Leadership in Sports – Perceived Teacher Student-Congruence in Physical Education

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to adapt the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) to physical education (PE) classes, as a suitable instrument for measuring teacher behavior by consideration of the perspectives of students and teachers. Moreover, the influence of teacher behavior and perceived teacher-student congruence on the satisfaction of students was examined. Design: Two cross-sectional studies, an online survey with PE teachers and a grammar school study where students responded to a questionnaire assessing students’ perception and the preferred teacher behavior and teachers fill in a selfdescription form regarding their own behavior. Methods: Participants for study 1 were 527 (254 females and 273 males) PE teachers, age 21-64 years (M= 42.11; SD = 11.21). Participants in study 2 were 1452 students (625 females, 798 males and 29 unstated), age 9-17 years (M = 13.31; SD = 1.49) and 18 PE teachers (8 females and 10 males), age 28-60 years (M= 49.87; SD = 14.99). Results: Conducted confirmatory factor analysis and the examination of the reliability coefficients indicate that the LSS is adequate for the usage in PE. Hierarchical regression analyses demonstrated that teacher behavior directly influences the satisfaction of students. Moreover, perceived teacher-student congruence has a positive effect on students’ satisfaction in the case of the teaching styles of instruction and positive feedback. Conclusions: The findings support the assumption that the LSS is a suitable instrument for the application in PE. Teachers should be concerned with the perceptions of students and their preferred teaching behavior in order to adapt to their needs and to foster satisfaction and interest in PE. 1 This chapter based on a manuscript submitted to the journal “Psychology of Sport and Exercise” (Lindberg, Belz, Schmitt & Hasselhorn, submitted) Empirical Studies in Physical Education 26 Introduction More than other school subjects, physical education (PE) is concerned with demands and objectives that are directed at the students’ welfare, health and lifestyle (Hagger et al. 2003; Biddle, 2001). Moreover, PE is believed to influence the physical activity of students outside of school and to provide a basis for their future health-related engagement (Jessor, 1984; Aarø et al., 1986; Wold, 1989; Perry et al., 1990). Apart from the influence of peers and family, PE teaching constitutes the major factor for learning, acquiring and developing physical activity habits (Kenyon and McPherson, 1973; Gee, 1987; Sallis and McKenzie, 1991). The challenge of a PE teacher is to provide students with the behavioral skills needed to regulate their own exercise behavior (Dishman et al., 1985; Sallis, 1987) by adequate education and instruction. As a result, PE ought to contribute to the establishment and maintenance of a healthy and physically active life-style (Simons-Morton, 1994). It is generally assumed that PE teachers can use different teaching styles to influence exercise behavior and physical activity levels outside of the classroom (e.g., Marsh & Peart, 1988). In research, a variety of teaching styles have been recommended, which range from the implementation of only one style, such as cooperative learning, to a broad variety of applied options (Joyce & Weil, 1986; Johnson, 1994; Slavin, 1990). Furthermore, students differ with regard to their abilities, for instance intelligence (Armstrong, 1994), self-regulation (Zimmerman, 1990) or learning style (Curry, 1999). As a consequence, it is indispensable that a teacher acquires and uses different teaching styles adaptively (Bellanca, 1998) to meet the needs of all students and to increase their performance (Doolan & Hongsfeld, 2000). It has often been reported that PE promotes the students’ further interest in physical activity and sports (Almond & Harris, 1998) and that adolescents who had positive attitudes toward PE were more likely to exercise in their future lives (Ferguson et al., 1989). In contrast, research has shown that over time, the interest and participation in PE can decrease (Anderssen, 1993; Van Wersch, Trew & Turner, 1992). Therefore, teachers should aim at feedback-related teaching styles which focus on motivation, interest and improvement. Moreover, it is important to emphasize individualized learning and task related instructions that assist efforts towards improvement (Ames, 1992; Brophy, 1987). Teacher styles concerned Empirical Studies in Physical Education 27 with a feedback component were linked to providing knowledge, motivation and reinforcement (Fitts & Posner, 1967). Accordingly, feedback behavior can operate as a strong source of motivation and as a crucial factor in learning (Cloes, Premuzak, & Piéron, 1993; Graham, 1992; Hellison & Templin, 1991; Sharp, 1992). Furthermore, adequate teaching behavior can bear a significant impact on the students’ level of intrinsic motivation (Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985). Motivation in PE, in turn, is linked to a number of important outcomes, such as participation in optional PE (Ntoumanis, 2005) and after-school sports (Goudas, Dermitzaki, & Bagiatis, 2001). Finally, the students’ satisfaction with PE seems to be the foundation for a high and motivated engagement in sports (Carlson, 1995; Graham et al., 1998; Portman, 1995; Siedentop, 1991). It is therefore essential to find an appropriate way of defining adequate teaching behavior, to render it assessable and applicable. In this sense, the multidimensional leadership model (Chelladurai, 1978) can serve as a convenient framework for investigating teaching behavior in PE. This model was originally developed for sports related situations which involve a coach as well as a team. More specifically, the model focuses on the individual behavior of the coach. This behavior can be examined according to (a) the requirements of a particular situation, (b) the athletes’ preferences for the coachs’ behavior and (c) the perception of the coachs’ behavior. Several studies show that a congruence between the perception of coaches and athletes regarding leadership behavior leads to higher performance (Gordon, 1986; Serpa, Pataco, & Santos, 1991; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986), and satisfaction of the team members (Chelladurai et al., 1988; Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998; Dwyer & Fischer, 1990; McMillin, 1990; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995; Schliesman, 1987; Summers, 1983; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). In addition, further elements have to be considered: the characteristics of the coach, the situation, and the team members can all influence the leadership behavior (Chelladurai & Carron, 1983; Chelladurai, Imamura, Yamaguchi, Oinmuma, & Miyauchi, 1988; Chelladurai, Malloy, Imamura, & Yamaguchi, 1987). The results within the multidimensional leadership framework are obtained by conducting the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS), a questionnaire developed for the assessment of the different aspects of leadership behavior (Chelladurai & Empirical Studies in Physical Education 28 Saleh, 1980). The LSS consists of five factors: (1) training and instruction, (2) democratic behavior, (3) autocratic behavior, (4) social support, and (5) positive feedback. In several countries, translated versions of the LSS have been successfully implemented and tested (Chelladurai et al., 1988; Iseberg & Chelladurai, 1990; Kim, Lee & Lee, 1990; Iordanoglou, 1990). Even though the subscale autocratic behavior was not replicated in all studies (Alfermann, Saborowski & Würth, 1997; Lee, Williams, Cox & Terry, 1993) the LSS can be classified as a reliable (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995; Gardner et al., 1996; Price & Weiss, 2000; Trail, 2004; Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005) as well as a valid instrument (Iordanoglou, 1990; Isberg & Chelladurai, 1990; Kim, Lee, & Lee, 1990; Lacoste & Laurencelle, 1989; Serpa, Lacoste, Pataco, & Santos, 1988; Chelladurai & Riemer 1998). As the present study was conducted in Germany, the translated and established fourfactorial version of the LSS by Würth, Saborowski & Alfermann (1999) was adapted to the usage in PE. In order to provide a suitable instrument for measuring teacher behavior in PE, an adequate reformulation of LSS items was conducted for three versions: students’ preference for specific teacher behaviors, students’ perception of their teacher and the teachers’ perception of their own behavior. Subsequently, all three versions were tested concerning reliability and validity. Moreover, the influence of the different behavior styles on students’ satisfaction and the effect of congruence between the different LSS versions were examined. Finally, a comparative analysis was conducted to reveal which constellation was most successful to predict students’ satisfaction. Method This research report refers to two independent studies. The first study addressed PE teachers and it was conducted as a nationwide online-survey. In the second study an extensive questionnaire-based investigation was applied in German grammar schools. The latter study was divided into two sub-studies: Study 2a: Student-Perspective is concerned with students’ perception/students’ preference of teaching behavior and Study 2b: Student/Teacher-Perspective regarding students’ perception/teachers’ perception and students’ preference/teachers’ perception of teaching behavior. Empirical Studies in Physical Education 29 Participants In study 1 a complete dataset of 527 (254 females and 273 males) physical education teachers was obtained. The age of the participants ranged from 21 to 64 with an average of 42.11 years (SD = 11.21). The sample of study 2a consisted of 1452 students (625 females, 798 males and 29 unstated). Their age varied from 9 to 17 with a mean of 13.31 years (SD = 1.49). Finally, the sample of Study 2b consisted of 696 students (374 females, 312 males and 10 unstated) and 18 physical education teachers (8 females and 10 males). In this sample, the age differed from 9 to 17 with an average of 13.11 years (SD = 1.54) for students and from 28 to 60 with a mean of 49.87 years (SD = 14.99) for teachers. Materials For this project the items of the German version of the LSS were rephrased in reference to school context and transferred to the three versions teacher perception (LSS-Teacher), students’ perception (LSS-Student) and preference (LSS-Preference) of physical education behavior, respectively. The instruments were designed as 21-item questionnaires that measured four dimensions of physical education behavior: education and instruction (7 items), democratic behavior (5 items), positive feedback (5 items), and social support (4 items). All three versions of the LSS had a unique preface to initiate the single items. In this respect, the LSS-Teacher started with “I show this behavior...”, the LSS-Student started with “My teacher..”, and the LSS-Preference started with “In physical education classes it is important for me that my teacher...”. The items, however, were comparable in all LSS versions. In order to assess the behavior of teachers that is concerned with enhancing the students’ sportive and social performance, the dimension education and instruction was established (e.g. “Explains to each student the techniques and tactics of the sport”). The second dimension, democratic behavior, focused on behavior that allows students to participate in making decisions that refer to the arrangements of the lesson and other activities (e.g. “Lets the students share in decision making”. Positive feedback was the dimension that measured behavior relating to the reinforcement of students’ good performance and behavior (e.g. “Compliments a student on good performance while others are present “). The forth dimension, social support, concentrated on behavior that endeavors to reach and maintain a good relationship with the Empirical Studies in Physical Education 30 students and to establish a convenient class climate (e.g. “Helps students with their personal problems“). Participants could rate the items on 5-point, Likert-type scales ranging from never (1) to always (5). A high score represented a strong perception of the teachers’ behavior, whereas a low one represented a low perception of their behavior. In order to assess the satisfaction of students, a scale of four items was developed according to the proceeding of Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995. All items started with the term “How satisfied are you with...” and continued with PE related content (e.g. “the structure and the arrangement of the physical education classes?”). Responses were provided on a 7-point, Likert-type scale ranging from not at all satisfied (1) to extremely satisfied (7). Procedure In the present paper, two studies were accomplished. For study 1 an online questionnaire was applied to test the LSS-Teacher in a large sample. To measure the importance and adequacy of the LSS-Teacher, control items for each of the four subscales were added. The control items were initiated by the expression “This aspect is important for my physical education classes” and could be rated on a 4-point, Likert-type scale ranging from unimportant (1) to very important (4). For example, a control item for the dimension positive feedback was “direct award and approval of good student performance”. A mailing list was composed in order to contact various schools, using a public register of German grammar schools (www.schulweb.de). Moreover, a hyperlink connecting to the online-survey was placed on websites relevant for PE teachers (for example the federation of physical education teachers www.dslv.de and the teacher information platform www.teachersnews.net). In addition, a short description of the project was distributed via e-mail and presented on the websites. The completion of the questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes. Study 2 addressed secondary level students in German grammar schools. Seven schools and over 49 classes were recruited in order to obtain a sufficient sample size. The questionnaires were administered in close collaboration with the PE teachers. Following an intensive briefing and the supply of a handout instruction, the cooperating teachers applied the LSS-Perception, the LSS-Preference and the satisfaction scale to all classes. Moreover, the participating teachers were asked to Empirical Studies in Physical Education 31 fill in the LSS-Teacher. A complete dataset could only be accomplished for 27 classes so that the sample is divided, as mentioned before, into the sub-studies 2a), full sample for LSS-Perception and LSS-Preference and 2b), sub-sample with all versions of the LSS.