1. Brent Jackson presents on helping to increase girls' physical self-efficacy through the use of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) and the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI) in physical education classes. 2. He discusses how traditional, behaviorist models of physical education are not motivating girls, but that TGfU and constructivist approaches show potential to better engage females. 3. Research was conducted using TGfU alone and with the addition of the GPAI at two schools, and results showed that both TGfU and the combination of TGfU and GPAI can positively impact girls' physical self-efficacy over time.

1. HELPING INCREASE GIRLS
PHYSICAL SELF-EFFICACY
THROUGH
TGfU AND THE GPAI
Brent Jackson
PHE National Conference, Banff, 2015

2. A LITTLE BIT OF WHY
 my perspective.
Physical
Outcome (PE
performance)
Cognitive
Input
(engaged)
Emotional
Input
(happy)
Brent Jackson, 2015

3. GENDER CONCERN
Brent Jackson, 2015

4. TEACHER INFLUENCE
Too many girls are not enjoying their Physical Education
experience and are dropping out of physical activity.
 Dishman et al., 2004
Teaching models rooted in behaviorism are not working
for today’s students, in particular today’s female
students.
 Constantinou, Manson, & Silverman, 2009
Teaching models framed in constructivism have the
potential to connect females to a successful experience
in PE.
 Beveridge & Scruggs, 2000
Brent Jackson, 2015

5. Brent Jackson, 2015

6. TLC MATTERS
T – The role of the teacher is
significant.
L – The role of the learning
environment is significant.
C – The role of the curriculum is
significant.
Beveridge & Scruggs, 2000
Brent Jackson, 2015

7. SELF-EFFICACY
Self-
Efficacy
Performance
Accomplish.
(past
experience)
Vicarious
Experience
(observational
learning)
Verbal
Persuasion
(teacher
feedback)
Emotional
Arousal
(psychological
feedback)
Brent Jackson, 2015

8. What does that mean?
OUTCOME vs. PROCESS
The OUTCOME is decreased motivation.
Because the PROCESS ensures low (physical)
self-efficacy and competency.
“The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting
different results.” Einstein
Brent Jackson, 2015

9. “Yes we can!”
Obama, 2008
Change the process.
Change the outcome.

10. RESULTS
SCHOOL A
TGfU
SCHOOL B
TGfU + GPAI
Baseline - -
Post VB
Post BB
Self-efficacy over time
Brent Jackson, 2015

11. RESEARCH PROCESS
School A – TGfU
• TGfU VB, BB
• PSEQ 3x: Baseline, Post VB, Post BB
School B - TGfU and GPAI
• TGfU VB, BB
• GPAI
• PSEQ 3x: Baseline, Post VB, Post BB
Brent Jackson, 2015

12. WHY THE GPAI?
• Engagement potential
• Authentic assessment
• Assessment of learning
• Assessment for learning
• Assessment as learning
Brent Jackson, 2015

13. TGfU IS IMPACTFUL!
• Lower teacher expectations.
• Use optimally challenging
activities.
• Raise levels of success.
Brent Jackson, 2015

14. 3 POINTS
1. Competency + high self-efficacy =
motivation.
2. TGfU can positively affect physical
self-efficacy.
3. Using the GPAI can take the ability
to positively affect physical self-
efficacy to even greater heights.
Brent Jackson, 2015

15. Areas for Growth Limitations
 Increased time frame
 Cover all game types
 Increase student experience
with GPAI
 Expand research groups
 Include boys
 Include different socio-
economic groups
 Isolate TGfU
 More teacher participant
notes
 Triangulate with PSEQ data
and researcher field notes
 Narrow scope
 Quasi-experimental
research design did not
allow for truly random
participant group
 Only one assessment tool
Brent Jackson, 2015

16. Thank you!
Any questions?

17. References
 Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1, 139–
161. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0146640278900097
 Bandura, A. (2010). Self-Efficacy. In W. E. Weiner, Irving B.; Craighead (Ed.), The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (4th ed., pp.
1534–1536). John Wiley & Sons.
 Beveridge, S., & Scruggs, P. (2000). TLC for better PE: Girls and elementary physical education. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 71(8), 22–27.
 Brown, D., & Evans, J. (2004). Reproducing gender? Intergenerational links and the male PE teacher as a cultural conduit in teaching
physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physcial Education, (23), 48–70.
 Cairney, J., Kwan, M. Y., Velduizen, S., Hay, J., Bray, S. R., & Faught, B. E. (2012). Gender, perceived competence and the enjoyment
of physical education in children: a longitudinal examination. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(26),
1–8. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-26
 Davis, B. (2009). EDCP501 [lecture notes]. Retrieved from https://connect.ubc.ca
 Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging Minds. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
 Ennis, C. D. (1999). Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged Girls. Sport, Education and Society, 4(1), 31–49.
doi:10.1080/1357332990040103
 Ericsson, K. Anders (1998). The Scientific Study of Expert Levels of Performance: general implications for optimal learning and creativity.
High Ability Studies, 9(1), 75-100. DOI: 10.1080/1359813980090106
 Griffin, L., Butler, J., Lombardo, B., & Nastasi, R. (2003). An introduction to teaching games for understanding. Teaching Games for
Understanding in Physical Education and Sport, 1–9.
 Griffin, L., & Patton, K. (2005). Two Decades of Teaching Games for Understanding: Looking at the Past, Present, and Future.In L.
Griffin & J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding: theory, research, and practice. (pp. 1–17). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
 Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: toward a developmental model. Human Development, (1), 34–64.
 Luke, M., & Sinclair, G. (1991). Gender differences in adolescents’ attitudes toward school physical education. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, (11), 31–46.
 Pate, R. R., Ward, D. S., Saunders, R. P., Felton, G., Dishman, R. K., & Dowda, M. (2005). Promotion of physical activity among high-
school girls: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health, 95(9), 1582–7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.045807
 Ross, P. E. (2006). The expert mind. Scientific American, 295(2), 64–71.
 Schwartz, B. (2005). Barry Schwartz: The Paradox of Choice. [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
 Van Gyn, G. H., Higgins, J. W., Gaul, C. A., & Gibbons, S. (2000). Reversing the trend: girls’ participation in physical education.
Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 66(1), 26–32.
Brent Jackson, 2015