Background/Purpose:
A primary area of concern for physical educators is creating high-quality programs. Even those teachers with strong preparation may find the induction years to be extremely challenging (Stroot & Whipple, 2003). Each teacher brings a unique set of preconceptions to the field (Graham, Hohn, Werner, & Woods, 1993), and over time, teachers are assimilated into the culture of the profession where they do not always apply the best practices learned during undergraduate training (Lawson, 1986). Guided by the theory of occupational socialization (Lawson, 1986), the purpose of this study was to determine if differences existed between preservice and induction teachers with regard to physical education curriculum.
Method:
After obtaining IRB approval, 12 preservice candidates and 11 teachers in the induction stage from two Midwestern universities participated in formal, semi-structured interviews lasting approximately 45 minutes (Patton 2002). The interview guides focused on goals for physical education and factors influencing change in physical education curriculum. In addition, 39 participants, culled from the same database, completed an online survey consisting of questions validated in a previous investigation by Kulinna and Silverman (1999). Responses from the survey were linked to questions regarding teachers’ attitudes toward curriculum in physical education.
Analysis/Results:
Interview data were analyzed using Huberman and Miles’ four-stage process (1994). Survey data were analyzed quantitatively using SPSS 19, and descriptive statistics were used to triangulate interview findings related to curricular preferences. Data analysis revealed that the Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) curriculum from participants’ respective universities did not prepare them for effective classroom management. Both preservice and induction teachers indicated that cross-curricular collaborations as well as a focus on lifespan physical activity were important components of physical education curriculum, two components emphasized in both curriculums of the surveyed populations. In addition, while PETE curriculum does influence induction physical educators, emphasis on practical classroom management strategies may be lacking in these PETE programs.
Conclusions:
Although many of the beliefs of both the preservice and induction teachers were similar, it is concerning that participants felt their PETE programs did not fully prepare them to deal with the initial challenges of classroom management. Preparing new teachers with realistic and effective strategies for purposefully engaging with students may serve to lessen reality shock experienced by many new teachers (Veeman, 1984). Innovative strategies focused on best practices and an increase in early field experiences may help future physical educators gain crucial experience (Clift & Brady, 2005).