Challenges faced by preservice and novice teachers in implementing student-centred models: A systematic review

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to unpack the challenges and constraints encountered by preservice and novice teachers when implementing student-centred models, and to describe the methodological characteristics of research conducted on this topic between 2004 and 2020. The procedure had a three-step approach: (a) searching for publications in electronic databases; (b) selecting studies based on inclusion criteria; and (c) refining this selection to identify research-based papers. 29 articles were selected, most of which were from Europe and North America. The most researched model was Sport Education, and studies considering novice teachers were scarce. The predominant methodology across studies involved multiple qualitative data sources and inductive analysis. Our major finding was the identification of three themes reflecting distinct challenges to the implementation of student-centred models: (a) teacher-related challenges (i.e. pervasive beliefs, occupational socialization, managerial- and instruction-related); (b) student-related challenges (i.e. student resistance to engaged participation in student-centred models); and (c) external challenges (i.e. context- and environment-related). Physical education teacher education should invest in training preservice teachers to: (a) manage the dynamics of students’ cooperative interactions and peer-assisted learning; (b) design developmentally appropriate small-sided games and problem-solving contexts, and (c) scaffold the gradual transfer of responsibility to students for their engagement in persistent learning team activities. Longer studies and the inclusion of student perspectives will be particularly valuable for future investigations.

Keywords

Physical education instructional models newly-qualified teachers school placement models-based practice

Introduction

Sparked by the worldwide educational reform at the turn of the 21st century, models-based practice in Physical Education (PE) has become mandatory in many educational systems (Lund and Tannehill, 2014) and a leading trend for practitioners and researchers (Fernandez-Rio, 2017). Such practice is recognized as an alternative to the traditional ‘one-size-fits-all’ technique-based approach (Kirk, 2013), which sees instructional models as the ‘organizing centre’ for programmes (Metzler, 2017).

There are several widely implemented student-centred models (Dyson et al., 2004; Metzler, 2017). These include Sport Education (SE) (Siedentop et al., 2020), Cooperative Learning (CL) (Dyson and Casey, 2016), and various game-centred approaches (GCAs) (Harvey and Jarrett, 2014; Hastie and Mesquita, 2016) such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982), and Tactical Games Model (TGM) (Mitchell et al., 2013). Each of these models has unique internal structures and functionalities (Dyson et al., 2004). For example, SE is focused on developing competent, literate, and enthusiastic sportspersons (Siedentop et al., 2020). CL emphasizes teamwork through collaboration and commitment to others (Dyson and Casey, 2016). Further, GCAs have the potential to enhance participant motivation, tactical transfer, and the effective development of decision-making skills (Harvey and Jarrett, 2014).

However, the implementation of any student-centred models-based curriculum involves mastering a common matrix of pedagogies, meaning hybridizations are possible (González-Víllora et al., 2019), for example TGfU–CL (Chiva-Bartoll et al., 2018); TGfU–SE (Gil-Arias et al., 2020); SE–TGM (Sinclair and Thornton, 2016).

Extensive research has shown the potential of these models for achieving the four learning outcomes of PE: namely physical, cognitive (Casey and Goodyear, 2015; Harvey and Jarrett, 2014; Oslin and Mitchell, 2006), social (Casey and Goodyear, 2015; Farias et al., 2020) and affective learning (Casey and Goodyear, 2015). Such models facilitate these outcomes by requiring students to perform managerial roles (coach, referee), to take responsibility for managing ‘sporting events’ (Hastie and Mesquita, 2016), and as a result of their participation in persistent learning teams, and problem-solving and team-cooperation activities (Casey and Goodyear, 2015; Farias et al., 2018).

However, none of the models can be, on their own, effective in every context or able to fully accomplish all standard-based outcomes in PE (Lund and Tannehill, 2014), meaning teachers need to know how to use different instructional models (Metzler, 2017) and apply a wide spectrum of teaching strategies (from guidance-based modelling to discovery-learning questioning) (Farias et al., 2018).

Furthermore, teachers need to act as facilitators of learning (Goodyear and Dudley, 2015; Hattie, 2012; Rowley et al., 2018), which means that students, rather than educators, are the central figures in the learning-teaching process (Nasri, 2019). This requires teachers to: (a) shift the responsibility for learning to the learners; (b) set structures that allow students to engage in authentic and meaningful experiences; (c) give students opportunities to find solutions to problem-situations using questioning; and (d) facilitate practice by simplifying or challenging based on student abilities (Dyson et al., 2004).

In short, teachers need to guide and support student-led learning (Goodyear, 2017; Kim et al., 2006), which requires additional time and strong investment in professional development (MacPhail et al., 2013). To achieve this outcome, Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) needs to acknowledge the specific challenges faced by teachers. This is especially important with preservice teachers and recently graduated novice in-service teachers because they represent vehicles for the transformation and innovation of practices in schools, and because building pedagogical readiness for the effective teaching of student-centred models is particularly challenging for inexperienced teachers (Ellis et al., 2020).

In recent years there has been a number of systematic reviews of these models, including SE (e.g. Bessa et al., 2019; Chu and Zhang, 2018), CL (e.g. Bores-García et al., 2020; Casey and Goodyear, 2015), GCAs (e.g. Barba-Martín et al., 2020; Robles et al., 2020) and hybridizations (e.g. González-Víllora et al., 2019). However, specific reviews about this particular topic (i.e. student-centred models implemented by preservice teachers and novice teachers) are scarce. To our knowledge, there are currently no systematic reviews that consider multiple models as a way to understand which challenges to implementation are common across models and which challenges are particular to specific models. This has the potential to help optimize the training of future teachers in student-centred model-based PETE programmes.

Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was three-fold. First, to conduct an integrated examination of research on preservice and novice teachers’ implementations of four of the most prominent student-centred models in PE (SE, CL, TGfU, and TGM) and their hybridizations. Second, to provide an analysis of the methodological characteristics of existing research. Finally, to uncover the main challenges experienced by these teachers when implementing student-centred models in the context of school placement training (i.e. preservice teachers) and postgraduate professional practice (i.e. novice teachers).

Methods

Search limits

Because Dyson and his collaborators presented the conceptualization of student-centred models in 2004, our electronic search considered articles published between 2004 and February 2020. The search, conducted in nine electronic databases (Academic Search Complete, ERIC, SPORT Discus with full text, Psych Info, Education Source, Teacher Reference Centre, EBSCO, Web of Science, and SCOPUS), involved a general identification of documents on PE/PETE. The main identifier terms searched in the title, abstract, and key words were: (Cooperative Learning OR Sport Education OR Teaching Games for Understanding OR Game Sense OR Tactical Games OR Play Practice OR Invasion Games Competence Model OR Tactical Decision Learning Model OR Game Centred/Centered Approach) AND (Physical Education). The search was performed by two researchers who have experience in this methodology and are knowledgeable of student-centred model pedagogies.

Study selection

The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (Figure 1). We selected studies aligned with the conceptualization of student-centred models presented by Dyson et al. (2004) and Harvey and Jarrett (2014) and that were: (a) written in English; (b) published from 2004; (c) using qualitative or mixed methods; (d) published in a peer-reviewed international journal; (e) involving preservice or novice teachers; and (f) focused on SE, CL, TGfU, TGM, and/or their hybridizations.

We excluded all duplicates, articles conducted outside the PE context, non-empirical articles, studies that made no distinction between preservice/novice teachers and other samples, studies that only provided information about preservice teachers as students of a mentoring process, and articles that did not classify the participants’ experiences or did not report difficulties. After all exclusions, 29 articles were included in this review.

Assessment of study quality

We used the guidelines from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2018), which are specific to qualitative studies and designed to be used as an educational pedagogical tool, to assess the research quality of the 27 qualitative articles identified. To assess the research quality of the two mixed-methods studies, we used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (Hong et al., 2018), which is designed for the appraisal stage of complex systematic literature reviews including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies.

Each study was evaluated using the relevant checklist, all items of which were answered with either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Based on this evaluation, each study was given a quality rating (QR). For qualitative studies: if the study had between 0-3 questions answered with ‘yes’, the study was classified as Low quality; if it had 4–6 ‘yes’ it was classified as Medium quality; and if it had 7–10 ‘yes’, High quality. For mixed-methods studies: if the study had between 0-6 questions answered with ‘yes’, the study was classified as Low quality; if it had 7–12 ‘yes’ it was classified as Medium quality; and if it had 13–17 ‘yes’, High quality. Two reviewers (RS and CF) independently evaluated the quality of the studies. A consensus meeting was arranged to resolve differences between both reviewers. Of the 29 articles, four had a medium QR and 25 had a high QR (see Supplement 1 and 2).

Figure 1.

Flow chart of study selection process based on PRISMA (Moher et al., 2015).

Data analysis

First, we summarized the following characteristics for each retained study: study context (i.e. author(s), country, year of publication, model implemented, model fidelity, and length of the unit), study focus, participants/setting (i.e. teacher experience and student school grade), methodology, and quality rating (Table 1 and Supplement 1, 2 and 3).

Table 1.

Synthesis of empirical studies of student-centred models.

Author(s)/ country	Model (fidelity)/ length	Focus	Participants/setting		Methodology	Quality rating
Author(s)/ country	Model (fidelity)/ length	Focus	Teachers	Students’ grade level	Methodology	Quality rating
Curtner-Smith and Sofo (2004) USA	SE, yes, 10L	PSTs’ conceptions of the teaching-learning process (topic 1, 3)	15 PSTs	Middle	MMQ, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
McCaughtry et al. (2004) USA	SE, yes, 10W	Learning to teach SE (misunderstandings, pedagogical difficulties, and resistance) (topic 2)	21 PSTs	Middle	MMQ, Emergent design, Longitudinal	HQ
McMahon and MacPhail (2007) Ireland	SE, yes, 10L	Mechanisms that facilitate/inhibit learning to teach SE (topic 1, 3)	1 PST	Middle	MMQ, Case study – action research, Longitudinal	HQ
Curtner-Smith et al. (2008) USA & England	SE, limited info, no info	Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teqachers’ interpretation and delivery of SE (topic 1)	10 NTs	No info	Q, Exploratory, Cross-sectional	MQ
Li and Cruz (2008) China	TGfU, limited info, no info	Understand how PSTs experienced their occupational socialization with TGfU (topic 1)	4 PSTs	No info	MMQ, Exploratory, Cross-sectional	HQ
Sinelnikov (2009) Russia	SE, limited info, 18L	Description of an on-site professional development programme for teachers as they learned to teach SE (topic 1)	1 NT	Primary	MMQ, Ethnographic case study, Longitudinal	HQ
Stran and Curtner-Smith (2009a) USA	SE, limited info, 8W	How PSTs interpreted-delivered the SE (topic 2, 3)	2 PSTs	Middle	MMQ, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
Stran and Curtner-Smith (2009b) USA	SE, limited info, 8W	The influence of value orientations on the interpretation-delivery of SE, possible changes and development of PSTs’ while teaching SE (topic 2)	2 PSTs	Middle	MMQ, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
Wright et al. (2009) China	TGfU, limited info, no info	PSTs’ perspective of tactical approach through a social constructivist lens (topic 2, 3)	49 PSTs	Primary	MM, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
Stran and Curtner-Smith (2010) USA	SE, limited info, 8W	The relative importance of Shulman’s knowledge types in PSTs’ teaching of SE and how they acquired/developed this knowledge (topic 2)	2 PSTs	Middle	MMQ, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
Webb and Scoular (2011) UK	SE, limited info, 7L	Reflections of pupils about being ‘reflective learners’ (topic 3)	1 NT	Middle	MMQ, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
Stran et al. (2012) USA	SE–TGfU, yes, 18L	PSTs’ perceptions about teaching a SE–TGfU unit (topic 1)	22 PSTs	Primary	MMQ, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
Wang and Ha (2013a) China	TGfU, yes, 18L	Factors that determine PSTs’ teaching behaviours during the implementation of TGfU (topic 2, 3)	6 PSTs	Primary	MM, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
Wang and Ha (2013b) China	TGfU, limited info, 14W	The PSTs’ views, learning experiences and understandings of TGfU (topic 1)	10 PSTs	Primary & Secondary	Q, Exploratory, Cross-sectional	HQ
Chen et al. (2013) China	SE, yes, 22L	PE teacher professional development (topic 1)	1 NT	Secondary	MMQ, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
Glotova and Hastie (2014) Russia	SE, limited info, 24L	PSTs’ understanding of the SE through a series of learning experiences (topic 2)	11 PSTs	No info	MMQ, Action research, Longitudinal	HQ
Goodyear et al. (2014) UK	CL, yes, 8L	PE reconceptualization to give students responsibility for their own learning (topic 3)	1 NT	Secondary	MMQ, Participant research project, Longitudinal	HQ
O’Leary (2014) UK	TGfU, limited info, 4M	How one PE teacher delivered TGfU (topic 2)	1 NT	Middle	MMQ, Case study, Longitudinal	HQ
O’Leary et al. (2014) UK	TGfU, limited info, no info	The influence of occupational socialization on teacher’s interpretation-delivery of TGfU (topic 2)	1 NT	Middle	MMQ, Case study Cross-sectional	MQ
Wahl-Alexander and Curtner-Smith (2015) USA	SE, yes, 12 L	The influence of negotiations between pupils and PSTs on PSTs’ instruction within MA teaching and SE (topic 2, 3)	17 PSTs	Middle	MMQ, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith (2016) USA	SE, yes, 36L	The influence of a training programme on one PST’ ability to promote moral and sporting behaviour in SE (topic 1, 3)	1 PST	Middle	MMQ, Hybrid case study action research, Longitudinal	HQ
Bodsworth and Goodyear (2017) UK	CL, yes, 1Y	Barriers and facilitators to purposeful technology in PE (topic 2, 3)	1 NT	Primary	MMQ, Action research, Longitudinal	HQ
Deenihan and MacPhail (2017) Ireland	SE, limited info, 50L	PSTs’ delivery of SE (topic 1)	7 PSTs	Primary	MMQ, Exploratory, Longitudinal	HQ
Wahl-Alexander et al. (2017) USA	SE, limited info, 13L	The ability of PSTs to negotiate while teaching lessons in MA and SE units (topic 2, 3)	13 PSTs	Middle	MMQ, Exploratory, Longitudinal	MQ
Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith (2018a) USA	SE, yes, 40L	Determine the extent to which a coaching-oriented PST promoted or negated moral and sporting behaviour (topic 1, 3)	1 PST	Middle	MMQ, Case study, Longitudinal	HQ
Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith (2018b) USA	SE, limited info, 45L	Determine the extent to which a PST promoted moral and sporting behaviour while teaching SE seasons (topic 2, 3)	1 PST	Middle	MMQ, Case study, Longitudinal	MQ
Özlem and Ferda (2019) Turkey	TGM, yes, 1SP	PE teachers’ process of experiencing a pedagogical innovation in company with an expert in their professional development process (topic 1)	1 NT	Primary	MMQ, Participatory Action Research, Longitudinal	HQ
Hordvik et al. (2019a) Norway	SE, yes, 8L	Investigate a PST continuing process of learning to teach SE (topic 1, 3)	1 PST	Secondary	MMQ, Case study, Longitudinal	HQ
Hordvik et al. (2019b) Norway	SE, limited info, 13L	PSTs’ experience of teaching SE in various school contexts (topic 1, 3)	2 PSTs	Secondary	MMQ, Case study, Longitudinal	HQ

Notes: In reading the content of table three from left to right, the first column presents the ‘Author(s)/ country’, which provides the author(s) of the article and the country where the study was realized. The second column, ‘Model (fidelity)/ duration’, shows the model used (e.g. SE), if the article implements procedures of model fidelity (i.e. ‘Yes’ if the authors presented a detailed description of the programme and curricular elements of the unit, a detailed validation of model implementation, and a detailed description of the programme context (Hastie and Casey, 2014) or ‘limited information’ if the authors just presented some information of the programme and unit) and the duration of the programme (i.e. the duration of each study is presented according to the information provided by the authors). The third column, ‘Focus’, provides the focus of analysis of the 29 articles (Topic 1: Teacher (pre)conceptions, beliefs and comprehension about teaching and learning PE through SCMs’; Topic 2: Observed teaching practices and perceptions about teaching and learning PE through SCMs’; and Topic 3: ‘Observed student responses and teacher perceptions on student responses to participation in SCMs’). The next two columns are related to ‘Participants/Setting’, which present information about the teachers (i.e. the number of teachers involved in the study), and students’ school grade level. The next column refers to the Methodology (i.e. data sources and design of the study) and the last column refers to the quality rating. L: lessons; W: weeks; M: months; Y: year; SP: school period; SE: Sport Education; TGfU: Teaching Games for Understanding; CL: Cooperative Learning; TGM: Tactical Games Model; PST: Pre-service teachers; NT: Novice teachers; MMQ: Multi-method qualitative; Q: Qualitative; MM: Mixed methods; HQ: High-quality; MQ: Medium-quality.

All 29 articles were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2019). First, each study was read and summarized by the first author to identify and codify relevant findings that addressed the research question (i.e. challenges and constraints emerging during preservice and novice teachers’ implementations of pivotal student-centred models). Next, codes were compared and categorized based on their meaning and associations. This allowed the construction of thematic clusters and categories. To ensure a quality analysis, these categories were discussed between the authors until a consensus was reached, and then labelled and grouped into major categories. Exploring links between categories allowed for the development of a conceptual understanding of the entire data set. The established categories and codes were then revised and refined by all the authors in relation to the research question.

Results

General overview

Study context

North America and Europe represented over half of all publications (n = 20) and SE was the most researched model (n = 19). Model fidelity procedures were confirmed in 13 studies. The length of the studies ranged from seven lessons (Webb and Scoular, 2011), to 50 lessons (Deenihan and MacPhail, 2017), with most studies including single student-centred model units; minimum: one unit (McCaughtry et al., 2004); maximum: five units (Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2009b).

Study focus

The most common study focus was ‘Teacher (pre)conceptions, beliefs and comprehension about teaching and learning PE through student-centred models’ (topic one) (n = 8).

Participants and setting

Most studies focused on preservice teachers (n = 20) while a smaller number (n = 9) focused on novice teachers. Most studies included 10 (or fewer) less experienced teachers¹ (n = 23), with almost half (n = 14) examining only one preservice teacher or one novice teacher. The largest proportion of studies (n = 14) were focused on the middle school grades (i.e. 5th–9th).

Methodology

The retained studies made use of multiple qualitative data sources (i.e. various data collection instruments) (n = 25) and interviews were the most widely used data collection method (n = 27). Considering Patton’s (2015) study design definitions, most of the studies were longitudinal (i.e. studies with multiple data collection points of over time) (n = 25); however, many had short-term data collection protocols (e.g. three weeks, three lessons, Wang and Ha, 2013a). Furthermore, inductive analyses and constant comparison were the most frequently used data analysis methods (n = 16).

Main research findings

There were three types of critical challenges faced by less experienced teachers when implementing student-centred models: teacher-related, student-related, and external.

Table 2.

Main research findings: mapping of studies by themes.

Themes	NoteworthyOutcome	Teachers		Student-centred model
Themes	NoteworthyOutcome	PSTs	NTs	SE	CL	TGfU	TGM	SE–TGfU
Teacher-related constraints to implementation of SCMs	Pervasive beliefs and occupational socialization constraints	X		Curnter-Smith and Sofo (2004), Deenihan and MacPhail (2017), Glotova and Hastie (2014), Hordvik et al. (2019a, 2019b), McCaughtry et al. (2004), Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith (2018a), Stran and Curtner-Smith (2009b, 2010)				Stran et al. (2012)
			X	Sinelnikov (2009), Webb and Scoular (2011)		O’Leary (2014)
	Management-related constraints	X		Curtner-Smith and Sofo (2004), Deenihan and MacPhail (2017), Hordvik et al. (2019a, 2019b), McMahon and MacPhail (2007), Schwamberger et al. (2016, 2018a, 2018b), Stran and Curtner-Smith (2009a, 2009b), Wahl-Alexander and Curtner-Smith (2015), Wahl-Alexander et al. (2017)		Wang and Ha (2013b), Wright et al. (2009)		Stran et al. (2012)
	Management-related constraints		X	Curtner-Smith et al. (2008), Webb and Scoular (2011)	Bodsworth and Goodyear (2017), Goodyear et al. (2014)	O’Leary (2014), O’Leary et al. (2014)
	Instructional-related and content development-related constraints	X		Curtner-Smith and Sofo (2004), Glotova and Hastie (2014), McCaughtry et al. (2004), McMahon and MacPhail (2007), Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith (2016), Stran and Curtner-Smith (2010), Wahl-Alexander et al. (2017)		Li and Cruz (2008), O’Leary (2014), Wang and Ha (2013 b), Wright et al. (2009)		Stran et al. (2012)
			X	Sinelnikov (2009), Chen et al. (2013)	Goodyear et al. (2014)		Özlem and Ferda (2019)
Student-related constraints to implementation of SCMs		X		Curtner-Smith and Sofo (2004), Hordvik et al. (2019b), McMahon and MacPhail (2007), Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith (2016, 2018a, 2018b), Stran and Curtner-Smith (2009a), Wahl-Alexander et al. (2017)		Wright et al. (2009), Wang and Ha (2013b)
Student-related constraints to implementation of SCMs			X	Webb and Scoular (2011)	Bodsworth and Goodyear (2017), Goodyear et al. (2014)
‘External’ constraints to implementation of SCMs: contextual and environmental issues		X		Deenihan and MacPhail (2017), Glotova and Hastie (2014), Hordvik et al. (2019b), Stran and Curtner-Smith (2010)		Li and Cruz (2008), Wang and Ha (2013a, 2013b), Wright et al. (2009)		Stran et al. (2012)
			X	Curtner-Smith et al. (2008), Chen et al. (2013)

Notes: In reading the content of the table from left to right, the first column presents the three principal themes resulted by the findings of the review studies. The second column presents the noteworthy outcome, which allows us to differentiate the responses of the teachers. The third column tells us if the teacher were pre-service or novice. The other five columns map the studies according to the results founded and the model implemented; SCMs: student-centred models; PST: Pre-service teachers; NT: Novice teachers; SE: Sport Education; CL: Cooperative Learning; TGfU: Teaching Games for Understanding; TGM: Tactical Games Model.

Teacher-related challenges. The effects of ‘pervasive beliefs and occupational socialization constraints’ were noted in 13 studies. Particularly in SE (n = 12), less experienced teachers tended to reject a pedagogical adherence to, and instructional operationalization of, student-centred teaching practices and were reluctant to fully embody the role of facilitator (e.g. Webb and Scoular, 2011; Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith, 2018a). Some participants even expressed that they had no intention to implement the model in the future (e.g. Sinelnikov, 2009; Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2010).

Several arguments were used by the teachers to justify their watered-down implementations of the model (i.e. watered-down seasons involving shorter units primarily around formal competition, but failing to include many of the other elements that transform traditional sporting units into SE seasons) (Curtner-Smith et al., 2008). In particular, there was an absence of student-led and peer-teaching activities, no record taking, and short competition events because: (a) they had preconceived beliefs that students did not enjoy role-playing (e.g. McCaughtry et al., 2004); (b) they lacked the skills to promote effective learning in peers (e.g. Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2010); (c) they were reluctant to share decision-making power and the leadership of class events with students (e.g. Sinelnikov, 2009; Hordvik et al., 2019b); and (d) they complained of the hard and time-consuming planning inherent to the gradual transfer of instructional responsibility to students (Deenihan and MacPhail, 2017).

Managerial-related challenges were identified in 21 studies. Most discipline and organizational issues pertained to the dynamics of group-work and peer-assisted learning within SE and CL. The less experienced teachers struggled to define functional heterogeneous learning teams and, inadvertently, two conflicting ‘characters’ arose in the class (‘sporty’ vs. ‘non-sporty’ students) that affected the whole team’s participation and learning (i.e. when students had a role that they did not enjoy, they refused to participate in this role/lesson) (Goodyear et al., 2014). Teachers were not able to deal with disciplinary issues (aggressive social interactions and power-related quarrels) during the introduction of learning-team tasks in SE, leading to unsuccessful development of fair-play behaviours (Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith, 2016; Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith, 2018a). In TGfU, class management issues emerged because of the game-centred focus of the lessons, with less experienced teachers showing their frustration about having students ‘running around the playground’ during modified games practice (Wang and Ha, 2013a: 233).

Instruction-related challenges emerging from the processes of instruction and content development were described in 16 studies. There was evidence of conceptual misinterpretations by the less experienced teachers about pedagogical principles of the student-centred models. For example, in Goodyear et al. (2014), students had to play all roles to help teammates learn, regardless of their physical ability. This contributed to variance in students’ learning and behaviour during the CL unit. In Curtner-Smith and Sofo (2004), preservice teachers believed that students should only have an active role after they had been taught the complete set of skills in the unit, so they assumed full leadership of the learning process for almost the entire SE seasons.

It was also evident that teachers had basic practical representations of their role as a facilitator. Overall, teachers underestimated the complexity of teaching roles and responsibilities, and did not explicitly prepare students for role-playing (i.e. as a referee, captain). Moreover, there was a lack of efficient progressive scaffolding for the responsibility delivered to students to conduct peer-teaching tasks (Chen et al., 2013; Glotova and Hastie, 2014; McMahon and MacPhail, 2007). Specific challenges concerning the game-centred approach included the less experienced teachers’ predominant use of low-order questioning on game technique, and the low frequency of tactical-focused instruction and feedback (i.e. most questions and feedback were related to knowledge-based technical and affective issues, and the biomechanics of students’ skills) (McCaughtry et al., 2004; Wang and Ha, 2013b; Wright et al., 2009).

Instead of helping students learn to identify the complexities of game situations and offering alternatives for tactical actions, preservice teachers ‘tended generally to just reduce game complexity to the point where drills were almost prearranged and rote in nature’ (McCaughtry et al., 2004: 143). This was largely because of their lack of pedagogical content knowledge and inability to effectively design developmentally appropriate modified games (Stran et al., 2012). Teachers were also unable to integrate the problem-solving teaching of games with student leadership of content selection and peer-teaching tasks (e.g. Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2009b; Stran et al., 2012), and the tactics taught were isolated from the context in which they were supposed to occur (McCaughtry et al., 2004; McMahon and MacPhail, 2007).

Student-related challenges were reported in 12 studies. Most studies found that students responded positively to participation in student-centred models. However, there were some specific student-related challenges. First, students found it hard to accept instructions from their peer-coaches (Hordvik et al., 2019b) and unsporting behaviours (arguing against officials, aggressiveness toward teammates, winning at all costs) emerged once they engaged in formal competition ‘playoff’ events (Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith, 2018a; Schwamberger and Curtner-Smith, 2018b; Wahl-Alexander et al., 2017). Second, students had difficulty efficiently performing their assigned duties (coaching, officiating) (McMahon and MacPhail, 2007), resulting in complaints about the highly physically and cognitively demanding responsibilities embedded in role-playing (Wahl-Alexander and Curtner-Smith, 2015) and a rejection of participation in rotational role-playing (Goodyear et al., 2014). Third, students failed to grasp the educational benefits of using digital pedagogies (iPads) and consequent leadership of their skill performance development (Bodsworth and Goodyear, 2017).

External challenges were reported in 11 studies and the emergent issues revolved around three main aspects. First was the low status attributed to PE in some school institutions, for example a curriculum perspective of PE aimed at ‘relieving stress’ (Curtner-Smith et al., 2008), the permissive school attendance policies and student absenteeism (Stran et al., 2012), the lack of adequate PE equipment, the large number of students per class, and the shortage of space in the gym (Li and Cruz, 2008; Wang and Ha, 2013b). Second was a lack of support from cooperating teachers and other ‘resident’ PE teachers, which pressured the less experienced teachers to give up on implementing student-centred models in preference of teacher-centred and directive approaches (e.g. Curtner-Smith et al., 2008; Wang and Ha, 2013b), and the inability of cooperating teachers to help preservice teachers beyond general classroom management (Wang and Ha, 2013a). Third, the structure of PETE school placement itself was ‘unfavourable’ to the development of preservice teachers’ abilities to implement student-centred models, mostly due to the short duration (e.g. Curtner-Smith and Sofo, 2004; Wahl-Alexander et al., 2017) and the pressure to quickly control class behaviours to ensure a good final grading in the school placement unit (Hordvik et al., 2019b).

Discussion and conclusions

The aims of this review were: (a) to conduct an integrated examination of research on preservice and novice teachers’ implementation of student-centred models in PE; (b) to provide an analysis of the methodological characteristics of the existing research; and (c) to uncover the main challenges experienced by these teachers during their implementation of student-centred models.

We found that studies applying one teaching model, mostly SE or TGfU, were more frequent than those using hybridizations. This represents a limitation of current research because hybridizations (Casey and MacPhail, 2018; Gil-Arias et al., 2017; González-Víllora et al., 2019) and other instructional models (e.g. CL and several GCAs) have the potential to facilitate the achievement of student-centred curriculum goals (Harvey and Jarrett, 2014; Hastie and Mesquita, 2016) and thus should be examined in future investigations. One possible reason for this is that successful applications of hybrid models require knowledge about isolated instructional models as well as of their combination, and teachers require greater commitment, training, and experience (González-Víllora et al., 2019), which is less common in less experienced teachers.

There is a trend in research to study the way teachers learn to teach student-centred models, but our review indicates most of the studies focused on preservice rather than novice teachers (who represent entry into the profession without external support such as university teachers). This lack of research into professional learning for in-service teachers has been previously identified (Harvey and Jarrett, 2014; Miller, 2015), and still represents a knowledge gap that should be prioritized in future research.

We found many studies were based on short-term school placement periods, which aligns with other reviews (Casey and Goodyear, 2015; Chu and Zhang, 2018; Harvey and Jarrett, 2014). In some cases (e.g. Curtner-Smith et al., 2008; Wang and Ha, 2013a) the preservice teachers’ instructional shortcomings were not overcome likely due to the short duration of the school placements (which did not allow the time necessary for enhanced professional development). In contrast, longer learning units with an intervention focus (action research, participant research) (e.g. Bodsworth and Goodyear, 2017; Hordvik et al., 2019a; Hordvik et al., 2019b) allowed them to progress from having a poor scaffolding of students’ managerial (role-playing) and instructional leadership (peer-teaching) to being able to help students conduct productive peer-teaching interactions (Glotova and Hastie, 2014). Thus, PETE programmes should strongly consider extending the length of school placements (Fletcher et al., 2020).

One of the reasons less experienced teachers were often resistant to moving toward student-centred practices was the effects of occupational socialization, which aligns with several recent studies (e.g. Jarrett and Light, 2017; Prior and Curtner-Smith, 2020). As recommended by Romar and Frisk (2017), PETE should consider preservice teachers’ experiences about teaching, schooling, sport, and PE, and thereby strengthen their knowledge and skills of how to teach PE and provide students with quality learning experiences.

Independent of the model used and the study participants, many of the studies revealed the teachers’ lack of classroom management skills and students’ problems in sporting literacy behaviours, which is in the line with previous reviews (Oslin and Mitchell, 2006). Current research indicates that the management and control of classroom behaviours, learning, and climate are of high concern to teachers in the learning phase or early career (Curtner-Smith and Sofo, 2004; Harvey and Jarrett, 2014). Indeed, early-career teachers often use teacher-centred approaches because they facilitate the control of student behaviours (Mesquita and Graça, 2009) and because student-centred approaches promote students’ freedom and autonomy, which requires considerable teaching skills (i.e. high pedagogical content knowledge and leadership) (Hastie and Mesquita, 2016).

The less experienced teachers were often unable to cope with the quantity of general and specific pedagogies of student-centred models and could not fulfil the pedagogical function of a facilitator of practice. This appeared to be linked to students’ behaviour and lack of interest/joy in having roles and responsibility for their learning and work with peers. For example, disruptive student behaviours and lack of active engagement in learning activities was found to be a consequence of unskilled teachers’ mediation of role-performance (coach, referee) and peer-assisted learning processes (Goodyear et al., 2014; Hordvik et al., 2019a; Hordvik et al., 2019b). It may be particularly relevant to invest in training preservice teachers to manage the dynamics of these processes and implement preparation protocols for effective peer-teaching interactions to balance student active construction of learning with the achievement of social, affective, and higher-order skill development (Farias et al., 2020).

Our results also suggest that students’ resistance to student-centred models is related to their unfamiliarity with the active role they can have in PE class (McMahon and MacPhail, 2007) and to the fact that learning the social skills necessary to complete the roles assigned in a student-centred model unit requires time (Ward and Lee, 2005). As most of the included articles were of short duration, there were processes that could not be achieved by students, leading to misbehaviour within the classroom. This result was also found in a recent review (Chu and Zhang, 2018), where the lack of intervention time (four weeks) was insufficient for the preservice teachers to have a significant impact on student motivation.

Consistent with Oslin and Mitchell’s (2006) review, two of the teachers’ main constraints were the game design and use of effective questioning. These issues are of particular concern for current game-centred teaching practice (Harvey and Light, 2015; Jarrett and Light, 2017) because they can lead to dissonance and even frustration and hesitancy (Barrett and Turner, 2000). Due to a lack of pedagogical content knowledge and inefficient design of developmentally appropriate modified games, the vast majority of teachers’ questions and feedback were related to knowledge-based, technical and affective issues, and the biomechanics of students’ skills (McCaughtry et al., 2004; Wang and Ha, 2013b; Wright et al., 2009). PETE may benefit from developing preservice teachers’ ability to design developmentally appropriate small-sided games and problem-solving settings (Farias et al., 2018). However, effective learning of higher-order thinking and performance concepts within game play takes considerable time (Miller, 2015), and the short induction periods with limited support did not allow enough time to reduce the ‘epistemological gap’ between student understanding and implementation (Harvey and Jarrett, 2014).

The preservice teachers’ instructional difficulties, resulting from a lack of student-centred model-specific pedagogical content knowledge (Ward and Ayvazo, 2016) or lack of support from a cooperating teacher, it is not new. The study by Wang et al. (2013a) is noteworthy because preservice teachers’ responses were varied, despite the teachers being supported by the same PETE programme. One teacher who had received support and useful suggestions from their cooperating teacher felt self-confident and intended to adopt the TGfU model. In contrast, a different preservice teacher who encountered opposition from his cooperating teacher due his preference for the technique-based approach, felt frustrated with the lack of guidance. As the element that exerts greater influence on the learning of preservice teachers (O’Sullivan, 2003), PETE programmes should promote cooperating teachers’ engagement in active professional development centred on the ability to mediate preservice teachers’ implementation of student-centred models (Fletcher et al., 2020; MacPhail et al., 2013).

In conclusion, our findings suggest that the implementation of student-centred models was influenced by several constraints that are common to preservice and novice teachers. First, the main reasons less experienced teachers are resistant to shifting from teacher-centred to student-centred practices are the effects of occupational socialization, and the lack of pedagogical skills and student-centred model-specific pedagogical content knowledge. Second, student resistance to a change in pedagogical approach, leading to problems in sporting literacy behaviours, was linked to the less experienced teachers’ lack of classroom management skills. Third, the articles reviewed highlight the importance of support from cooperating and other teachers in helping less experienced teachers overcome challenges. Finally, the short duration of school placements makes it difficult, if not impossible, to overcome teachers’ difficulties.

Although there have been many reviews in the field of student-centred models, this is the first that addresses these issues (i.e. student-centred models implemented by preservice and novice teachers) in an integrated manner. This review contributes important information for future research and for PETE/professional development. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the variety of contexts analysed, programmes implemented, the lack of studies that investigated GCAs, CL and hybridizations, and due to the short duration of programmes that have been encountered.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-epe-10.1177_1356336X21995216 - Challenges faced by preservice and novice teachers in implementing student-centred models: A systematic review

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-epe-10.1177_1356336X21995216 for Challenges faced by preservice and novice teachers in implementing student-centred models: A systematic review by Rita Silva, Cláudio Farias and Isabel Mesquita in European Physical Education Review

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-2-epe-10.1177_1356336X21995216 - Challenges faced by preservice and novice teachers in implementing student-centred models: A systematic review

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-2-epe-10.1177_1356336X21995216 for Challenges faced by preservice and novice teachers in implementing student-centred models: A systematic review by Rita Silva, Cláudio Farias and Isabel Mesquita in European Physical Education Review

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-3-epe-10.1177_1356336X21995216 - Challenges faced by preservice and novice teachers in implementing student-centred models: A systematic review

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-3-epe-10.1177_1356336X21995216 for Challenges faced by preservice and novice teachers in implementing student-centred models: A systematic review by Rita Silva, Cláudio Farias and Isabel Mesquita in European Physical Education Review

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-4-epe-10.1177_1356336X21995216 - Challenges faced by preservice and novice teachers in implementing student-centred models: A systematic review

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-4-epe-10.1177_1356336X21995216 for Challenges faced by preservice and novice teachers in implementing student-centred models: A systematic review by Rita Silva, Cláudio Farias and Isabel Mesquita in European Physical Education Review

Footnotes

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 disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [grant number SFRH / BD / 132947 / 2017].

ORCID iDs

Rita Silva

Cláudio Farias

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Barba-Martín

Bores-García

Hortigüela-Alcalá

, et al. (2020) The application of the teaching games for understanding in physical education. Systematic review of the last six years. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(9): 3330–3346.

Barrett

Turner

(2000) Sandy’s Challenge: New Game, New Paradigm “a Correspondence”. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 19: 162–281.

Bessa

Hastie

Araújo

, et al. (2019) What do we know about the development of personal and social skills within the sport education model: A systematic review. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine 18(4): 812–829.

Bodsworth

Goodyear

(2017) Barriers and facilitators to using digital technologies in the Cooperative Learning model in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 22(6): 563–579.

Bores-García

Hortigüela-Alcalá

Fernandez-Rio

, et al. (2020) Research on cooperative learning in physical education. Systematic review of the last five years. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 92(1): 146–155.

Braun

Clarke

(2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11(4): 589–597.

Bunker

Thorpe

(1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education 18(1): 5–8.

Casey

Goodyear

(2015) Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature. Quest 67(1): 56–72.

Casey

MacPhail

(2018) Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 23(3): 294–310.

10.

CASP (2018) Qualitative research checklist: 10 Questions to help you make sense of qualitative research. Available at: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Systematic-Review-Checklist-2018_fillable-form.pdf (accessed 2 December 2019).

11.

Chen

Sinelnikov

Hastie

(2013) Professional development in physical education: Introducing the Sport Education Model to teachers in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport & Physical Education 4(1): 1–17.

12.

Chiva-Bartoll

Salvador-García

Ruiz-Montero

(2018) Teaching games for understanding and cooperative learning: Can their hybridization increase motivational climate among physical education students? Croatian Journal of Education 20(2): 561–584.

13.

Chu

Zhang

(2018) Motivational processes in Sport Education programs among high school students: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review 24(3): 372–394.

14.

Curtner-Smith

Sofo

(2004) Preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching within sport education and multi-activity units. Sport, Education and Society 9(3): 347–377.

15.

Curtner-Smith

Hastie

Kinchin

(2008) Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education and Society 13(1): 97–117.

16.

Deenihan

MacPhail

(2017) The influence of organizational socialization in preservice teachers’ delivery of sport education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 36(4): 477–484.

17.

Dyson

Casey

(2016) Cooperative Learning in Physical Education and Physical Activity: A Practical Introduction. London: Routledge.

18.

Dyson

Griffin

Hastie

(2004) Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest 56(2): 226–240.

19.

Ellis

Alonzo

Nguyen

HTM

(2020) Elements of a quality pre-service teacher mentor: A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education 92: 1–13.

20.

Farias

Hastie

Mesquita

(2018) Scaffolding student–coaches’ instructional leadership toward student-centred peer interactions: A yearlong action-research intervention in sport education. European Physical Education Review 24(3): 269–291.

21.

Farias

Wallhead

Mesquita

(2020) “The project changed my life”: Sport education’s transformative potential on student physical literacy. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 91(2): 263–278.

22.

Fernandez-Rio

(2017) Quality physical education through models-based practice. In: Milanović

Sporiš

Šalaj

, et al. (Eds) 8th international scientific conference on kinesiology, Zagreb, pp.186–190.

23.

Fletcher

Chróinín

O’Sullivan

, et al. (2020) Pre-service teachers articulating their learning about meaningful physical education. European Physical Education Review 26(4): 885–902.

24.

Gil-Arias

Claver

Práxedes

, et al. (2020) Autonomy support, motivational climate, enjoyment and perceived competence in physical education: Impact of a hybrid teaching games for understanding/sport education unit. European Physical Education Review 26(1): 36–53.

25.

Gil-Arias

Harvey

Cárceles

, et al. (2017) Impact of a hybrid TGfU-Sport Education unit on student motivation in physical education. PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179876.

26.

Glotova

Hastie

(2014) Learning to teach sport education in Russia: Factors affecting model understanding and intentions to teach. Sport, Education and Society 19(8): 1072–1088.

27.

González-Víllora

Evangelio

Sierra-Díaz

, et al. (2019) Hybridizing pedagogical models: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review 25(4): 1056–1074.

28.

Goodyear

(2017) Sustained professional development on cooperative learning: Impact on six teachers’ practices and students’ learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 88(1): 83–94.

29.

Goodyear

Dudley

(2015) “I’m a facilitator of learning!” Understanding what teachers and students do within student-centered physical education models. Quest 67(3): 274–289.

30.

Goodyear

Casey

Kirk

(2014) Hiding behind the camera: Social learning within the cooperative learning model to engage girls in physical education. Sport, Education and Society 19(6): 712–734.

31.

Harvey

Jarrett

(2014) A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 19(3): 278–300.

32.

Harvey

Light

(2015) Questioning for learning in game-based approaches to teaching and coaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 6(2): 175–190.

33.

Hattie

(2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. London: Routledge.

34.

Hastie

Casey

(2014) Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy: A guide for future investigations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 33(3): 422–431.

35.

Hastie

Mesquita

(2016) Sport-based physical education. In: Ennis

(ed) Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies. London: Routledge, pp. 367–379.

36.

Hong

Pluye

Fàbregues

, et al. (2018) Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018 User guide. Available at: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks (accessed 1 February 2019).

37.

Hordvik

MacPhail

Ronglan

(2019a) Learning to teach sport education: Investigating a pre-service teacher’s knowledge development. Sport, Education and Society 24(1): 51–65.

38.

Hordvik

MacPhail

Ronglan

(2019b) Negotiating the complexity of teaching: A rhizomatic consideration of pre-service teachers’ school placement experiences. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 24(5): 447–462.

39.

Jarrett

Light

(2017) In-service teachers’ experiences of using game based approaches to teach games: Implications for physical education teacher educators. International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health 4(2): 73–81.

40.

Kim

Penney

Cho

, et al. (2006) ‘Not business as usual’: Sport education pedagogy in practice. European Physical Education Review 12(3): 361–379.

41.

Kirk

(2013) Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 45(9): 973–986.

42.

Cruz

(2008) Pre-service PE teachers’ occupational socialization experiences on teaching games for understanding. New Horizons in Education 56(3): 20–30.

43.

Lund

Tannehill

(2014) Standards-Based Physical Education Curriculum Development. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

44.

MacPhail

Tannehill

Karp

(2013) Preparing physical education preservice teachers to design instructionally aligned lessons through constructivist pedagogical practices. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies 33: 100–112.

45.

McCaughtry

Sofo

Rovegno

, et al. (2004) Learning to teach sport education: Misunderstandings, pedagogical difficulties, and resistance. European Physical Education Review 10(2): 135–155.

46.

McMahon

MacPhail

(2007) Learning to teach sport education: The experiences of a pre-service teacher. European Physical Education Review 13(2): 229–246.

47.

Mesquita

Graça

(2009) Modelos instrucionais no ensino do desporto. Pedagogia do desporto. Lisboa: Faculdade de Motricidade Humana.

48.

Metzler

(2017) Instructional Models for Physical Education. New York: Routledge.

49.

Miller

(2015) Games centered approaches in teaching children & adolescents: Systematic review of associated student outcomes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 34(1): 36–58.

50.

Mitchell

Oslin

Griffin

(2013) Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

51.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. (2015) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. Systematic Reviews, 4. (accessed 30 October 2019).

52.

Nasri

(2019) Self-directed learning through the eyes of teacher educators. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 40(1): 164–171.

53.

O’Leary

(2014) Learning informally to use teaching games for understanding: The experiences of a recently qualified teacher. European Physical Education Review 20(3): 367–384.

54.

O’Leary

Longmore

Medcalf

(2014) The influence of occupational socialisation upon a teacher’s interpretation and delivery of Teaching Games for Understanding to pupils experiencing social and emotional behavioural difficulties. Support for Learning 29(1): 57–75.

55.

O’Sullivan

(2003) Learning to teach in PE. In: Silverman

Ennis

(eds) Student Learning in PE. Champaign: Human Kinetics, pp. 275–290.

56.

Oslin

Mitchell

(2006) Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In: Kirk

MacDonald

O’Sullivan

(eds) The Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage Publications, pp.627–651.

57.

Özlem

Ferda

(2019) Teacher who (cannot) change: Experimental processes of physical education teachers by means of pedagogical innovations at the time of their professional development. Egitim ve Bilim 44(197): 401–420.

58.

Patton

(2015) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

59.

Prior

Curtner-Smith

(2020) Effects of occupational socialization on United States secondary physical education teachers’ beliefs regarding curriculum design. European Physical Education Review 26(1): 179–197.

60.

Robles

Collado-Mateo

Fernández-Espínola

, et al. (2020) Effects of teaching games on decision making and skill execution: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(2): 505–518.

61.

Romar

J-E

Frisk

(2017) The influence of occupational socialization on novice teachers’ practical knowledge, confidence and teaching in physical education. Qualitative Research in Education 6(1): 86–116.

62.

Rowley

Fook

Glazzard

(2018) Adopting a student-led pedagogic approach within higher education: the reflections of an early career academic. Reflective Practice 19(1): 35–45.

63.

Schwamberger

Curtner-Smith

(2016) Influence of a training programme on a preservice teacher’s ability to promote moral and sporting behaviour in sport education. European Physical Education Review 23(4): 428–443.

64.

Schwamberger

Curtner-Smith

(2018a) Moral development and sporting behavior in sport education: A case study of a preservice teacher with a coaching orientation. European Physical Education Review 25(2): 581–596.

65.

Schwamberger

Curtner-Smith

(2018b) Moral development in sport education: A case study of a teaching-oriented preservice teacher. Physical Educator 75(3): 546–566.

66.

Siedentop

Hastie

Mars

HVD

(2020) Complete Guide to Sport Education. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

67.

Sinclair

Thornton

(2016) Exploring preservice teachers’ conceptions after ‘living a hybrid curriculum’. European Physical Education Review 24(2): 133–151.

68.

Sinelnikov

(2009) Sport education for teachers: Professional development when introducing a novel curriculum model. European Physical Education Review 15(1): 91–114.

69.

Stran

Curtner-Smith

(2009a) Influence of occupational socialization on two preservice teachers’ interpretation and delivery of the sport education model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 28(1): 38–53.

70.

Stran

Curtner-Smith

(2009b) Influence of two preservice teachers’ value orientations on their interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education and Society 14(3): 339–352.

71.

Stran

Curtner-Smith

(2010) Impact of different types of knowledge on two preservice teachers’ ability to learn and deliver the Sport Education model. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 15(3): 243–256.

72.

Stran

Sinelnikov

Woodruff

(2012) Pre-service teachers’ experiences implementing a hybrid curriculum: Sport Education and Teaching Games for Understanding. European Physical Education Review 18(3): 287–308.

73.

Wahl-Alexander

Curtner-Smith

(2015) Influence of negotiations between preservice teachers and pupils on instruction within multi-activity and sport education units. Sport, Education and Society 20(7): 838–854.

74.

Wahl-Alexander

Curtner-Smith

Sinelnikova

(2017) Influence of a training program on preservice teachers’ ability to negotiate with students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 37(2): 144–153.

75.

Wang

(2013a) The theory of planned behaviour: Predicting pre-service teachers’ teaching behaviour towards a constructivist approach. Sport, Education & Society 18(2): 222–242.

76.

Wang

(2013b) Three groups of teachers’ views, learning experiences, and understandings of teaching games for understanding. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 18(3): 336–350.

77.

Ward

Ayvazo

(2016) Pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptions and findings in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35(3): 194–207.

78.

Ward

Lee

M-A

(2005) Peer-assisted learning in physical education: A review of theory and research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 24(3): 205–225.

79.

Webb

Scoular

(2011) Reflection on reflection on reflection: Collaboration in action research. Educational Action Research 19(4): 469–487.

80.

Wright

McNeill

Fry

(2009) The tactical approach to teaching games from teaching, learning and mentoring perspectives. Sport, Education and Society 14(2): 223–244.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB