Curriculum, Schooling and Applied Research: Challenges and Tensions for Researchers [1st ed.] 9783030488215, 9783030488222

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION RESEARCH METHODS

Curriculum, Schooling and Applied Research Challenges and Tensions for Researchers Edited by Jennifer Donovan Karen Trimmer Nicholas Flegg

Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods

Series Editors Patrick Alan Danaher University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Fred Dervin University of Helsinki Helsinki, Finland Caroline Dyer School of Politics and International Studies University of Leeds Leeds, UK Máirín Kenny Independent researcher Wexford, Ireland Bobby Harreveld School of Education and the Arts Central Queensland University Rockhampton, Australia Michael Singh Centre for Educational Research Western Sydney University Penrith, NSW, Australia

This series explores contemporary manifestations of the fundamental paradox that lies at the heart of education: that education contributes to the creation of economic and social divisions and the perpetuation of sociocultural marginalisation, while also providing opportunities for individual empowerment and social transformation. In exploring this paradox, the series investigates potential alternatives to current educational provision and speculates on more enabling and inclusive educational futures for individuals, communities, nations and the planet. Specific developments and innovation in teaching and learning, educational policy-making and education research are analysed against the backdrop of these broader developments and issues. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15092

Jennifer Donovan Karen Trimmer Nicholas Flegg Editors

Curriculum, Schooling and Applied Research Challenges and Tensions for Researchers

Editors Jennifer Donovan School of Education University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Australia

Karen Trimmer Faculty of Business, Law, Education & Arts University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Australia

Nicholas Flegg School of Education University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Australia

ISSN 2662-7345     ISSN 2662-7353 (electronic) Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods ISBN 978-3-030-48821-5    ISBN 978-3-030-48822-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48822-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Jenny, your voice will be heard

Foreword

 eflections about Conducting Research R in Teacher’s Science Classrooms My experiences conducting research with science teachers and their students in schools mirror many of the challenges and tensions of these well-­ articulated scenarios reported by the editors and chapter authors of this book. I can relate well to many of the topics—or should I state the issues behind the topics—in this volume such as the need to develop and maintain effective dialogue between researchers and school personnel, the care needed to effectively introduce innovative teaching methods into the school curriculum, the need to understand the often invisible (to an outsider) politics of the school system and the politics of the individual school, and the need to have a flexible curriculum so that science topics that excite and interest young children can be taught in the school curriculum. In this foreword, I illustrate how I recognise the challenges and tensions of conducting research in schools from my own experiences and comment on similar issues raised by several chapter authors.

vii

viii Foreword

Gaining Access At one level, access to conduct research in schools is becoming increasingly difficult for researchers. There are many reasons for this—the educational jurisdictions need to ensure that the proposed investigations will benefit the schools, the students and teachers involved in the research, that the time involved is not a distraction from teaching and learning of the regular curriculum and that all ethical issues have been carefully considered. Once these aspects have been satisfactorily attended to, the real communications and negotiations can begin with the school principals and teachers. These communications are generally very accommodating and the mutual respect between researchers and teachers in being involved in the research project is evident. The teachers willing to engage in the research project are keen to see that their students can improve their learning of the science topics or enhance their attitudes to science. A key element to commence and conduct the research is the need to collect all permissions from the teachers, parents and students. Often this goes smoothly, but in a recent study, in one school where we have had permission to conduct research from the school principal and teachers, a majority of parents of students in some classes did not return the permission slips. While the teachers can carry out the intended new teaching ideas to benefit the students (which they did), the researchers cannot ethically collect any data in the form of completed questionnaires or interviews from those students whose parents did not sign and return the permissions forms. In this situation, we may have been successful in helping the teachers introduce different ways of teaching an aspect of the science curriculum in their lessons for improved learning outcomes, but as researchers we were not able to collect sufficient data to be able to assess the effectiveness of the teacher intervention.

Schools Participation in the Research Some years ago, as the main investigator on a research grant, we sought to work with science teachers to enhance secondary students’ metacognitive capacities to use different ways to explain scientific concepts. We

 Foreword 

ix

provided the teachers with a range of strategies within a teaching/learning sequence. Unfortunately, for various reasons which I will describe, the research project was not successful in achieving the intended outcomes. We approached two educational jurisdictions who supported the research. For each educational jurisdiction, one school was recommended that would benefit from the research and improve the academic outcomes of their students. We had enthusiastic support from the school principals and the heads of science. Subsequently, as part of the planning for this grant, we worked with science staff in the two schools to find out what topics of the science curriculum they would like to improve their teaching and student learning outcomes. We conducted short workshops in each school to demonstrate the kinds of academic and affective changes the teachers could make to their teaching so that students might have greater success in their science learning. The research involved the science teachers in a teaching/learning intervention to explain science phenomena using diagrams and models and, for example in chemistry, to show the relationship between macro and micro forms and symbols in chemical reactions. Teachers were also to teach students how to use metacognitive strategies which were assessed by a pencil and paper instrument and small group interviews. We agreed to work collaboratively with the science teachers to focus on student engagement and understanding in their classroom to improve student outcomes in science. Initially we worked with individual science teachers to increase their awareness of common student difficulties and alternative conceptions and we engaged in some co-teaching when agreed by the teachers. To ensure the program could be effective we also provided resources, materials and assessment tools to increase teacher effectiveness to facilitate student learning. Despite agreement by the teachers to participate and as stated above with much support from each head of the science department and school principal, any consistent changes in teaching along the lines of the intervention were not sustained by most of the teachers during the year. The task of implementing the lessons, even with one of the research team being available to help with materials support, analyse tests and provide feedback the next day appeared to be difficult for the teachers to use with their student groups across topics.

x Foreword

Some of the problems could be that the researchers had too high a level of expectation of how the teachers may teach these lessons. However, we had much experience working with science teachers on different projects. Several years earlier we had conducted successful research in one of the schools but with different teachers. Consequently, we were aware of how to introduce ideas to teachers as part of an intervention and worked around the teachers’ schedules. In the next paragraph I offer some analysis and explanations for the outcomes which became part of our critique of our research presented at the 2010 meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, entitled “Why does research in schools not change the practice of science teachers?” Perhaps such a title was overstated but it provided an avenue for discussion based on our work more than a decade ago and fits very well with the many of the issues about challenges and tensions for researchers that are raised in the chapters of this book. So, the topics in this book remain current concerns for researchers conducting research with teachers and students in schools.

Invisible Tensions While the heads of science and school principals in both schools were very supportive of the science programs that we had helped the teachers develop, our initial observation working with the teachers in these two schools was that the schools’ teaching programs in science appeared to lack coherency. In school A, while there was positive support of the science staff during one semester for a genetics topic, several of the science staff became less inclined to work directly with the researchers over the year although the head teacher did maintain enthusiasm. In school B, individually, most teachers showed strong interest and were keen to ensure that the interventions were successful. A very positive beginning was that several teachers came to Curtin University in the school holidays to develop their teaching programs along the lines of our initial workshop. However, as a result of industrial action organised by the Teachers Union during the year over a pay dispute after we commenced the study, there were problems to find adequate meeting times with the teachers. Essentially, these meeting times had to be either allocated as hours of

 Foreword 

xi

professional development and/or at lunchtimes so there were lost opportunities to discuss events as they occurred. Nevertheless, several teachers in both schools participated in enacting metacognitive skills in a comprehensive way for a series of lessons. Some teachers recognised what changes they could and should make to their teaching to enhance students’ metacognitive capabilities using different types of explanations and for some topics were pleased with results. However, other teachers made little attempt to change their teaching despite the data from tests and instruments administered to their students showing what these changes could be.

What We Learned We attempted to help teachers develop relevant teaching materials such as designed lesson plans about the particulate nature of matter or genetics and a pencil and paper test about metacognition that could be used to guide student learning. However, despite their willingness, some teachers clearly were not comfortable with researchers in their classrooms. Even some teachers interested in improving their practice seemed to not change their practice based on responses from students. During the project, there were only a few clear and convincing sources of evidence where teaching and learning improved as a consequence of the research with science teachers in these two schools. However, we learned many things about working with educational jurisdictions, schools and teachers. Teachers do not necessarily accept support to change their teaching to improve student learning when the decision to conduct research is agreed by the school principal and head of science. At the outset, these decisions need to include those teachers who will be involved; we suspect that the latter was not the case in these two schools. Despite having a research assistant in the classroom who was an experienced senior teacher with a recent PhD degree, we underestimated the sense of threat of our presence in several of the teachers’ science classrooms so much so that in school B I decided not to attend some teachers’ lessons.

xii Foreword

We overestimated several aspects about the teachers—the coherence of their teaching programs and the extent of their willingness to participate as verbally agreed. Also we may have overestimated the extent of new ideas in the intervention and our appraisal of the teachers’ backgrounds and instructional competences to incorporate these new ideas. Despite previous experiences working in schools over several decades, we also may have underestimated the amount of time needed to engage the teachers. Furthermore, in school A the climate created with the industrial action did not allow for effective engagement in the form of professional development during the teaching intervention. Conducting research in schools can also have unexpected outcomes. As stated earlier, we were unsuccessful in achieving the aims of the research for several of the reasons provided. However, six months after the completion of the project, the principal from school A contacted me to state that the school science teaching programs had improved thanks to our involvement. The level of change had been noticed by the head of science but not by the researchers who no longer were going to the school.

Links to the Chapters Gaining Access: One cannot conduct research in schools without adequate ethics clearance that includes signed parental permission slips. Jennifer Donovan in Chap. 1 experienced difficulties getting permission slips returned from parents which was resolved by having the principal translate the information sheet into parent-friendly language. In our case, the issue appeared to be that the students did not see the point of the permissions and so did not adequately communicate with their parents the importance of signing and returning the permission forms. Who Benefits? One of the outcomes of conducting research in schools is the consideration for whom the findings benefit. This is one of the reasons for the rigorous vetting of educational research proposals by educational jurisdictions. Rasmussen and Andreasen in Chap. 5 explain that the findings from research and innovation conducted in Danish schools tends to be for authorities and stakeholders to make decisions rather than for the schools and teachers. Similarly, Harris and Danaher in Chap. 10

 Foreword 

xiii

comment on the tensions and contradictions with colleagues and stakeholders when putting research-based ideas into practice. Upon reflection I wonder if the teachers in the two schools with whom we worked, were not invited but were told by the school principals to participate in the study. I mentioned that in school A we had successful engagement conducting research with teachers some years ago. However, this was at a time when the researcher would approach teachers about a study; if the teachers agreed and this was supported by the head of science and the school principal, the research applications were made to the educational jurisdictions, and of course to the university research office. So at the outset the individual teachers had a vested interest in the success of the project. Invisible and Visible Tensions. In discussion about the innovation policy for promoting school improvement strategies at the local level by the French Ministry of Education, Normand in Chap. 2 identifies many tensions within the different organisation levels of schooling. I suspect many of these tensions are evident in educational jurisdictions in other countries. Normand emphasises the point that French primary teachers considered that national assessments or booklets about neuroscience to explain ways to improve students’ reading and writing were far removed from and did not fit their daily teaching. Having read this chapter, I wonder if the teachers in the study I described, felt the same way about explaining science concepts and developing metacognitive capabilities. While we did not provide a 120-page booklet, we did provide power point presentations and short explanations for the teachers to model as well as conceptual tests and metacognition questionnaires for the students along the line we considered needed. Nevertheless, these may not have fit the how the teachers thought about their science teaching. Reading the chapters in this volume has reawakened my interest in the complexity of those issues needing to be given consideration when researchers work with teachers and their students in schools. I reflect on my interactions with the teachers involved in the two schools where we conducted the research. One essential point is the entry level to conduct research in schools in Australia—also described by Nicholas Flegg in Chap. 1—by first gaining permission from the Education Department or the Independent Schools administration. Essentially this direction does

xiv Foreword

not enable the teachers in the schools selected for research to bring their agendas to the task at hand. Unfortunately, requests from schools to universities to conduct research are not very common. Help is at hand— reading this book provides researchers with a deeper understanding of the tensions and challenges that need to be considered and negotiated when conducting research in schools. Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia

David Treagust

Acknowledgements

The editors are very grateful to the following individuals without whom this book would not have been published: • Rebecca Wyde, Eleanor Christie and the editorial team at Palgrave Macmillan for all their work in getting this publication to press • Katrina Wilson for her dedication and attention to detail in copy-­ editing the manuscript • Professor David Treagust for writing the Foreword and Associate Professor Judy MacCallum for the Afterword • The chapter authors for their respective chapters and for engaging wholeheartedly with feedback from editors and peer reviewers • The scholars who provided double blind peer reviews of one or more submitted chapters: –– Emilio A.  Anteliz, Faculty of Engineering, Central University of Venezuela –– Professor Patrick A. Danaher, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia –– Associate Professor Roselyn M. Dixon, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia –– Dr Yvonne S.  Findlay, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia xv

xvi Acknowledgements

• Our colleagues for their continuing encouragement and interest • Our families and friends for their inexhaustible love and support. Jennifer Donovan Karen Trimmer Nicholas Flegg

Contents

1 Educational Innovation: Challenges of Conducting and Applying Research in Schools  1 Karen Trimmer, Jennifer Donovan, and Nicholas Flegg 1.1 Introduction   1 1.2 Literature Review   3 1.3 Examples from the Editors’ Own Research   5 1.4 Book Outline  11 1.4.1 Part 1: System Level and Policy Issues  11 1.4.2 Part 2: School and Teacher Challenges  12 1.4.3 Part 3: Researchers’ Experiences and Challenges  13 References 14 Part I Global System Level and Policy Issues  19 2 The Long March towards School Improvement in France: Paradoxes, Tensions and Adjustments between Bottom-up Innovations and Top-down Policies 21 Romuald Normand

xvii

xviii Contents

2.1 Introduction  21 2.2 The French Basic Skills Framework and its Implementation: Transmitting Knowledge and Supporting Student Guidance  23 2.3 “Monitoring the French Accountability Policy”: Towards Evidence-based National Assessments?  25 2.4 Links Between Research, Policy and Practice: Serving Politics First and Foremost  27 2.5 School Improvement for Whom? Challenges in Territorial Anchorage and Scaling-up of Innovative Programs 29 2.6 Top-down Policies and School Improvement Initiatives to Foster Local Choice and Diversification  33 2.7 Conclusion  35 References 37 3 The Unintended Impact of Regulatory Compliance: The Case of Pre-service Teacher Preparation to Teach Integrated Math-science Education under No Child Left Behind 41 Fernando F. Padró, Marlene M. Hurley, Karen Trimmer, and Jennifer Donovan 3.1 Introduction  41 3.2 Lack of Progress for IMS by 2012  51 3.3 The Question: Why has There Not Been Greater Adoption of IMS in Schools and in Colleges/Schools of Education?  53 3.4 Methodological Considerations  54 3.5 The Logical Model Lens  55 3.6 Policy Steering  56 3.7 Institutional Commitment, Adaptation or Resistance to External Environmental Expectations  59 3.8 The Minimaxing End of the Continuum  61 3.9 Governmentality as the Other End of the Model’s Continuum 62 3.10 Lessons Learned: Discussion and Conclusion  63 References 66

 Contents 

xix

4 An Educated Nation: Governmental Policy and Early Childhood Education in America 77 Jannah Nerren 4.1 Poverty and Our Youngest Schoolchildren  79 4.2 How Did We Get Here? A Timeline of Trouble  80 4.3 Head Start (1965) and Early Head Start (1995): A Federal Initiative  81 4.4 No Child Left Behind (2002–2015): National Reform Effort 85 4.5 Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge (2009): A Federal Competition  87 4.6 Common Core State Standards (2009)  88 4.7 Universal Pre-Kindergarten: A Decision for the States  91 4.8 Do We Listen to the Teachers?  93 4.9 Assessment: Not a Means to an End  94 4.10 Perspectives  94 4.10.1 NAEYC  94 4.10.2 Defending the Early Years  95 4.11 Positive Steps  96 4.11.1 How Early Childhood Education Advocates Can Affect Change  97 References 97 5 Innovation and Research in the Danish Public School103 Palle Rasmussen and Karen E. Andreasen 5.1 Understanding Innovation in Schooling 104 5.2 Schooling and Society in Denmark 106 5.3 School Innovation and Research in the Welfare State 108 5.4 School Innovation and Research in the Competition State110 5.5 Tensions in School Innovation Research: An Example 113 5.6 Linking Research, Innovation and Practice 115 References117

xx Contents

Part II School and Teacher Challenges 119 6 Teacher Perceptions of Daily Physical Activity and Perceived Contextual Barriers to the Implementation of Daily Physical Activity121 Natasha Williams and Harsha N. Perera 6.1 Introduction 121 6.2 Benefits of Daily Physical Activity 123 6.2.1 Government Initiatives 124 6.3 Teacher Perceptions of Physical Activity 125 6.4 Perceived Contextual Barriers to the Implementation of Daily Physical Activity 126 6.5 Method 129 6.5.1 Participants and Procedure 129 6.5.2 Measures 129 6.5.3 Statistical Analysis 130 6.6 Results 131 6.7 Discussion 134 References138 7 Children Versus Curriculum: Who Wins?143 Carole Haeusler, Jennifer Donovan, and Grady Venville 7.1 Introduction 143 7.2 Literature Review 144 7.3 Conceptual Framework and Methods 146 7.4 Findings 148 7.4.1 Snapshot 1, 2004, Year 2 (Interviewer: Jenny) Living, Non-living and Once-­living Things148 7.4.2 Snapshot 2, 2006, Year 5 (Interviewer: Jenny) Living Things and a Wool Model for DNA 149 7.4.3 Snapshot 3, 2009–2011, Years 5–7 (Interviewer: Jenny) Genetics Knowledge and the Mass Media 151

 Contents 

xxi

7.4.4 Snapshot 4, 2013, Year 4 (Interviewers: Carole and Jenny) Atomic Theory and Attitudes Towards Science 152 7.4.5 Snapshot 5, 2015–2016, Years 3/4 (Interviewer: Carole) Professional Development for Teachers 155 7.5 Discussion 157 7.6 Conclusion 161 References162 8 HPE: Navigating the Chasm of Policy, Practice and Management to Enact the Intended Curriculum and Meet the Needs of the Twenty-First Century Learners165 Susan Wilson-Gahan 8.1 Introduction 165 8.2 Literature Review and Discussion 166 8.3 The Australian Curriculum HPE: Curriculum Intent 167 8.4 Perceived Status of HPE Globally 169 8.5 Lack of Physical Activity a Global Health Problem 170 8.6 The Preparation of HPE Teachers 171 8.7 Research Methodology 172 8.8 Findings 174 8.9 Discussion 176 8.10 Negative Perceptions of Health and Physical Education179 8.11 Curriculum and Pedagogy 185 8.12 Meeting the Needs of Twenty-First Century Children 186 8.13 Conclusion 189 Appendix190 Entitlement 190 References190

xxii Contents

Part III Researchers’ Experiences and Challenges 195 9 Challenging the Seductive Promise of Positivist Research in Schools: A Case for Classroom-based Critical Theory Research197 Clayton Barry and Michael Christie 9.1 Introduction 197 9.1.1 The Positivist Paradigm as an Ontological and Epistemological Problem 202 9.1.2 The Positivist Paradigm as a Problem of Power 206 9.2 An Alternative Research Paradigm: Critical Theory Research209 9.2.1 Teacher Agency 211 9.2.2 Student Agency 212 9.2.3 Research as Politics and Power 214 References215 10 Developing Dialogue between a School Subject Department Head and a University Education Researcher: Convergences and Divergences in Experiencing Educational Change and Complexity221 Don Harris and Patrick A. Danaher 10.1 Introduction 221 10.2 Literature Review and Conceptual Framework 223 10.3 Research Design 226 10.4 Data Analysis 227 10.4.1 Research Question One: “What were Some of the First-named Author’s Reflections on his Experiences as a Subject Department Head in a Number of Queensland Government Secondary Schools?” 227 10.4.2 Research Question Two: “How Do those Reflections Help to Inform Successful School–University Partnerships?” 230

 Contents 

xxiii

10.5 Conclusion 231 References232 11 The “Wicked Problem” of Implementing Evidence based Practice in Special and Inclusive Education: A Sociocultural Analysis237 Roselyn M. Dixon and Irina Verenikina 11.1 Introduction 237 11.2 What are Evidence Based Practices? 238 11.3 The Factors Contributing to the Tensions between Research and its Implementation by Special Education Teachers 240 11.4 Sociocultural Theoretical Framings 243 11.5 Teacher Professional Learning 246 11.6 Realising the Promise of EBP through the Use of Communities of Practice 249 11.7 Development of a New Model of EPB and Professional Learning Incorporating Sociocultural Precepts250 11.8 Conclusion 251 References252 12 Afterword: Innovating and Researching in Schools257 Judith MacCallum 12.1 Introduction 257 12.2 Curriculum, Schooling and Applied Research 260 12.3 Tensions and Challenges 262 12.4 Researching in Schools 263 12.5 Innovating in Schools 266 12.6 Ways Forward for Innovating and Researching in Schools268 References271 Index273

List of Contributors

Karen E. Andreasen  Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Clayton Barry  University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia Michael  Christie University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia Patrick A. Danaher  University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Roselyn  M.  Dixon University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia Jennifer  Donovan  University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Nicholas Flegg  University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia Carole  Haeusler University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia Don Harris  Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Dalby, QLD, Australia xxv

xxvi 

List of Contributors

Marlene M. Hurley  Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ, USA Judith MacCallum  Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia Jannah Nerren  Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches,TX, USA Romuald Normand  University of Strasbourg, Villeurbanne, France Fernando F. Padró  University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Harsha N. Perera  University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA Palle Rasmussen  Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark David Treagust  Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia Karen  Trimmer University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Grady  Venville Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia Irina  Verenikina University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia Natasha Williams  Fairholme College, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Susan Wilson-Gahan  University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1

Institutional preference for either commitment or resistance to external environment expectations. Source: adapted from Padró (2013) 60 Fig. 6.1 Retained structural model solution with standardised parameter estimates. *p .90 and .95 for acceptable and excellent fit, respectively (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004); and weighted root mean residual (WRMR) < 1.00 for good fit (Yu, 2002). We do not report the typically-used root mean square error of approximation as it has recently been shown to produce inflated type 1 error rates in small samples (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2014).

6.6 Results Estimates of the polychoric and polyserial correlations among the 11 manifest indicators of the three latent variables are given in Table  6.1. The indicators of perceptions of physical activity were consistently positively associated with the indicators of implementation behaviours. On the contrary, indicators of perceived contextual barriers were largely negatively associated with the indicators of implementation. The indicators of perceptions of physical activity and perceived contextual barriers were consistently negatively associated. A three-factor CFA was conducted to test the postulated measurement structure underlying the manifest indicators. The model converged to an admissible solution and provided an acceptable fit to the data. χ2 (40) = 66.290, p < .001, CFI = .959, TLI = .943, WRMR = 0.760 (independence model χ2 (55) = 692.315). As given in Table 6.2, all 11 factor loading estimates were uniformly moderate to high and statistically significant. In addition, construct reliability coefficients were uniformly high across the latent variable (see Table 6.3). Taken together, these results indicate that the latent variables have been adequately operationalised by their respective indicators. As given in Table 6.3, all three unique correlations among the latent constructs were statistically significant and in the expected directions. Perceptions of physical activity and perceived

— .534 .889 .337 −.205 −.170 −.166 −.260 −.062 .353 −.345

1. PPA-1 2. PPA-2 3. PPA-3 4. PPA-4 5. PCB-1 6. PCB-2 7. PCB-3 8. PCB-4 9. PCB-5 10.  No. Sessions 11.  Length Sessions — .555 .413 −.369 −.420 −.306 −.265 −.381 .177 .319

2

— .353 −.379 −.131 −.165 −.238 −.061 .337 .377

3

— −.167 −.499 −.594 −.225 −.389 .301 .184

4

— .282 −.016 .310 .244 −.349 .170

5

— .762 .173 .506 −.215 −.076

6

— .197 .595 −.339 −.179

7

— .428 −.573 −.243

8

— −.199 −.105

9

— .467

10

—

11

Note: PPA = perceptions of physical activity; PCB = perceived contextual barriers; No. Sessions = number of session; Length Sessions = length of sessions

1

Variable

Table 6.1  Polychoric and polyserial correlations among the 11 manifest indicators of the three latent constructs

132  N. Williams and H. N. Perera

6  Teacher Perceptions of Daily Physical Activity and Perceived… 

133

Table 6.2  Factor loadings for the manifest indicators Latent variable and indicators Perceptions of physical activity  PPA-1  PPA-2  PPA-3  PPA-4 Perceived contextual barriers  PCB-1  PCB-2  PCB-3  PCB-4  PCB-5 Implementation behaviours  No. Sessions  Length of Sessions

λcs

SE

Z

.592 .784 .612 .636

.081 .099 .118 .103

7.318 7.936 5.167 6.203

.402 .801 .890 .520 .641

.146 .072 .081 .149 .092

2.750 11.161 10.927 3.484 6.998

.774 .603

.132 .115

5.863 5.262

Note: λcs = completely standardised factor loadings; SE = standard error; Z = parameter estimate divided by standard error. All factor loadings are statistically significant at p < .01 or better Table 6.3  Factor correlations and construct reliability coefficients Variable

1

2

3

1.  Perceptions of Physical Activity 2.  Perceived Contextual Barriers 3.  Implementation Behaviours

.773 −.643 .665

.871 −.446

.674

Note: All factor correlations are significant at the p < .01 level of better. Construct reliability coefficients are shown on the diagonal of the matrix

contextual barriers were positively and negative associated with physical activity implementation behaviours, respectively. In addition, perceived contextual barriers was negatively associated with perceptions of physical activity. Finally, the a priori specified covariance between the residual terms of Item 1 and Item 2 of the perceptions scale was statistically significant and of an appreciable magnitude to warrant inclusion in the final measurement structure (θ1,2 = .826, p < .001). Next, we tested the postulated structural model with paths from perceptions of physical activity and perceived contextual barriers to implementation behaviours. The test of this model provided an identical fit to the data as the measurement solution, which should be expected as the model is structurally saturated. On the basis of reasonable fit to the

134 

N. Williams and H. N. Perera

sample data, this structural model was retained for interpretation and is shown in Fig. 6.1. Consistent with H1, perceptions of physical activity significantly and positively predicted implementation behaviours, controlling for the concomitant effects of perceived contextual barriers. However, inconsistent with H2, perceived contextual barriers did not significantly predict implementation behaviours, controlling for perception of physical activity, with the corresponding structural regression parameter close to zero. The retained structural model accounted for 44% of the variation in implementation behaviours.

6.7 Discussion Until 2012, Queensland state schools have worked from a mandated daily physical activity program named Smart Moves. This program mandated the implementation of 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity every school day. With a change of government in 2012, this program is no longer a mandated component of Queensland state schools programming; however, there remains an expectation that teachers will provide opportunities for students to engage in a range of

Fig. 6.1  Retained structural model solution with standardised parameter estimates. *p