Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes in physical education

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to conduct a review of research on the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility model-based programme within physical education. Papers selected for analysis were found through searches of Web of Science, SportDiscus (EBSCO), SCOPUS, and ERIC (ProQuest) databases. The keywords ‘responsibility model’ and ‘physical education’ were used in different combinations. The relevant articles were checked for the following criteria: (a) the study has been published in a peer-reviewed international journal; (b) it included Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility model-based programme implementation; (c) programmes were implemented within physical education classes; and (d) the full text was available in English or Spanish. The quality of the selected studies was scored using a quality assessment list. Twenty-two papers that satisfied the selection criteria were identified. A practical analysis of these papers to present the results placed them into three categories: (a) impact of the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility model-based programme on teachers; (b) programme implementation features; and (c) outcomes of the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility-based programme on student participants. Longer studies with follow-up data, quantitative methodological designs, and larger samples would be particularly important for future investigations.

Keywords

Teaching personal and social responsibility physical education schools review

Introduction

The Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility model (TPSR) (Hellison, 1985, 1995, 2003, 2011) is a curriculum and instructional model, considered to be one of the best models for promoting values, character, responsibility, and life skills in physical education (PE) and other physical activity settings (Metzler, 2005; Petitpas et al., 2005). Its purpose is to help children and adolescents to learn to be responsible for their own and others’ well-being, and to incorporate strategies to exercise control over their lives to be efficient in their social environment.

The TPSR model-based programme suggests five levels of responsibility: (1) respect for the rights and feelings of others; (2) self-motivation; (3) self-direction; (4) caring; and (5) transfer ‘outside the gym’ (Hellison, 2011). Moreover, four themes represent the essence of the programme: a strong teacher–student relationship; empowering students; integrating responsibility into physical activity; and promoting transfer of responsibility (Hellison, 2003). Although the TPSR model-based programme does provide a specific lesson plan format as well as teaching strategies to support the implementation programme, teachers are allowed to make adaptations to their context.

The TPSR model-based programme has been field-tested for 40 years in several settings, predominantly in underserved urban environments, and many studies have described its numerous positive impacts on students’ behaviours and attitudes (Hellison and Martinek, 2006; Hellison and Walsh, 2002). Initially, Hellison (1985) used the ‘Taking Personal and Social Responsibility’ approach, avoiding the term ‘model’ as the programme is not a rigid structure of actions that should be automatically or unquestioningly followed. However, Hellison (2003) finally decided to adopt the term ‘Responsibility Model’ as it is the name by which most people refer to it. Later, the term ‘Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility’ was commonly adopted by most authors in the literature as it is more comprehensive, open to all kinds of contexts, and it includes the key concept of ‘teaching’.

Traditionally, the application of the TPSR model-based programme has most often taken place in after-school or community-based programmes with voluntary participation and a small number of participants (Hellison, 2011). This contrasts with the compulsory nature of PE classes that may include students with varying degrees of interests and motivation (Wright et al., 2010). Nonetheless, responsible behaviours and attitudes learned and experienced through school-based programmes might be transferred to other settings at home and in the community (Hellison, 2003).

Research on the TPSR model-based programme in PE has increased over the last two decades (Lee and Choi, 2015). However, the limited research to date has prompted concerns about the validity of claims of the model’s success, such as descriptions of university–community collaborations (Wright, 2012). There is a particular shortage of research that examines implementation by classroom teachers, who have more information about students, rather than by external teachers (Li et al., 2008; Wright and Burton, 2008) or that analyses the process of implementing TPSR model-based programmes (Lee and Choi, 2015).

Currently, there are several literature reviews about the TPSR model-based programme (Hellison and Martinek, 2006; Hellison and Walsh, 2002), and several reviews within the Spanish context (Belando et al., 2012; Caballero et al., 2013; Escartí et al., 2012). None included the analysis of implementation exclusively in PE settings.

As Hellison and Walsh (2002) mentioned, relatively few empirical studies of the TPSR model-based programme have been published in peer-reviewed journals. These authors observed that despite case studies’ advantages, the interest in evaluations of post-positivist programmes suggests that future studies should include a balance between qualitative and quantitative research designs to systematically determine which strategies are the most effective (Wright and Burton, 2008).

In conclusion, for many physical educators, the TPSR model-based programme is considered to be a viable and effective pedagogical approach to the teaching of PE. The purpose of this systematic review is to analyse the studies included in peer-reviewed journals of the TPSR-based programme within the PE context.

Method

Search limits

A comprehensive search of four databases of literature (Web of Science, SportDiscus (EBSCO), SCOPUS, and ERIC (ProQuest)), from January 1989 through March 2016, was undertaken. The starting date of the search was old because there were few papers that met the criteria and there was no previous review with similar purposes. The databases were chosen as they include the articles published in journals with journal citation reports (JCR) impact factor, and they are important references on education or sport. Individualized search strategies for the different databases included combinations of the following keywords: responsibility model (personal and social responsibility, responsibility model, teaching personal and social responsibility, personal and social responsibility programme) and physical education (school, in-school, physical education, primary/elementary/secondary/high school).

Selection criteria

The relevant papers proposed to be included in the review were checked for the following criteria: (a) the study has been published in a peer-reviewed international journal; (b) it included the TPSR model-based programme implementation and the analysis of its impact and results (descriptive studies or practical strategies were not included to ensure methodological and statistical rigour); (c) programmes were implemented within the school context, particularly in PE classes; and (d) the full text was available in English or Spanish, the main languages used in TPSR studies. Additional studies were identified from reference lists.

Review and opinion articles, theses, book chapters, and articles focused on the discussion of the practical strategies required to implement the TPSR model-based programme (pedagogical strategies, assessment, etc.) were excluded from this review because their methodological designs did not provide empirical rigour.

The flow of search results through the systematic review process is shown in Figure 1. After removal of duplicates and exclusion at title or abstract level, a total of 98 papers were retrieved. These potential studies were reviewed based on the selection criteria. Consequently, a total of 22 articles that met the criteria were included in the systematic review.

Figure 1.

Flow of articles through the search process.

Data extraction and reliability

Content analysis was performed to analyse all the information from the articles included in this review. The following categories were defined a priori using the method suggested by Harris et al. (2014): authors; journal; year; study name; location; objectives; sample size; participants’ profiles; length of study; data sources; methodological analysis; and results. The search process was carried out by two independent reviewers (PP and AGC). They read every title and all the abstracts, and a consensus meeting was arranged to sort out differences between them. The studies were summarized, and the potentially relevant papers were screened for retrieval.

Quality assessment and level of evidence

The criteria for assessing the quality of included studies were adapted from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement (Vandenbroucke et al., 2007) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (Moher et al., 2001). The quality assessment list was based on: (a) inclusion of the TPSR model-based programme description; (b) number of study participants; (c) inclusion of study journal in JCR; (d) implementation duration; and (e) inclusion of methodological process description. Each item was rated from ‘0’ to ‘2’, depending on the criteria shown in Table 1. For all studies, a total quality score was calculated by counting up the number of positive items (a total score between ‘0’ and ‘10’). Studies were defined as high quality (HQ) if they had a total score of ‘7’ or higher. A total score of ‘4’ to ‘6’ was defined as medium quality (MQ) and a score lower than ‘4’ was defined as low quality (LQ). Two reviewers (PP and AGC) evaluated the quality of the studies, separately. A consensus meeting was arranged to sort out differences between both reviewers.

Table 1.

List of included studies with quality scores.

Studies	Programme description	Number of participants	JCR inclusion	Programme duration	Methodology description	Total score	Quality level
Balderson and Sharpe (2005)	1	2	2	0	2	7	HQ
Beaudoin (2012)	1	1	2	2	2	8	HQ
Cecchini et al. (2003)	2	2	1	0	2	7	HQ
Cecchini et al. (2007)	2	2	0	0	2	6	MQ
DeBusk and Hellison (1989)	2	1	2	0	2	7	HQ
Escartí et al. (2006)	2	1	1	1	2	7	HQ
Escartí et al. (2010a)	2	2	1	2	1	8	HQ
Escartí et al. (2010b)	2	1	1	2	2	8	HQ
Gordon (2010)	2	2	2	2	2	10	HQ
Hemphill et al. (2015)	0	1	2	1	2	6	MQ
Jung and Wright (2012)	1	0	0	2	2	5	MQ
Lee (2012)	2	2	1	2	2	9	HQ
Lee and Choi (2015)	2	2	2	2	2	10	HQ
Llopis-Goig et al. (2011)	2	2	1	2	2	9	HQ
Pascual et al. (2011a)	2	2	0	2	2	8	HQ
Pascual et al. (2011b)	2	1	1	2	2	8	HQ
Sánchez-Alcaraz et al. (2012)	1	2	0	1	1	5	MQ
Sánchez-Alcaraz et al. (2013)	0	2	1	1	1	5	MQ
Walsh et al. (2012)	2	1	0	0	2	5	MQ
Ward et al. (2012)	2	1	0	2	2	7	HQ
Wright and Burton (2008)	2	1	2	0	2	7	HQ
Wright et al. (2010)	2	2	2	2	2	10	HQ

Parameter 1: Did the study provide a detailed description of the programme implementation? 0: not included; ‘1’ description included but it is brief and imprecise; ‘2’ detailed description included.

Parameter 2: Number of participants: 0: fewer than 10 student participants / two teacher participants; 1: 10 to 50 student participants / 2–4 teacher participants; 2: more than 50 student participants / four teacher participants.

Parameter 3: Is the paper’s journal included on the JCR? 0: it is not included; 1: it is included on Scimago Journal Rank (SJR); 2: it is included on JCR.

Parameter 4: Intervention duration: 0: Less than 3 months; 1: 3–4 months; 2: more than 4 months.

Parameter 5: Did the study report the methodological process applied? 0: not reported; 1: reported but incompletely; 2: reported.

HQ: high quality; MQ: medium quality; JCR: journal citation reports

Results

Overview of studies

The total number of student participants of the included articles was 1800, ranging from six (Jung and Wright, 2012) to 802 (Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2012), and the total number of teacher participants of the studies was 28, ranging from two (Beaudoin, 2012; Pascual et al., 2011b) to six (Lee and Choi, 2015). According to the country where the TPSR model-based programme took place, most studies in this area were conducted in Spain (10/22), followed by the USA (8/22), South Korea (2/22), Canada (1/22), and New Zealand (1/22). Table 2 provides an overview of each of the 22 data-based empirical articles that have formed the basis of this review.

Table 2.

General overview of literature review.

Author/s	Focus	Participants’ profile and context	Length of implementation	Data sources	Analysis and methodology	Results
Balderson and Sharpe (2005)	Examined the effects of personal accountability and personal responsibility instructional treatments on PE students	100 at-risk students (9–11 years old)	No. of lessons: 17 Time per lesson: 50 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 8.5 weeks	Video records and behaviour evaluation software and taxonomy software	Quantitative Experimental design Multiple treatment (ABAD, ACAD, ADA, control) Behaviour-analysis design	Both personal accountability and personal responsibility treatments were effective for changing all managerial, off-task, and positive social measures, with the personal responsibility treatment particularly effective with more complex behaviours of positive social behaviour and student conflict resolution.
Beaudoin (2012)	Aimed to show how responsibility-based strategies were used to empower teachers to learn and implement TPSR in a school-based setting	2 in-service physical educators from 2 primary schools from a wealthy rural community and underserved community	No. of lessons: – Time per lesson: 120 minutes per week Total duration: six-month self-supervision process	Participant observations, semi-structured interviews with PE teachers, post-teaching self-reflections, and researcher’s log	Qualitative Action research	Strong evidence of the use of four responsibility-based strategies throughout the TPSR implementation: (a) empowering teachers through self-supervision; (b) providing opportunities for success; (c) setting expectations; and (d) nurturing a respectful relationship.
Cecchini et al. (2003)	Tested consequences from the intervention programme for developing TPSR about fair play behaviours and self-control among students	142 students from state schools (12–13 years old)	No. of lessons: 10 Time per lesson: 60 minutes Lessons per week: 1 Total duration: 2 months	Fair play scale, self-control questionnaire, and observation of fair play behaviours instrument	Quantitative T test for 2 related samples Repeated measures multivariate analysis	Experimental group showed meaningful improvements in personal feedback, reward delay, criterial self-control, self-control process, opinions related to enjoyments, and sporting behaviours. Decreases in rough play and un-sporting behaviours were observed.
Cecchini et al. (2007)	Examined the impact of Hellison’s model for the development of PSR on fair play and self-control in youth	186 students from middle-class (13–14 years old)	No. of lessons: 20 Time per lesson: 60 minutes Lessons per week: – Total duration: 2 months	Fair play scale, self-control questionnaire, and observation of fair play behaviours	Quantitative MANOVA IV = group DV = self-control, opinions related to fair play, fair play behaviours	Group A improved personal feedback, delayed gratification, self-control, and process self-regulation. Groups A and B showed an improvement in enjoyment and sportsmanship and a decrease in drive to win, rough play, contact fouls, and poor sportsmanship.
DeBusk and Hellison (1989)	The process and impact of a self-responsibility model for delinquency-prone youth was investigated	10 students with behaviour problems (9–10 years old)	No. of lessons: 18 Time per lesson: 60 minutes Lessons per week: 3 Total duration: 6 weeks	Pre- and post-intervention interviews, office referrals, field notes from teacher/researcher, post-programme open-ended narrative evaluations, daily journals made by students	Qualitative Case study Researcher was the teacher in the implementation Multiple data sources Tested a theoretical-philosophical model in a specific setting	Data sources suggested that: (a) the model caused some affective, behavioural, and knowledge changes, especially in the special programme; (b) the experience influenced the teacher’s attitudes and values regarding both delinquency-prone youth and the applicability of the model for non-delinquency-prone youth; and (c) the model, with the exception of transfer, retained its validity.
Escartí et al. (2006)	Adapted the TPSR programme and observed the students’ behaviour during the programme and made assessments of signs of PSR	13 at-risk adolescents (15–16 years old)	No. of lessons: 48 Time per lesson: 60 minutes Lessons per week: 3 Total duration: 4 months	Observational log of social responsibility behaviour and intervention lesson log	Mixed (qualitative and quantitative) Observational methodology Frequencies and percentages of observed behaviours	Significant reduction in aggressive and disruptive behaviour while collaborating and providing assistance remained unchanged. The model was useful to improve the responsible behaviour of at-risk adolescents.
Escartí et al. (2010a)	Analysed the application of the TPSR model to primary school PE classes, in order to evaluate its relevance to teaching responsibility and to measure its effects on the pupils’ self-efficacy	42 students from middle class (11–12 years old)	Time per lesson: 60 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 1 year	Semi-structured interviews and perceived self-efficacy scale	Mixed (qualitative and quantitative) Individual case study Quasi-experimental design ANOVA	The TPSR model was an effective teaching instrument to structure classes and promote the learning of responsible behaviour. A significant increase was observed in the self-regulatory efficacy of intervention group participants.
Escartí et al. (2010b)	Evaluated improvements in self-efficacy and PSR among adolescents at risk of dropping out of school	30 at-risk students (13–14 years old)	No. of lessons: 56 Time per lesson: 90 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 7 months	Perceived self-efficacy scale and standardized open-ended interviews	Mixed (qualitative and quantitative) 1. Examined participants’ retrospective reports 2. 2 (group) × 3 (time) ANOVA IV = group, time DV = enlisting social resources, self-regulated learning, self-regulatory efficacy, social self-efficacy	Quantitative results showed a significant improvement in the students’ self-efficacy for enlisting social resources and in self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. Qualitative results showed an improvement in responsibility behaviours in the intervention group.
Gordon (2010)	Examined a six-month implementation of the Responsibility Model in a New Zealand secondary school	93 students from a small rural secondary school (13–15 years old)	No. of lessons: 49 Time per lesson: 60 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 6 months	Teacher and student interviews, observations, student self-assessments	Mixed (qualitative and quantitative) Case study and quasi-experimental Inductive analysis	The implementation developed positive, supportive, and well-behaved classes in PE. Students developed a greater understanding of PSR and became more personally and socially responsible. This understanding was associated with PE and not with other contexts.
Hemphill et al. (2015)	Provided a novel responsibility-based CPD experience to 3 physical educators and examined its impact on a middle school in the USA	3 PE teachers with at-risk students (10–12 years old)	No. of lessons: 32 Time per lesson: 45–50 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 4 months	Systematic observations (TARE), semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations, and document analysis	Mixed (qualitative and quantitative) Quantitative: TARE Qualitative: typological data analysis Inductive analysis and comparison	Physical educators increased their awareness of responsibility-based teaching strategies, perceived them to positively impact students and integrated the strategies into their teaching. They frequently used the teaching strategies and confirmed the reliability of the observation instrument. The systematic observations can support responsibility-based CPD for research, peer evaluations, or as a reflection tool.
Jung and Wright (2012)	Examined the relevance and impact of TPSR through the experiences and perceptions of at-risk students	6 at-risk students (13–14 years old)	No. of lessons: 20 Time per lesson: 50 minutes Lessons per week: 1 Total duration: 6 months	Individual interviews, participant observations, lesson plans, student assessments, and written reflections	Qualitative Case study design Inductive analysis	The TPSR unit was well-received by the students and contributed to numerous positive behaviour changes. The core goals and life skills associated with TPSR appeared relevant and acceptable to participants; however, the concept of self-direction emerged as more challenging for them.
Lee (2012)	Examined how PE teacher candidates perceive their implementation of the TPSR and how they actually implement it during field experience	5 PE teacher candidates from primary and secondary schools	No. of lessons: 35–50	Participant interviews, non-participant teaching observations, and informal post-lesson interviews	Qualitative Inductive analysis	The teachers’ concern shifted from self and tasks and become more impact-related through the implementation and afterwards. The implementation evolved through three phases: (a) functional implementation as behaviour management; (b) mechanical implementation as a formula; and (c) a move toward holistic implementation.
Lee and Choi (2015)	Examined the influence of a PD programme on teachers’ implementation of the TPSR model, and identified the characteristics of PD that influence teaching practice	6 primary classroom teachers and 12 students (8–12 years old)	Time per lesson: 40 minutes Lessons per week: 3 Total duration: 1 year	Interviews with students and teachers, lesson observations, teachers’ reflective journal entries	Qualitative	PD enhanced the fidelity of implementation improving structural adherence, facilitating coherent instructional delivery, and making the students more active and responsible. The PD also helped the teachers to adapt the model by developing cultural differentiation strategies, modifying existing components, and extending the implementation through connection with other subjects. PD facilitated the teachers’ implementation by giving them common goals, empowering them as creators of knowledge, and providing a continuous and authentic learning experience.
Llopis-Goig et al. (2011)	Analysed the implementation of a TPSR programme in PE classes by 5 teachers	5 PE teachers with primary students from low–middle classes	No. of lessons: – Time per lesson: 60 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 2 years	Semi-structured interviews and focus group	Qualitative Inductive analysis	The main strengths of the TPSR were its applicability to the school context and its ability to promote PD.
Pascual et al. (2011a)	Assessed the effects that five primary school PE teachers observed in their students applying the TPSR model	5 PE teachers with primary school students from low–middle classes	No. of lessons: – Time per lesson: 60 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 2 years	Semi-structured interviews and focus group	Qualitative Inductive analysis	Teachers perceived benefits for the majority of their students, especially at level I of TPSR. The effects of TPSR were higher in those students who had not internalized positive or negative models in their behaviours.
Pascual et al. (2011b)	Examined the implementation fidelity of a TPSR programme through PE and its relationship with short-term outcomes for primary school students	2 PE teachers with primary school students from low–middle classes	No. of lessons: – Time per lesson: 60 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 9 months	Non-participant observations and semi-structured interviews	Qualitative Comparative case study	Fidelity of implementation in case 1 was higher and most children in those classes acquired the first three of five TPSR levels. Implementation fidelity in case 2 was weaker and achievement of responsibility goals was minimal and less stable for those students.
Sánchez-Alcaraz et al. (2012)	Studied the effects of the application of the TPSR model in the quality of students’ life	802 students (11–12 and 14–15 years old)	No. of lessons: 32 Time per lesson: 55 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 4 months	Quality of life questionnaire	Quantitative	Results reflected a slight decrease of the quality of life for primary school students and an increase for secondary school students.
Sánchez-Alcaraz et al. (2013)	Assessed TPSR model improvements	186 students (11–12 and 14–16 years old)	No. of lessons: 24 Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 3 months	PSR questionnaire	Quantitative Experimental study, longitudinal type Descriptive results, pre-test and post-test Individual comparisons by ranking methods of Wilcoxon	The pre-test results revealed that PSR are more developed in male than in female students and in primary than in secondary school students. The post-test results kept these relationships, finding important improvements in all variables. Thus, the TPSR model is an effective teaching methodology.
Walsh et al. (2012)	Examined the effectiveness of an implementation of the Kinesiology Career Club, a TPSR-based physical activity programme	14 at-risk students (14–15 years old)	Time per lesson: 75 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 10 weeks	Field observations, participant daily journal entries, and in-depth interviews	Qualitative Inductive analysis	The programme helped participants connect respect, effort, goal-setting, and leadership skills to their possible futures; envision and explore a career in kinesiology; and link kinesiology to their own positive possible futures. Results were mixed in demonstrating balanced hopes and fears as suggested by the theory of possible selves.
Ward et al. (2012)	Explored youth perceptions throughout a TPSR model designed to enhance self-determination theory tenets of autonomy, relatedness, and competency	19 at-risk students from an alternative middle-school (12–14 years old)	Time per lesson: 70 minutes (2) and 45 minutes (1) Lessons per week: 3 Total duration: 9 months	Formal interviews, descriptive video-tapes and field notes, daily participant reflection journals, attendance records, lesson plans, unit plans, and meeting notes	Qualitative Ethnographic case study Inductive analysis	The results reflected the importance of maintaining a positive atmosphere in meeting TPSR programme goals. Relatedness was cited as especially important to students and encouraged them to strive to reach programme goals.
Wright and Burton (2008)	Systematically explored the implementation and short-term outcomes of a responsibility-based physical activity programme that was integrated into an intact high school PE class	23 at-risk African-American students (14–15 years old)	No. of lessons: 20 Time per lesson: 50 minutes Lessons per week: 2 Total duration: 10 weeks	Programme evaluation interviews, non-participant observations, lesson plans, responsibility logs, written reflections, learner assessments, and programme evaluation	Qualitative Deductive and inductive analysis	Five themes characterized the programme: (1) establishing a relevant curriculum; (2) navigating barriers; (3) practising life skills; (4) seeing the potential for transfer; and (5) creating a valued programme.
Wright et al. (2010)	Used a programme-evaluation framework and multiple methods to evaluate the implementation and educational outcomes associated with a TPSR programme	122 at-risk African-American students (14–18 years old)	No. of lessons: 18 Time per lesson: 60 minutes Lessons per week: 1 Total duration: 1 year	Documentation, programme evaluation, implementation checklist, focus groups, and educational outcome variables	Mixed (qualitative and quantitative) Descriptive statistical analysis of pre- and post-programme educational outcomes Programme evaluation and implementation checklist were analysed using frequencies and percentages Documents and focus groups analysed using inductive and deductive analysis Findings were considered holistically Educational outcomes analysis: MANOVA IV = class section DV = GPA, tardiness, truancy, positive behaviour, and negative behaviour	The TPSR goals were effectively delivered, received, and enacted by participants. Students had more positive gain scores on truancy, tardiness, grades, and conduct. It is concluded that TPSR programmes can be effectively integrated into the secondary school curriculum.

PE: physical education; TPSR: teaching personal and social responsibility; PSR: personal and social responsibility; MANOVA: multivariate analysis of variance; IV: independent variable; DV: dependent variable; ANOVA: analysis of variance; TARE: tool for assessing responsibility-based education; CPD: continuing professional development; PD: professional development; GPA: grade point average.

Grade levels used

The most frequent grade levels for the TPSR model-based programme studies in PE were those associated with primary school (9–11 years) with 7/22, and middle school (Year 7 to 9) with 6/22, followed by secondary school (11–14 years) with 4/22. Fewer studies emerged from a combination of middle and secondary school (3/22), and finally primary and middle school (2/22).

Programme duration

The intervention duration was between six weeks (DeBusk and Hellison, 1989) and two academic years (Llopis-Goig et al., 2011; Pascual et al., 2011a), but several programmes lasted 3–4 months (4/22). The number of lessons ranged from 10 (Cecchini et al., 2003) to 56 (Escartí et al., 2010b). With regard to the time per lesson, it ranged from 40 minutes (Lee and Choi, 2015) to 90 minutes (Escartí et al., 2010b), although many lessons in the studies lasted 60 minutes (10/22).

Focus of the studies and context

All the studies showed the application of a TPSR model-based PE programme that involved students and teachers. The most frequent objective detected in the studies was the analysis of the impact on students (9/22), including the implementation of instructional treatments (Balderson and Sharpe, 2005), fair play and self-control assessments (Cecchini et al., 2003, 2007), self-efficacy assessment (Escartí et al., 2010b), behavioural assessment (Escartí et al., 2006), quality of life assessment (Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2012), personal and social responsibility assessment (Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2013), effects observed by teachers on life skills development (Pascual et al., 2011b), and analysis of students’ perceptions in a programme designed to enhance Self-Determination Theory tenets (autonomy, relatedness, and competency) (Ward et al., 2012). In addition, we found the analysis of effects on students and implementation of the TPSR model-based programme (4/22), including the relationship between implementation fidelity and short-term outcomes (Pascual et al., 2011b), short-term outcomes (Wright and Burton, 2008), programme effectiveness and effects on the pupils’ self-efficacy (Escartí et al., 2010a), and educational outcomes (Wright et al., 2010). Another major focus was to examine the implementation of the TPSR model-based programme (4/22), using teachers’ perceptions (Llopis-Goig et al., 2011) and students’ assessments (Gordon, 2010; Jung and Wright, 2012; Walsh et al., 2012). Other studies were focused exclusively on teachers (4/22): analysis of strategies used by in-service teachers (Beaudoin, 2012); impact of a continuing professional development protocol on teachers (Hemphill et al., 2015); influence of a professional development programme on teacher’s implementation of a TPSR model-based programme, and identification of the professional development characteristics that influence teaching practice (Lee and Choi, 2015); and analysis of teacher perceptions and implementation (Lee, 2012). DeBusk and Hellison (1989) examined the effects on students and teachers, including the TPSR model’s validity. Finally, according to the context, most studies (14/22) had at-risk students (behaviour problems, low socioeconomic background, ethnic minorities, etc.).

Methodology and analysis

This research spans three distinctive methodological approaches: qualitative studies (11/22); quantitative studies (5/22); and mixed (both qualitative and quantitative) (6/22).

In qualitative studies, we found: inductive/deductive analysis designs (6/11) (Lee, 2012; Lee and Choi, 2015; Llopis-Goig et al., 2011; Pascual et al., 2011a; Walsh et al., 2012; Wright and Burton, 2008); case studies (4/11) (DeBusk and Hellison, 1989; Jung and Wright, 2012), including comparative case study (Pascual et al., 2011b) and ethnographic case study (Ward et al., 2012); and action research (1/11) (Beaudoin, 2012). Several data collection procedures were used, including interviews (11), observations (7), self-reflective diaries (4), narrative evaluations (3), daily journals (3), lesson plans (3), focus groups (2), logs (2), field notes (2), and referrals (1).

In studies using quantitative measures, experimental (4/5) (Balderson and Sharpe, 2005; Cecchini et al., 2003, 2007; Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2013) and quasi-experimental research (1/5) (Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2012) have been used. The most frequently used instruments in these designs were responsibility values-based questionnaires (4), systematic observation of behaviour instruments (4), and quality of life questionnaire (1).

Mixed methods (incorporating both quantitative and qualitative assessment) were also used (Escartí et al., 2006, 2010a, 2010b; Gordon, 2010; Hemphill et al., 2015; Wright et al., 2010). Instruments used were interviews (4), observations (4), reflection sheets (2), self-efficacy scales (2), focus groups (1), checklists (1), and systematic observation of behaviour instruments (1).

Outcomes

Three research questions were used to investigate the 22 studies. The number of studies addressing each research question is highlighted in parentheses.

What impact did the TPSR model-based programme have on teachers involved? (5)

What features did the TPSR model-based programme implementation have? (10)

What were the outcomes of the TPSR model-based programme on the students? (14)

Impact on teachers

Strategies used

Hemphill et al. (2015) showed that PE teachers frequently and successfully used the TPSR strategies. In another study from 2012, Beaudoin reported strong evidence of the use of four responsibility-based strategies to support each teacher throughout the process of the implementation: (a) empowering teachers through self-supervision; (b) providing opportunities for success; (c) setting expectations; and (d) nurturing a respectful relationship between supervisor and teachers.

Attitudes and values

Lee (2012) noted that teachers’ concern shifted from self and tasks to become more impact-related through the implementation and afterwards. Teachers were also more aware of responsibility-based teaching strategies, perceived them to impact positively on students and integrated the strategies into their teaching, improving their professional development (Hemphill et al., 2015; Llopis-Goig et al., 2011). Finally, teachers’ attitudes and values regarding delinquency-prone youth changed positively after a programme (DeBusk and Hellison, 1989).

Programme features

Implementation development

Teachers realised that the effects observed after the implementation increased in those students who had not taken in positive or negative behaviour models (Pascual et al., 2011a). In Lee’s study (2012), the TPSR model-based implementation evolved through three different phases: (a) functional implementation as behaviour management; (b) mechanical implementation as a formula; and (c) a move toward holistic implementation. Wright and Burton (2008) showed five themes characterized within the programme: (a) establishing a relevant curriculum by addressing physical, emotional, and mental health issues; (b) navigating barriers related to cultural differences and student disengagement; (c) practising life skills; (d) seeing the potential for transfer; and (e) creating a valued programme. In addition, the TPSR model-based programme helped teachers to structure classes and promoted the learning of responsible behaviour by the students (Escartí et al., 2010a). A professional development programme helped teachers to adapt the TPSR model-based programme by developing cultural differentiation strategies, modifying existing TPSR components, and extending the implementation throughout school education. The professional development programme also facilitated the teachers’ implementation by giving them common goals, empowering them with an active role, and providing a continuous and authentic learning experience (Lee and Choi, 2015).

Fidelity of implementation

Pascual et al. (2011b) found that greater fidelity to the model was related to better short-term student outcomes. Later, Lee and Choi (2015) discovered that professional development enhanced the fidelity of implementation throughout improving structural adherence, facilitating coherent instructional delivery, and making the students more active and responsible.

Programme levels

Regarding specific improvements related to programme levels, Pascual et al. (2011a) showed that teachers perceived benefits to the majority of their students, especially at level I (respect and self-control). Additionally, in another study, the core goals and life skills associated with the TPSR model-based programme appeared relevant and acceptable to participants; however, the concept of self-direction emerged as more difficult for them to understand and enact (Jung and Wright, 2012). The TPSR model-based programme goals were effectively delivered, received, and performed by participants (DeBusk and Hellison, 1989; Wright et al., 2010). Gordon (2010) also pointed out that the majority of students developed a greater understanding of the TPSR model-based programme. For most students, however, this understanding was firmly associated with PE and they generally showed little understanding of the potential for transfer.

Class environment

Creating a proper PE lesson environment is crucial in the TPSR model-based programme. Ward et al. (2012) reflected the importance of a positive atmosphere in meeting TPSR programme goals. In the same way, Gordon (2010) demonstrated that the programme developed positive, supportive, and well-behaved classes in PE.

Programme outcomes

Behavioural outcomes

Jung and Wright (2012) found that the implementation of the TPSR model-based programme significantly improved the participants’ behaviour. Escartí et al. (2006) also observed an important reduction in students’ aggressive and disruptive behaviour, while variables related to collaborating and providing assistance remained unchanged. DeBusk and Hellison’s (1989) study also showed behavioural changes, especially self-control from level I and caring from level IV of Hellison’s programme (2011). Two different studies observed a decrement in students’ behaviours related to the drive to win, rough play, contact fouls, and poor sportsmanship (Cecchini et al., 2003, 2007). Furthermore, the personal responsibility instructional treatment was found to be particularly effective in relation to positive social behaviour and student conflict resolution (Balderson and Sharpe, 2005).

Several works (Escartí et al., 2010b; Gordon, 2010) reported that students improved their personal and social responsibility in class, also showing enhancements in indicators such as enjoyment and sportsmanship (Cecchini et al., 2003, 2007).

Social outcomes

In Ward et al.’s (2012) study, relatedness was cited as especially important to students, who were encouraged to strive to reach programme goals. Balderson and Sharpe (2005) also described how both personal accountability and personal responsibility treatments were effective for changing all managerial, off-task, and positive social measures in desirable directions.

Emotional outcomes

DeBusk and Hellison (1989) reported affective changes from the students in terms of understanding of feelings and problems, willingness to talk about feelings, self-confidence and self-esteem improvements, or understanding of teamwork. In later studies, several authors observed improvements in self-control in students’ lives as personal feedback, criterial self-control, delayed gratification, and self-control processes (Cecchini et al., 2003, 2007).

Psychological outcomes

Significant improvements were found in students’ self-efficacy for enlisting social resources, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, and self-regulatory efficacy (Escartí et al., 2010a, 2010b).

Educational outcomes

Wright et al. (2010) stated positive results on truancy, tardiness, grades, and conduct. The TPSR model-based programme not only helped participants in school duties; some investigators (Walsh et al., 2012) also found that students could connect the TPSR model-based programme goals of respect, effort, goal-setting, and leadership skills to their possible futures, envision and explore a career in kinesiology, and link kinesiology to their own positive possible futures. In conclusion, Llopis-Goig (2011) highlighted that the main strengths of the TPSR model-based programme were the teaching of values offered by the programme, its applicability to the school context, and the clear progression throughout different levels.

Discussion

The objective of this article was to review the studies of the TPSR model-based programme implementation within a PE context. To that aim, only programmes based on evidence and with methodological quality were included. The results and their implications have been ordered attending to three research questions.

The findings related to teachers show that: (a) teachers should provide opportunities for success to students, set expectations, and create a close and respectful relationship with their students; and (b) the strategies used by teachers were perceived as positive. Moreover, their prejudices and preconceptions about at-risk students changed because the TPSR model-based programme required them to have a close relationship with the students.

Regarding the teacher training course to implement the TPSR model-based programme, Pascual et al. (2011b) found it theoretical, without practical support, a programme manual, or individualized feedback. Hence, more specific and practical approaches, such as the professional development programme suggested by Lee and Choi (2015), as well as identifying the key elements of high-quality implementation, become necessary. On the other hand, measuring the fidelity of the implementation on teachers using the Tool for Assessing Responsibility-Based Education (TARE) (Wright and Craig, 2011) could complement the information used to design the implementation. In most of the programmes carried out (15/22), the classroom teacher was supervised and trained externally. The researchers conducted the TPSR model-based programme implementation in the other studies. Our review suggests that more studies examining the perceptions and effects on teachers are needed. Sharing successes and struggles with other teachers dealing with similar issues and working in a cross-curricular method with other subjects might be useful for a better TPSR model-based programme.

There is evidence that students: (a) reduced their aggressiveness and disruptive behaviours; (b) improved self-control, caring, conflict resolution, responsibility, enjoyment, relatedness, empathy, self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-efficacy; and (c) improved truancy, tardiness, grades, and their vision and motivation towards their academic and professional future. Due to these promising findings, we suggest that future investigations should be focused on the transfer of values and social skills to academic performance and students’ daily life, especially with disadvantaged populations and at-risk children and adolescents.

The findings from this TPSR model-based programme review indicate the following implications: (a) the model was successful for teaching and improving life skills, but it should be introduced in other school classes to improve the effect; (b) the PE content should be aligned with the programme levels; (c) cultural differences between participants, as well as students’ lack of motivation, may be barriers to developing the TPSR model-based programme; (d) teachers’ implementation fidelity should be enhanced through specific courses, practical support, professional development, and monitoring; and (e) the programme is clear for students and well structured, although it should be focused on self-determination concepts and transfer levels.

Our review suggests that a high-quality TPSR model-based programme should have the following features: (a) the duration should be at least one academic year, with 60-minute classes twice a week; (b) the content must be adapted to the programme level, age group, and social context; (c) the class size should be larger than 15 students; (d) the earlier studies were focused on at-risk students, but the programme is now open to all kind of contexts; and (e) the teacher should keep a good atmosphere, including respectful relationships, throughout the implementation. These characteristics should be taken into account when designing new TPSR model-based programme interventions.

The results of the present systematic review should be interpreted with caution due to the variety of effects analysed and methods used. Some of the shortcomings of the studies include a limitation of lesson time and PE hours, and few articles studying long term or longitudinal effects. Hellison and Walsh (2002) concluded that longer programmes helped to transfer the programme’s goals to other settings. More studies are required to examine the level of transfer from the TPSR model-based programme to other contexts.

Additionally, there is a balance between primary and secondary school students and most investigations came from the USA and Spain, so it would be important to bring the programme to other contexts. Regarding the number of participants in the programmes, there is a lack of larger and varied groups. Another limitation of the study is that it did not include articles in other languages. Future studies on the TPSR model-based programme in PE should consider several lines of investigation. First, researchers should consider designing quantitative or mixed methods due to the preponderance of qualitative investigations in our analysis. As Hellison and Walsh (2002) predicted, the future TPSR model-based programme studies should include a more equitable balance of research designs, including mixed and quantitative methods, as they might provide objective and controlled measurement and their findings can possibly be generalized. Second, the implementation should not be limited only to the area of PE; it should focus on addressing the level of transfer to other contexts and, similarly, the effectiveness of the study might also be checked upon completion to evaluate the maintenance of the programme objectives over time and the longitudinal effects. Third, future studies should investigate perceptions and programme effects on teachers, along with testing the TPSR model-based programme implementation fidelity.

In many ways, the findings in this systematic review were consistent with a growing body of literature in teaching personal and social responsibility research. We knew that the TPSR model-based programme fostered a positive learning environment and influenced student behaviour (Gordon, 2010; Hellison and Wright, 2003). Nevertheless, our review focuses on the area of PE, where the number of students is higher and motivation and engagement issues are easier to compare to other TPSR traditional environments such as after-school and community-based programmes.

In conclusion, although reviews in the field of TPSR studies are limited to date, responsibility-based PE is a potential scenario to motivate and promote students’ values. It offers strategies and skills for the students to be more responsible in their daily lives, both in and out of the school context.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their helpful comments and suggestions to improve this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Balderson

Sharpe

(2005) The effects of personal accountability and personal responsibility instruction on select off-task and positive social behaviors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 24(1): 66–87.

Beaudoin

(2012) Using responsibility-based strategies to empower in-service physical education and health teachers to learn and implement TPSR. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte 14(2): 161–177.

Belando

Ferriz-Morell

Moreno-Murcia

(2012) Propuesta de un modelo para la mejora personal y social a través de la promoción de la responsabilidad en la actividad físico-deportiva. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte 29(8): 202–222.

Caballero-Blanco

Delgado-Noguera

Escartí-Carbonell

(2013) Analysis of Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility model-based programs applied in USA and Spain. Journal of Human Sport Exercise 8(2): 427–441.

Cecchini

Montero

Alonso

. (2007) Effects of personal and social responsibility on fair play in sports and self-control in school-aged youths. European Journal of Sport Science 7(4): 203–211.

Cecchini

Montero

Peña

(2003) Repercusiones del programa de intervención para desarrollar la responsabilidad personal y social de Hellison sobre los comportamientos de fair-play y el auto-control. Psicothema 15(4): 631–637.

DeBusk

Hellison

(1989) Implementing a physical education self-responsibility model for delinquency prone youth. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 8(2): 104–112.

Escartí

Gutiérrez

Pascual

. (2006) Enseñando responsabilidad personal y social a un grupo de adolescentes de riesgo: Un estudio ‘observacional’. Revista de Educación 341(3): 373–396.

Escartí

Gutiérrez

Pascual

. (2010a) Implementation of the Personal and Social Responsibility model to improve self-efficacy during physical education classes for primary school children. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy 10(3): 387–402.

10.

Escartí

Gutiérrez

Pascual

. (2010b) Application of Hellison’s Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility model in physical education to improve self-efficacy for adolescents at risk of dropping-out of school. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 13(2): 667–676.

11.

Escartí

Pascual

Gutiérrez

. (2012) Applying the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility model (TPSR) in Spanish school context: Lesson learned. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte 14(2): 178–196.

12.

Gordon

(2010) An examination of the Responsibility Model in a New Zealand secondary school physical education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27(2): 138–154.

13.

Harris

Quatman

Manring

. (2014) How to write a systematic review. American Journal of Sports Medicine 42(11): 2761–2768.

14.

Hellison

(1985) Goals and Strategies for Physical Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

15.

Hellison

(1995) Teaching Responsibility through Physical Activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

16.

Hellison

(2003) Teaching Responsibility through Physical Activity. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

17.

Hellison

(2011) Teaching Responsibility through Physical Activity. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

18.

Hellison

Martinek

(2006) Social and individual responsibility programs. In: Kirk

Macdonald

O’Sullivan

(eds) The Handbook of Physical Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.610–626.

19.

Hellison

Walsh

(2002) Responsibility-based youth programs evaluation: Investigating the investigations. Quest 54(4): 292–307.

20.

Hellison

Wright

(2003) Retention in an urban extended day program: A process-based assessment. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 22(4): 369–381.

21.

Hemphill

Templin

Wright

(2015) Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility-based continuing professional development protocol in physical education. Sport, Education and Society 20(3): 398–419.

22.

Jung

Wright

(2012) Application of Hellison’s Responsibility Model in South Korea: A multiple case study of ‘at-risk’ middle school students in physical education. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte 14(2): 140–160.

23.

Lee

(2012) Teacher candidates’ implementation of the Personal and Social Responsibility Model in field experiences. The Physical Educator 69(2): 150–170.

24.

Lee

Choi

(2015) The influence of professional development on teachers’ implementation of the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 34(4): 603–625.

25.

Wright

Rukavina

. (2008) Measuring students’ perceptions of personal and social responsibility and the relationship to intrinsic motivation in urban physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27(2): 167–177.

26.

Llopis-Goig

Escartí

Pascual

. (2011) Strengths, difficulties and improvable aspects in the application of a personal and social responsibility programme in physical education: An evaluation based on the implementers’ perceptions. Cultura y Educación 23(3): 445–461.

27.

Metzler

(2005) Instructional Models for Physical Education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

28.

Moher

Schulz

Altman

(2001) The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357(9263): 1191–1194.

29.

Pascual

Escartí

Llopis-Goig

. (2011a) La percepción del profesorado de educación física sobre los efectos del programa de responsabilidad personal y social (PRPS) en los estudiantes. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte 13(3): 341–361.

30.

Pascual

Escartí

Llopis-Goig

. (2011b) Implementation fidelity of a program designed to promote personal and social responsibility through physical education: A comparative case study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 82(3): 499–511.

31.

Petitpas

Cornelius

Van Raalte

. (2005) A framework for planning youth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. The Sport Psychologist 19(1): 63–80.

32.

Sánchez-Alcaraz

Mármol

Valenzuela

. (2012) Influencia del modelo de responsabilidad personal y social en la calidad de vida de los escolares. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte 12(2): 13–18.

33.

Sánchez-Alcaraz

Mármol

Valero

. (2013) Aplicación de un programa para la mejora de la responsabilidad personal y social en las clases de educación física. Motricidad. European Journal of Human Movement 30(1): 121–129.

34.

Vandenbroucke

Von Elm

Altman

. (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 147(8): 163–194.

35.

Walsh

Veri

Scobie

(2012) Impact of the kinesiology career club: A TPSR-based possible futures program for youth in underserved communities. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte 14(2): 213–229.

36.

Ward

Parker

Henschel-Pellett

. (2012). Forecasting the storm: Students perspectives throughout a teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR)-based positive youth development program. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte 14(2): 230–247.

37.

Wright

(2012) Offering a TPSR physical activity club to adolescent boys labeled “at risk” in partnership with a community-based youth serving program. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte 14(1): 94–114.

38.

Wright

Burton

(2008) Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility-based physical activity program integrated into an intact high school physical education class. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27(2): 138–154.

39.

Wright

Craig

(2011) Tool for Assessing Responsibility-Based Education (TARE): Instrument development, content validity, and inter-rater reliability. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 15(3): 204–219.

40.

Wright

Ding

. (2010) Integrating a personal and social responsibility program into a Wellness course for urban high school students: Assessing implementation and educational outcomes. Sport, Education and Society 15(3): 277–298.