from which teachers can consider
possible student reactions to strategy use. Their reports also offer guidance on
future needed research.
There were no significant differences in the rank order of the styles. This is
in contrast to student survey results indicating that teacher-centered strategies
were generally viewed more positively by students than student-centered strate
gies (Cothran et ai., 2000). Like the college students in the Cothran et al. (2000)
study, however, students' perspectives varied as to the relative merit of different
teaching strategies. Familiarity with and teachers' beliefs about the use of strate
gies may also influence students' beliefs about the appropriateness of different
strategies (Kloosterman, Raymond, & Emenaker, 1996). One significant limitation
of this study was that not all students had experienced all three styles. Even when
they reported having experienced a strategy, their descriptions of that experience
revealed they likely had not experienced the full potential of the strategy. Future
research is needed to examine the relationship between student experience with
and perspectives on strategies. Cothran et a1. (2000) found such a link with college
students, but also were limited in their ability to verify that the students had actually
experienced the style as theorized. Only when students have had repeated experi
ence with a variety of styles and researchers have taken a long-term examination
of students' lived experiences during those learning experiences can we be more
confident that we truly understand the student experience.
The importance of affective perceptions of teaching strategies is consistent
with prior research that revealed having fun and working with friends consistently
rate near the top of students' goals for their classes (e.g., Allen, 1986; Cothran &
178 Cothran and Hodges Kulinna
Ennis, 1998). Those same goals influenced these students' discussions about the
merits and challenges of these three strategies. These results related to peer strategies
lend support to Byra and Marks' (1993) findings on the reciprocal style of teach
ing, where they reported students gave more feedback to friends and were more
comfortable when working with friends than non-acquaintances. Perhaps teachers
should let students pick partners when using peer strategies. Knowing that many
students were worried about working with non-friends in peer instruction suggests
that effective teachers might explain why students can benefit from working with
different people, provide quality task sheets to guide feedback, as well as provide
instruction on coaching skills and conflict resolution. Rotating partners frequently
to allow for a chance to work with both friends and non-friends would also help
alleviate student concerns.
With regard to direct instruction, acknowledging that many students do not
find direct instruction fun should lead teachers to consider modifications that might
enhance the appeal of this approach. Emphasizing that increased skill will even
tually payoff in fun activity, and including other lesson components that might
make direct instruction more fun, such as music during some tasks, or creative
approaches to information delivery, are possibilities. Teachers selecting a direct
strategy might also consider the inclusion style from Mosston's Spectrum (Mosston
& Ashworth, 2002), wherein students choose a level ofdifficulty when performing
a given skill. Alternately, the use of multiple instructional strategies in the same
lesson can balance the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy as perceived by
students. The key for instructional success is finding ways to combine the students'
affective needs with the teachers' instructional needs rather than seeing them as
oppositional goals.
The second factor in students' perceptions of teaching strategies was their
epistemological beliefs (what students believe about knowledge and knowing).
Students' conceptions of knowledge in physical education seem to parallel much
of the general education findings related to epistemology. It is important for us to
understand these epistemological beliefs, as "what students think knowledge is
and how they think they know have become critical components of understanding
student learning" (Hofer, 200 1, p. 354). Although this investigation was not initially
focused on epistemological models, there are interesting parallels between these
findings and Baxter Magdola's (1992) Epistemological Reflection Model.
Although Baxter Magdola's (1992) model was based on work with college
students, these middle school students seemed to share similar epistemological
conceptions. There were students whose knowledge beliefs were similar to Baxter
Magdola's Stage 1, Absolute Knowing. These students saw the teacher as the sole
and legitimate provider of knowledge, and they were very critical of teaching
strategies that moved the teacher from the center of the knowledge transmission
process. Students who saw highly skilled students as potentially valuable sources
of knowledge were also likely operating at this stage, as knowledge was viewed as
the domain ofexperts, whom others must have access to in order to learn. Similarly,
there were some students who appeared to hold beliefs congruent with Stage 2,
Transitional Knowing. Learners in this stage concede that authorities do not know
everything all the time. Peers start to influence conceptions of knowledge in this
stage. The third group of students, those who believed that peers and/or self could
be valuable in learning, may fall in Stage 3, Independent Knowing. The fourth
and final stage is Contextual
most important aspect of trotl
of knowledge.
Caution must be taken i
was not the purpose of this st
students. The parallels, how
may also be a worthy use of 1
independent thought and lea
sole source of knowledge. Us
discovery, and divergent disc
to prompt such growth.
The introductory paragrl
Lasley and Matczynski (199
tional models will be succeSi
(p. 29). We would like to sug
teachers who utilize a
their students view and reaCi
the achievement of all studen
achieve that promise.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to t
Atrasz, Sarah Callaghan, Elizab
and Colleen Wandel. Without thl
nearly as much fun.
Allen, J.D. (1986). Classroom n
American Educational
Baxter Magdola, M.B. (1992). K
in students' intellectual dev,
Beishuizen, J.J., Hof, E., van Pu
dents' and teachers' cogniti
Psychology, 71, 185-201.
Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit
5-13.
Boyce, B.A. (1992). The effects
performance. Journal ofTej
Byra, M., & Marks, M.e. (1993)
and comfort levels ofleam.:
in Physical Education, 12, :
Cai, S.x. (1997). College studenl
classes. College Student Jm
Cothran, D.J., & Ennis, e.D. (1
power. Teaching and Teach
Cothran, DJ., & Ennis, e.D. (199
teachers' curricular goals. J
ithese students' discussions about the
These results related to peer strategies
lings on the reciprocal style of teach
Ie feedback to friends and were more
l non:acquaintances. Perhaps teachers
gpeer strategies. Knowing that many
on-friends in peer instruction suggests
can benefit from working with
i to guide feedback, as well as provide
!solution. Rotating partners frequently
and non-friends would also help
owledging that many students do not
rs to consider modifications that might
asizing that increased skill will even
other lesson components that might
music during some tasks, or creative
ssibilities. Teachers selecting a direct
'Ie from Mosston's Spectrum (Mosston
e a level of difficulty when performing
lIe instructional strategies in the same
esses of each strategy as perceived by
I finding ways to combine the students'
[)nal needs rather than seeing them as
lions of teaching strategies was their
ieve about knowledge and knowing).
'sical education seem to parallel much
epistemology. It is important for us to
is "what students think knowledge is
critical components of understanding
ough this investigation was not initially
II.re interesting parallels between these
:temological Reflection Model.
odel was based on work with college
to share similar epistemological
owledge beliefs were similar to Baxter
students saw the teacher as the sole
d they were very critical of teaching
center of the knowledge transmission
tudents as potentially valuable sources
this stage, as knowledge was viewed as
lve access to in order to learn. Similarly,
) hold beliefs congruent with Stage 2,
Ie concede that authorities do not know
ence conceptions of knowledge in this
believed that peers and/or self could
: 3, Independent Knowing. The fourth
Students' Perspectives 179
and final stage is Contextual Knowing, where independent thinking remains the
most important aspect of truth, and independent thought takes place in the context
of knowledge.
Caution must be taken in interpreting these epistemological parallels, as it
was not the purpose of this study to document knowledge beliefs in younger aged
students. The parallels, however, are intriguing and worthy of future study. It
may also be a worthy use of teachers' time to think about how to promote student
independent thought and learning and to decrease reliance on the teacher as the
sole source of knowledge. Using student-centered strategies like inclusion, guided
discovery, and divergent discovery (Moss ton & Ashworth, 2002) may be one way
to prompt such growth.
The introductory paragraph to this paper included the following quote from
Lasley and Matczynski (1997): "Only teachers who utilize a variety of instruc
tional models will be successful in maximizing the achievement of all students"
(p. 29). We would like to suggest a modification of their recommendation: "Only
teachers who utilize a variety of instructional models, and who understand how
their students view and react to those models, will be successful in maximizing
the achievement of all students." This study is a first step toward helping teachers
achieve that promise.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the graduate students involved in this study: Suzette
Atrasz, Sarah Callaghan, Elizabeth Jones, Donna Kasprzak, Steve Ng, Bridgette Sawyer,
and Colleen Wandel. Without their assistance, this project would not have been possible or
nearly as much fun.
References
Allen, J.D. (1986). Classroom management: Students' perspectives, goals, and strategies.
American Educational Research Journal, 23, 437-459.
Baxter Magdola, M.B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns
in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Beishuizen, J.J., Hof, E., van Putten, C.M., Bouwmeester, S., & Asscher, J.J. (2001). Stu
dents' and teachers' cognitions about good teachers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 185-201.
Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, IS,
5-13.
Boyce, B.A. (1992). The effects of three styles of teaching on university students' motor
performance. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 11, 389-401.
Byra, M., & Marks, M.e. (1993). The effect of two pairing techniques on specific feedback
and comfort levels of learners in the reciprocal style of teaching. Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 12, 286-300.
Cai, S.X. (1997). College student attitude toward three teaching styles in physical education
classes. College Student Journal, 31, 251-260.
Cothran, D.J., & Ennis, e.D. (1997). Students' and teachers' perceptions of conflict and
power. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13,541-553.
Cothran, D.J., & Ennis, C.D. (1998). Curricula ofmutual worth: Comparisons of students' and
teachers' curricular goals. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17,307-327.
180 Cothran and Hodges Kulinna
Cothran, D.J., Kulinna, P.H., & Ward, E. (2000). Students' experiences with and perceptions
of Mosston's teaching styles. Journal ojResearch and Development in Education, 34,
93-103.
Cullingford, C. (1991). The inner world oj the school: Children's ideas about schools.
London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Garn,A., & Cothran, D.J. (in press). The fun factor in physical education. Journal oJTeach
ing in Physical Education.
Gillies, R.M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students
during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197-213.
Gunter, M.A., Estes, T.H., & Schwab, J. (2003). Instruction: A models approach. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Hofer, B.K. (200 I). Personal epistemology research: Implications for teaching and learning.
Journal ojEducational Psychology Review, 13, 353-383.
Joyce, B.R., & Weil, M. (2004). Models ojteaching (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kloosterman, P., Raymond, A.M., & Emenaker, C. (1996). Students' beliefs about mathemat
ics: A three-year study. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 39-56.
Kulinna, P.H., & Cothran, D.J. (2003). Physical education teachers' self-reported use and
perceptions of various teaching styles. Learning and Instruction, 13, 597-609.
Lasley, T.J., & Matczynski, T.J. (1997). StrategiesJor teaching in a diverse society: Instruc
tional models. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
LeCompte, M.D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Metzler, M.W. (2000). Instructional models Jor physical education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (5th ed.). New York:
Benjamin Cummings.
Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Students as educational theorists. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.),
Students' perceptions in the classroom (pp. 267-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Phillips, D.C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.
Educational Researcher, 24, 5-12.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., Niarhos, EJ., & Daugherty, T. (1993). What do students think
when teachers make adaptations? Teaching and Teacher Education, 9,107-118.
,
Direct Instruction. In this
students how to move the b
lay-up and the important thi
dents practice to make sure t
all students would look a 101
and lets them know how t h e ~
everyone what the class did'
Peer Instruction. In this pt
The class might start with the
to know about how to do a gc
practice passing the ball agai
partner is the coach. The coa(
what they're doing right or"
groups. If a mover isn't doin
coach and help them see wh.
the coach to tell their partner
switch jobs and the coach get
the partners to tell each other
be a good coach.
Inquiry. In this physical edl
tion, "How can you get away
and try out different ways t h e ~
have tried different ways to Il
class the teacher said, "I sa\\
ways we can change hands."
try out different ways to dril
the end of this class, the tead
able to change hands and stil
they could.
,'experiences with and perceptions
f1Id Development in Education, 34,
:: Children's ideas about schools.
ysical education. Journal ofTeach
ng on junior high school students
rion,14,197-213.
~ t i o n : A models approach. Boston:
llications for teaching and learning.
3-383.
Ii ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
I. Students' beliefs about mathemat
lmal, 97, 39-56.
ion teachers' self-reported use and
Id Instruction, 13, 597-609.
/Ching in a diverse society: Instruc
IgCompany.
id qualitative design in educational
Is.
'cal education. Boston: Allyn and
'al education (5th ed.). New York:
:. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.),
:6). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
rvch methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
The many faces of constructivism.
T. (1993). What do students think
'OCher Education, 9,107-118.
Students' Perspectives 181
Appendix
Teaching Scenarios
Direct Instruction. In this physical education class, the teacher shows and tells
students how to move the best way. This teacher showed the class how to do a
lay-up and the important things the students needed to know about it. Then stu
dents practice to make sure they can do the skilL If everyone did it the right way,
all students would look a lot alike. The teacher walks around and helps students
and lets them know how they are doing. At the end of class the teacher might tell
everyone what the class did well and what they will work on next time.
Peer Instruction. In this physical education class, students help each other learn.
The class might start with the teacher showing everyone the three things they need
to know about how to do a good pass in basketball. Students then get a partner and
practice passing the ball against the wall. One partner is the mover and the other
partner is the coach. The coach's job is to help the mover get better by telling them
what they're doing right or wrong. The teacher walks around and helps different
groups. If a mover isn't doing something right the teacher will talk to the student
coach and help them see what their partner needs to do better. The teacher wants
the coach to tell their partner how they're doing. After a few minutes, the partners
switch jobs and the coach gets to be the mover. At the end of class the teacher asks
the partners to tell each other what they learned about passing the ball and how to
be a good coach.
Inquiry. In this physical education class, the teacher starts the class with a ques
tion, "How can you get away from a defender?" Students dribble around the gym
and try out different ways they could get away from the defense. When the students
have tried different ways to move, the teacher asks them another question. In this
class the teacher said, "I saw some of you changing hands. Let's see how many
ways we can change hands." Students think about the teacher's question and then
try out different ways to dribble. The students do things at their own speed. At
the end of this class, the teachers might ask the students "How many of you were
able to change hands and still control the ball?" The students raise their hands if
they could.