Development of a Physical Education Teaching Efficacy Scale

Abstract

Relationships have been found between teacher efficacy and many teaching and learning variables, but few researchers have examined teaching efficacy in physical education. The instrument reported here, the Physical Education Teaching Efficacy Scale, was developed based on the teaching efficacy literature, existing scales, and National Association for Sport and Physical Education's Teacher Education Standards. Students attending 11 institutions who are majoring in regular and alternate physical education teacher education and who are at different stages of preparation (N = 592) completed the initial survey. Exploratory, followed by confirmatory, factor analysis resulted in a 35-item, 7-factor scale. Factors were Content Knowledge, which were activities one might teach; Applying Scientific Knowledge in Teaching, which reflected academic content; Accommodating Skill Differences; Teaching Students with Special Needs; Instruction, which included management, motivation, and instruction; Using Technology; and Assessment. Results support that the Physical Education Teaching Efficacy Scale addresses many aspects of teaching physical education and meets research criteria for validity and reliability.

Keywords:

• physical education
• efficacy
• teacher education
• instrument development

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Russ Carson of Louisiana State University, Ben Dyson of the University of Memphis, Nell Faucette of the University of South Florida, Cliffa Foster of University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Karen Fredenburg of Baylor University, Jon Gray of Sam Houston State University, Jacalyn Lund of Georgia State University, Lynn Owens of Montana State University, Paul Rukavina of Adelphi University, and Hans van der Mars of Arizona State University, for their invaluable assistance in data collection.

Notes

¹The survey initially used a 100-point scale, as recommended by Bandura (2006). However, everyone used only multiples of 10 to rate items they scored below 70, while several candidates gave items rated above 70 with such scores as 76, 94, and so forth, suggesting they were lapsing into a grading scale, despite instructions to use mid-range numbers as neutral. This suggested that, with this population, a 100-point scale could be a threat to validity, and the more traditional 10-point scale was substituted.