AN EXPLORATION OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY AND PERCEPTIONS OF SMOKEFREESPORTS (SFS)

AN EXPLORATION OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-

EFFICACY AND PERCEPTIONS OF SMOKEFREESPORTS (SFS)

K. Garnham-Lee, J. Trigwell, Z. Knowles, C. McGee and L. Foweather

The Physical Activity Exchange at the Research Institute of Sport and Exercise Sciences,

Liverpool John Moores University.

INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND & RATIONALE

Sport and PE act as the most suitable vehicle to embed health promotion

(Almond et al., 2013; Donaldson and Finch, 2012; Kokko et al.,

2006; Kokko et al., 2009; Skille, 2010)

Exercise can reduce tobacco withdrawal and cravings

(Escobedo et al., 1993; Peretti-Watel et al., 2003; Rodriguez et al., 2004; Rodriguez et

al., 2008, Ussher et al. 2008)

The younger adolescents smoke, the more likely they become regular

smokers and cause greater long term health risk (Tyas and Pederson, 1998;

Leonardi-Bee, et al., 2011)

Two-thirds (66%) of current and ex-smokers started

smoking before the age of 18 (Office for National Statistics, 2013)

Almost all children can be reached via the school environment

(Thomas et al., 2013)

Interventions to prevent smoking should be available

before the age of 12 (Escobedo et al., 1993)

Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION: SmokeFree Sports (SFS)Successful in

securing a tender from the Liverpool PCT, in September

2012, SFS was launched

Multi-dimensional intervention that utilised sport to prevent smoking

among 9-10 year olds across 34 schools in

Liverpool

One PE attend brief-intervention training

and fed back information to other

staff

An assembly was delivered by the SFS team and a local SFS

sports star.

Teachers incentivised to

deliver five of their own SFS sessions

Schools received five coached

sessions run by external coaches


INTRODUCTION: Self-Efficacy & Training

Classroom teachers, who receive training and support, can improve their teaching of physical education

Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy can thus influence the learning and motivation of their students (Guskey and

Passaro, 1994).

Boman (2013) promotes evidence for the effectiveness of information and skills programs in increasing Teaching

Assistants (TAs’) self-efficacy.

Strong beliefs in their own efficacy will be resilient, able to solve problems and learn from their experiences (Humphries

et al., 2012; Bangs and Frost, 2012).

NICE guidelines (2010) propose to provide training for all staff who will be involved.

http://publications.nice.org.uk/school-based-interventions-to-prevent-smoking-ph23/recommendations#recommendation-4-training-and-

development


INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH AIMS

Investigate and explore teachers perceptions and

experiences of SmokeFree Sports

Determine the influence of the brief-intervention training on

those teachers.

To govern and positively ensure the sustainability of

the SFS program


METHOD

.

Questionnaire based and adapted from Lane et al.’s (2002) measure of

self-efficacy. 15 items.

Phase one – Non-Parametric = A Friedman Test. Parametric = A One Way

Repeated MeasuresPhase two – Non-Parametric = Mann-

Whitney U Test. Parametric = Independent-Samples T-Test

Quantitative

Qualitative

Content analysis.Pen profiles with the use of

verbatim quotes.

Interview Schedule - Semi-chronological path based on

the intervention with questions grouped into nine themes.

RESULTS – QUANTITATIVE PHASE ONE:

Pre-Training Post-Training Post-InterventionMean 36.67 53.25 54.00

SD 7.75 5.95 5.58The Mean and SD of the summed totals

responses.

Self-

effica

cy S

core

RESULTS – QUANTITATIVE PHASE TWO:

Did Attend Training Did Not Attend Training Mean 53.71 50.63

SD 5.25 6.32

The Mean and SD of the summed totals

responses.

Self-

effica

cy S

core

RESULTS – QUALITATIVEGeneral Views of SFS, Using Sport and PA to Deliver SF Messages

within a School Environment &

SFS Impact and Influence

Brief-intervention training

Issues Raised after SFS by the Children

General Programme Recommendations

Coaches and the Coached

sessions

Teacher Delivery,The SFS Manual & The

Perceived Difference between Teachers and Coaches to Deliver SFS


DISCUSSIONTeachers were

generally very positive about SFS as a whole.

Participants struggled to respond when asked what

didn’t work well about aspects of the intervention.

Training increased teachers’ self-efficacy to

deliver smoke free messages.

Teachers felt they brought qualities to

the delivery in addition to the

coaches.

Both teachers and children

enjoyed participating in

SFS.

Highlighted the importance and

value of providing a quality training

manual.


DISCUSSION

“Smoke free has been a big success, it’s enabled the children to learn in the classroom about the effects of smoking and with the facts

and the data and then do sports and change the sports that they know quite well, change the games, into smoke-related tasks… they

really enjoyed it” [Male, Teacher 16]

Teachers were generally very positive about SFS as a whole.


DISCUSSION

“I think the manual was really good, it’s a really simple breakdown of the courses and

again the training day having the coaches there to help see how you can adapt the

games or modify them slightly that was really useful” [Female, Teacher 6]

Training increased teachers’ self-efficacy to

deliver smoke free messages.

Highlighted the importance and

value of providing a quality training

manual.


Teachers felt they brought qualities to

the delivery in addition to the

coaches.

DISCUSSION

“I know the kids so I can look ahead and see which activities

they might struggle with” [Female, Teacher 8]


CONCLUSION, FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS & LIMITATIONS

Increased both their knowledge, awareness and

dangers of smoking

Training increased self efficacy

A larger sample of teachers who did not attend the training

would provide more insight

When conducting interviews, teachers’ regularly had time

restrictions

Including parents and guardians could be

considered

Help govern, inform and tailor SFS and other smoking

prevention interventions in the future


REFERENCES & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bangs, J. and Frost, D. (2012), “Teacher self-efficacy, voice and leadership: towards a policy framework for education

international”, available at: http://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/teacher_self-efficacy_voice_leadership.pdf (assessed 15 January 2013).

Boman, J. S. (2013), “Graduate Student Teaching Development: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Training in Relation to Graduate Student Characteristics”, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 100-114.

Guskey, T. R. and Passaro, P.D. (1994), “Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 627-643.

Humphries, C. A., Hebert, E., Daigle, K. and Martin, J. (2012), “Development of a Physical Education Teaching Efficacy Scale”, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 284–299.

Lane, A. M., Hall, R. and Lane, J. (2002), “Development of a measure of self-efficacy specific to statistics courses in sport”, Journal of Hospitality Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 47-56.

McKenzie, T. L., Marshall, S. J., Sallis, J. F. and Conway, T. L. (2000), “Student activity levels, lesson context, and teacher behaviour during middle school physical education”, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 249 –259.

National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). (2010), “School-based interventions to prevent smoking”, available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12827/47582/47582.pdf (accessed 24 July 2013).

Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Alcaraz J., Kolodx, B., Eaucette, N. and Novell, M. E. (1997), “The effects of a 2-year physical education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87 No. 8, pp. 1328 –34.

A BIG THANK YOU TO:

The SmokeFree TeamLiverpool Primary Care TrustLiverpool City Council &All the schools and teachers involved

All photos used with permission

http://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/teacher_self-efficacy_voice_leadership.pdf

http://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/teacher_self-efficacy_voice_leadership.pdf

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12827/47582/47582.pdf

http://mirrorimagefilms.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/LiverpoolCityCouncil.png

REGISTER: ljmu.ac.uk/paexchange/events

Email: [email protected] to be added to the event information list

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING…ANY QUESTIONS?

www.facebook.com/SmokeFreeSports@SmokeFreeSports

AN EXPLORATION OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY AND PERCEPTIONS OF SMOKEFREESPORTS (SFS)

Documents

Transcript of AN EXPLORATION OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY AND PERCEPTIONS OF SMOKEFREESPORTS (SFS)