xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001790489
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 070619s2006 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001506
Rich, Valerie J.
Educational backgrounds and teaching styles of athletic training educators in entry-level CAAHEP accredited athletic training programs
h [electronic resource] /
by Valerie J. Rich.
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to describe the educational backgrounds and teaching styles of athletic training educators and to see if a relationship existed between educational backgrounds and teaching styles. An electronic survey was e-mailed to 338 Program Directors of CAAHEP accredited undergraduate and graduate athletic training education programs. The survey was also posted on the athletic training educator's listserv to recruit more participants. The survey contained questions regarding demographics and educational history, as well as the Teaching Styles Inventory (Grasha, 2002). A total of 198 athletic training educators responded to the survey, and 174 filled out the survey in its entirety.An overwhelming majority of the participants were White (98%) and about 50% were male or female. Over half of the participants were program directors (59%) and 38% were at the assistant professor rank. Thirty-one percent were currently employed at a liberal arts instituti on. Most were employed in a College of Education (36%), working in a department of health, physical education, and recreation (25%). These athletic training educators had diverse educational backgrounds. A Bachelor of Science degree had been awarded to 78% of the respondents, and 33% of the Bachelor's degrees were in physical education. Forty-five percent did not have a minor degree. At the master's level, most of the degrees that had been awarded were Master's of Science (63%) and 23% were in athletic training/sports medicine. Most of the participants did not hold a post-graduate level degree (37%). Of those with a post-graduate degree, 27% held a Doctorate of Philosophy. Nine percent were in curriculum and instruction. On average, athletic training educators had been teaching for 8 years, had completed 8 courses in pedagogy, and had attended 8 workshops that were based on improving pedagogical practices. The predominant teaching style among athletic training educators was per sonal model (50%). Surprisingly, none of the participants had a delegator teaching style as their predominant style. The results of the MANOVA suggested that a significant relationship did not exist between educational backgrounds and teaching styles among these athletic training educators.
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 117 pages.
Adviser: Micki Cuppett, Ed.D.
x Interdisciplinary Education
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Educational Backgrounds and Teaching Styles of Athletic Training Educators in Entry-Level CAAHEP Accredited Athletic Training Programs Valerie J. Rich A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Interdisciplinary Education College of Education University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Micki Cuppett, Ed.D. Co-Major Professor: Nell Faucette, Ed.D. John Ferron, Ph.D. Harold Keller, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 22, 2006 Keywords: Pedagogical strategi es, Medical education, Inst ructional methods, Learning styles, Content expert, Education Copyright 2006, Valerie Rich
This dissertation is dedicated to Brinda Barnett, my mother, my best friend, my inspiration.
Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to ac knowledge my mentor, Dr. Micki Cuppett. I am eternally grateful for the oppor tunity that I have had to work beside you the past three years. I have learned a great deal from you, both personally and professionally, and appreciate your patience, wisdom and most of all, your friendsh ip. It has been a pleasure to work with someone so innovative and so dedicated to the future generations of educators. You have made a tremendous im pression upon me and I wi ll carry that with me in my future endeavors. To the rest of my committee, Dr. Ferr on, Dr. Faucette, and Dr. Keller, I am extremely thankful for your continuous suppor t and willingness to make this one of the most enjoyable experiences I have had throughout my doctoral education. I feel lucky to have had such incredible committee member s who truly care about their profession as educators. And Dr. Ferron, thank you, thank you for being so generous with your time and providing me with your expertise and advice along the way. You are a stats genius! Thank you to Dr. Heeschen, who was extr emely helpful in setting up the website and posting results from the inventory. I appr eciate your willingness to always help and provide technological support. I would also like to ac knowledge Dr. Kilpatrick. Although you were not directly involved in this project, you provided me with valuable insight and ideas along the way. I appreciat e you taking a genuine interest in my progress throughout the dissertati on process and in my future endeavors. Your support and friendship has been awesome and it has b een great to have the opportunity to work with you!
I would like to acknowledge my parents fo r all the loving sup port throughout my entire career as a student. I am very ble ssed to have such wonderful, caring parents who have always believed in me. I would also like to thank the rest of my family and friends for always supporting me throughout the enti re writing process and my educational career. Lastly, I would like to thank my deares t friend, Jonathan James. Words cannot express the gratitude I have. You had faith in us as you vent ured across the country to be with me in starting this new adventure. We have faced many challenges the past three years together, yet you have been always willing to listen, offer advice, and help in anyway. I appreciate all that you have done for me and all the support you have given me. You have provided an incredible balanc e in my life and I am eternally grateful.
i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Chapter One: Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 1 Theoretical Framework 4 Purpose of the Study 6 Research Questions 6 Hypothesis 7 Significance of the Study 8 Definitions of Terms 8 Delimitations 9 Limitations 9 Organization of Remaining Chapters 10 Chapter Two: Review of Literature 12 Overview 12 Athletic Training Education 13 Educational Backgrounds 17 Teaching Styles 20 Learning Styles 26 The Adult Learner 29 Pedagogical Strategies 31 Summary 33 Chapter Three: Methods 34 Research Questions 34 Participants 36 Selection of Participants 37 Ethical Nature of Data Collection 38 Procedures 39 Variables 41 Instruments 41 Demographic and Educationa l History Questionnaire 42 Teaching Styles Inventory 42 Analysis 45
ii Chapter Four: Results 50 Reliability and Validity of the Teach ing Styles Inventory Instrument 50 Demographic Data 56 Age and Gender 56 Race/Ethnicity 56 Current Job Title 57 Academic Rank 57 Number of Years as a Cert ified Athletic Trainer 58 Academic Department 59 Academic College 60 Type of Institutions 61 Research Question One 62 Major/Minor in Undergraduate Degree 63 Area of Study Graduate Degree 65 Area of Study Postgraduate Degree 66 Number of Years of Teaching Experience 68 Number of Courses Taken in Education/Pedagogy 68 Number of Workshops or E ducational Sessions Attended 69 Research Question Two 70 Course Level and Title 70 Teaching Styles Inventory 72 Research Question Three 74 Summary 76 Chapter Five: Discussion 78 Introduction 78 Research Questions 78 Discussion and Conclusions 80 Demographic Data 80 Research Question One 81 Research Question Two 82 Research Question Three 85 Limitations 86 Recommendations for Future Research 88 Summary 90 References 92 Appendices 101 Appendix A: Informed Consent 101 Appendix B: Cover Letters 105 Appendix C: Survey 109 Appendix D: Permission to use Teaching Styles Inventory 116 About the Author End Page
iii List of Tables Table 3.1 Response Rates by Wave of Athletic Tr aining Educators 41 Table 4.1 Estimates of Internal Consistency for Teaching Styles 51 Table 4.2 Correlations between the Teaching Styles Inventory Latent Constructs 52 Table 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analys es Fit Indices for Each of the Teaching Styles Subscales 53 Table 4.4 Correlations Between the Teaching Styles Inventory Composite Factors 54 Table 4.5 Job Titles Repor ted by Athletic Training Educators 58 Table 4.6 Athletic Training Educat orÂ’s Areas of Study Completed in Undergraduate Education 64 Table 4.7 Athletic Training Educat orÂ’s Areas of Study Completed In Graduate School 66 Table 4.8 Athletic Training Educato rÂ’s Areas of Study Completed In Postgraduate Education 67 Table 4.9 Course Titles Used as Frame of Reference for Teaching Styles Inventory Responses 71 Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics for Teaching Styles Identified in the Teaching Styles Inventory 73 Table 4.11 Preferred Teaching Styles of Athletic Training Educators by Gender 74 Table 4.12 Athletic Training Educato rÂ’s Attaining an Education Based Degree at the Underg raduate, Graduate, and Postgraduate Level 75
iv List of Figures Figure 3.1 Initial Confirmatory Path Model for Teaching Styles Inventory 47 Figure 4.1 Standardized Model for Teaching Styles Inventory Confirmatory Factor Analysis 55 Figure 4.2 Academic Rank Held by Athletic Tr aining Educators 58 Figure 4.3 Academic Departments in which Athletic Training Educators are Employed 60 Figure 4.4 Academic Colleges in which Athletic Training Educators Are Employed 61 Figure 4.5 Types of Institutions in which Athletic Training Educators Are Employed 62
v Educational Backgrounds and Teach ing Styles of Athletic Training Educators in Entry-Leve l CAAHEP Accredited Athletic Training Education Programs Valerie Rich ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to de scribe the educational backgrounds and teaching styles of athletic training educators and to see if a relationship existed between educational backgrounds and teaching styles. An electronic survey was e-mailed to 338 Program Directors of CAAHEP accredited undergra duate and graduate athletic training education programs. The survey was also posted on the athletic training educatorÂ’s listserv to recruit more participants. The survey contained questions regarding demographics and educational history, as well as the Teaching Styles Inventory (Grasha, 2002). A total of 198 athletic training educators responded to the survey, and 174 filled out the survey in its entirety. An overwhelming majority of the partic ipants were White (98%) and about 50% were male or female. Over half of the pa rticipants were program directors (59%) and 38% were at the assistant professor rank. Th irty-one percent were currently employed at a liberal arts institution. Most were employed in a College of Education (36%), working in a department of health, physical education, and recreation (25%). These athletic training educators ha d diverse educational backgrounds. A Bachelor of Science degree ha d been awarded to 78% of th e respondents, and 33% of the
vi BachelorÂ’s degrees were in physical educati on. Forty-five percent did not have a minor degree. At the masterÂ’s level, most of the degrees that had been awarded were MasterÂ’s of Science (63%) and 23% were in athletic training/sports medicine. Most of the participants did not hold a pos t-graduate level degree (37%). Of those with a postgraduate degree, 27% held a Doctorate of Philosophy. Nine percent were in curriculum and instruction. On average, athletic traini ng educators had been teaching for 8 years, had completed 8 courses in pedagogy, and ha d attended 8 workshops that were based on improving pedagogical practices. The predominant teaching style among at hletic training educators was personal model (50%). Surprisingly, none of the part icipants had a delega tor teaching style as their predominant style. The results of the MANOVA suggested that a significant relationship did not exist between educatio nal backgrounds and teaching styles among these athletic training educators.
1 Chapter One Introduction Statement of the Problem Athletic training education has rapidly cha nged over the past few decades. In the early years of the profession, at hletic training began within physical education programs as a minor or concentration supplemented with internship hours. Entry-level athletic training education has since evolved as an undergraduate or graduate major (Hertel, West, Buckley, & Denegar, 2001). As a result of recent educational reform, the development of accredited programs has been encouraged and the internship route to certification was eliminated (Delforge & Be hnke, 1999). The shift in education from an internship, hour-based program to a curriculu m, competency-based program has created a need for more university level educators in the profession. The accr editation process for athletic training education pr ograms, the need for higher education policy reform in athletic training education, and the emphasis on research in athl etic training have also led to an increased need for doctoral-educated certif ied athletic trainers (H ertel, et al., 2001). These individuals are needed to fill the full-time tenure-track positions in academic settings. Athletic training educators possess varying backgrounds in pedagogy; some educators possess a degree in pedagogy, while ot hers may have had only a few courses or attended a few educational conferences or workshops. Additionall y, the level of degree
2 attainment by athletic traini ng educators varies. In some athletic training education programs, athletic trainers hol ding a MasterÂ’s degree instruct courses. However, little research exists regarding the educational historie s of athletic training ed ucators. Hertel et al. (2001) surveyed 116 doctora l-educated Certified Athlet ic Trainers about their educational histories. The result s showed that 49% of the certif ied athletic trainers at this level received a doctoral degree in the exerci se science discipline, 27% received degrees in health and physical education, while 24 % received a degree in education and/or administration. Due to the variety in e ducational backgrounds, it is not uncommon to find athletic trainers teaching in athletic training programs b ecause they are deemed to be content experts. Recent discussion in the athl etic training profession, as well as in other health care professions, questions whether being a content expert is enough. Hertel et al. (2001) identifies the need to Â“train the next ge neration of athletic trai ning educatorsÂ” (p. 55). Data from this study suggest that doc toral-educated athletic trainers should have sufficient practice and training in pedagogy. At this point, it is unclear whether a pedagogy background makes a difference in teachi ng style or instructi onal effectiveness. Several researchers have noted that in or der to be effective educators within an athletic training program, the instructors must understand the learning styles of the athletic training students (B rower, Stemmans, Ingersoll, & Langley 2001; Peer & McClendon, 2002; Stradley, Buckley, Kaminski Horodyski, Fleming, & Janelle, 2002). Understanding studentsÂ’ learning styles will allow the instructor to incorporate an appropriate teaching strategy. So me research suggests that teaching to a specific learning style is beneficial to the student (Stradley et al., 2 002). Harrelson, Leaver-Dunn, and Martin (2000) believe that there is a strong connection to an indivi dualÂ’s learning style
3 and his/her teaching style preference. Harre lson et al. (2000) suggest that athletic training educators should be aw are of his/her learning style so that a wide variety of instructional strategies appea ling to other learning styles are used in the classroom. However, since much of the focus has been on learning styles, little research has been conducted on teaching styles of at hletic training educators. Teaching is a multidimensional, complex c onstruct that is influenced by anyone involved in either the teachi ng or learning process (Theall, 1999). The teacher-student relationship within the cla ssroom is a highly dynamic interaction, in which further understanding of teaching styles is warrante d. Most of the literature has focused on learning styles, which provides only half of th e picture. Historically, most teachers end up teaching the way they were taught (Crews, Stitt-Gohdes, & McCannon, 2000). According to Richlin and Cox (1994), Â“even w ith the new interest in teaching during the past decade, most professors remain bricoleurs learning to teach by trial-and-errorÂ” (p. 3). The personal qualities of educators th at evolve into teaching styles need to be explored to fully depict the interaction be tween the teacher and student (Grasha, 1994). Educators often use a potpourri of inst ructional methods simply because the features of using these methods are appeali ng. Often, that particular individual has no clear understanding of how that method fits into the overall conceptual framework of how individuals learn (Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks 2000). Grasha (1994) believes that Â“a teaching style represented a pattern of needs, beliefs, and behaviors that faculty displayed in their classroomÂ” (p. 142). In the past, researchers have attemp ted to classify or categorize these different behavior and belief systems into teac hing styles or perspectives. Assessing teaching styles provide s educators with insight on the learning environment.
4 Reflecting on current teaching practices ma y also allow educators to make better decisions about incorporating specific instructional strategi es that fit into the overall conceptual framework (Grasha & Yangarbe r-Hicks, 2000). In addition, understanding oneÂ’s teaching style may provide insight on how to improve oneÂ’s teaching (Conti, 1983). Theoretical Framework Early teacher education primarily focuse d on gaining expertise in a particular content area. Â“What people forget is that expertise in teaching, as in anything else, involves domain specific knowledgeÂ” (Grash a & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000, p.3). However, research has shifted the focus from gaini ng content expertise to including adequate pedagogical knowledge (Cochran, DeRuiter, & King, 1993). Both are considered important for a teacher to be effective. Shulman (1986) describe s pedagogical content knowledge as a union of subject matter expert ise with pedagogical knowledge. It has been thought that this merging of knowledge plays a significant role in the teachersÂ’ ability to understand a subj ect matter, teach and manage learning, and facilitate relationships with the learner (Cochran et al., 1993; Entwistle & Walker, 2000; Ormrod & Cole, 1996). This particular theory of pedagogical content knowledge is also discussed in the medical education literature. Medical a nd allied health professionals often undergo lengthy training in a specific content area in order to achieve competency in the profession. Most of these indi viduals do not receive any form al training in education, but end up teaching either in a classroom or clinical setting (Pasqu ale & Pugnaire, 2002). There is an underlying assumption that expertise in the field tr anslates into the ability to teach (McLeod, Steinert, Meagher, & McLe od, 2003). As a result, some medical and
5 allied health professions are choosing to provide opportunities for individuals to understand better curriculum planning, assessmen t methods, learning styles, instructional strategies, and teaching styles (Blig h, 2001; Pasquale & Pugnaire, 2002). Several studies support the contention th at most instructors tend to develop teaching styles based upon previous experi ences as a student (Crews et al., 2000; Harrelson et al., 2000; Schaefer & Zygmont 2003). Educators often use specific instructional strategies because they are appealing. Frequentl y, that particular individual has no clear understanding of how that method f its into the overall conceptual framework of how individuals learn (Grasha & Yanga rber-Hicks, 2000). Heimlich and Norland (2002) state that teaching styles are merely the relationship between teaching beliefs and behaviors. In the past, resear chers have attempted to classify or categorize these different behaviors and belief systems into teaching styles or perspectiv es. Grasha (1994) describes five different teach ing styles, which are expert formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. Rein smith (1994) describes teaching styles on a continuum from being teacher-centered to stud ent-centered, in which nine different substyles are identified. Conti (1979) describes teaching styles on a similar continuum. Mosston and Ashworth (1990) identify 11 diffe rent teaching styles on a spectrum based on the interaction between the teacher and the student, as well as the subject matter and behavior objectives. Understanding oneÂ’s ow n teaching style will f acilitate instructional effectiveness in addition to arriving at a deep er understanding of th e type of individual one wants to be in the classroom (Heimlich & Norland, 2002).
6 Purpose of the Study A significant gap in the l iterature exists examining the educational backgrounds of athletic training educators. In add ition, another gap exists examining the teaching styles of athletic training educat ors. Thus far, the focus of the athletic training literature has been on learning styles and instructional strategies perceived to enhance classroom instruction. In a comprehensive overview of athletic training educat ion research, Turocy (2002) found that the focus of these public ations was on studen t learning styles, facilitating learning and critical thinking skills, using techno logy for instruc tion, clinical instruction and supervision, success on the Board of Certif ication (BOC) examination, program administration, and continuing educatio n of certified athletic trainers. Research on pedagogical knowledge or teaching styles of athletic trainers was not evident. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify and descri be the educational backgrounds and teaching styles of at hletic training educators. Research Questions The following research questions we re addressed in this study: a) What is the educational background of athlet ic training educators? This research question was answered by obtaining in formation on the following variables: Major/Minor in Undergraduate, Grad uate, and Postgraduate Degree, Number of years of teaching experience, Number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and Number of workshops or educationa l sessions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teac hing practices, or address other pedagogical issues.
7 b) What teaching styles are predominant am ong athletic training educators? This research question was measured by usi ng the Teaching Styles Inventory as developed by Grasha (2002). Teaching styles are categorized as follows: Expert, Formal authority, Personal model, Facilitator, and Delegator. c) What is the relationship between edu cational background and teaching styles among athletic training educators? Rela tionships were explored between the predominant teaching style and the following variables: Major/Minor in Undergraduate, Gr aduate, and Postgraduate Degree, Number of years of teaching experience, Number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and Number of workshops or educationa l sessions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teac hing practices, or address other pedagogical issues. Hypothesis Null Hypothesis : There is no relationship between teaching styles and educational backgrounds among athletic training educators. Alternative Hypothesis : There is a relationship be tween teaching styles and educational backgrounds among at hletic training educators.
8 Significance of the Study Few studies exist in the athletic traini ng literature that desc ribe the educational backgrounds or teaching styles of athletic training educators. Specific learning styles of athletic training students have been reported in the literature, but the predominant teaching styles of athletic training educator s is unknown. The present research aimed to descriptively depict the e ducational backgrounds of athl etic training educators and attempted to identify common teaching styles among athletic training educators. It is hoped that by having participants gain a bett er understanding and awareness of his/her teaching style that the results of this study will help guide instructional strategies and methodologies used in athletic training classrooms. Definition of Terms The following terms and definitions will help the reader understand the terminology related to this study: 1. Athletic training educator : For the purposes of this study, an athletic training educator is a Board of Certification (B OC) Certified Athletic Trainer who is responsible for teaching two or more core courses in an entry-level, accredited undergraduate or graduate athlet ic training education program. 2. Certified Athletic Trainer (ATC) : A Certified Athletic Trainer is a unique health care provider who specializes in the prevention, assessment, treatment and rehabilitation of injuries and illnesses that occur to athletes and the physically active (National Athletic Tr ainersÂ’ Association, 2005c). 3. Teaching Style : Teaching style represents pers onal attributes and behaviors that are evident in how one conduc ts his/her class (Grasha, 2002).
9 4. Pedagogy Based Workshops or Educational Sessions : For the purposes of this study, pedagogy based workshops or educati onal sessions are defined as seminars that focus primarily on pedagogical pract ices, improving teach ing practices, or address other pedagogical issues. Delimitations The participants for this study included athletic traini ng educators who teach in an entry-level, undergraduate or graduate accred ited athletic traini ng education program within the United States. The participants were given a 40-item questionnaire called the Teaching Styles Inventory (Grasha, 2002). In addition to the inventory, participants completed a demographic and educational hi story questionnaire outlining educational experiences and employment history. Limitations There are several potential threats to internal and exte rnal validity in this study that will be addressed in the next few paragraphs. One possi ble threat to the internal validity of the quantitative portion of th e study is maturation. As described by Onwuegbuzie (2003), maturation involves chan ging attitudes, belie fs, and intellectual processes due to the passing of time. Individuals who partic ipated in this study may be relatively new educators and may have a teachi ng style that matches cu rrent practices. In contrast, individuals who participated in th e study may be more experienced educators and have already changed teaching practices as a result of experience. However, because the data were collected at one point in time, the study is not able to capture the possibility of changes in teaching practice over time.
10 Another threat to intern al validity is selection bias (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). Athletic training educat ion program directors were asked to forward the e-mail containing the link to the electronic survey to other athletic traini ng educators in his/her program. Program directors selected the athletic trainers associated with their respective programs that were eligible for participat ion in the study. The program director may have elected to not send the e-mail to qualifie d participants, thus pot entially biasing the sample. Lastly, instrumentation may be another th reat to internal va lidity (Onwuegbuzie, 2003). The researcher found limited data repor ting reliability measures on the inventory to be used in this study. As a result, reliabi lity measures were calculated for each of the identified subscales a nd the overall instrument. Several potential threats to external valid ity exist. First, temporal validity as described by Onwuegbuzie (2003) refers to th e ability of the results to be generalized across time. Another threat includes the specificity of variables (Onwuegbuzie, 2003). In this particular study, data were collected at one point in time, thus prohibiting the assumption that teaching styles remain the sa me over time. Another potential threat is population validity, in which the results of this study may not be generalizable to the larger target population (Johns on & Christensen, 2004). Last ly, ecologic validity may be a potential threat (Onwuegbuzie, 2003). Results from this st udy may not be generalizable across all undergraduate, accredited at hletic training education programs. Organization of Remaining Chapters The remaining chapters w ill present relevant information to the current study. Chapter two provides an overview of the current literature pertaining to athletic training
11 education, athletic training educators, teach ing styles, instructional strategies commonly used, and learning styles of athletic trai ning students. Chapter three discusses the methodology used in this particular study. This includes a discussion of the participants selected, ethical considerati ons, instruments, procedures, design of the study, and data analysis. Chapter four reports the results of the study. In conclusion, chapter five interprets the results of the st udy, describes the relevance of th e results to athletic training education and provides recomme ndations for future research.
12 Chapter Two Review of the Related Literature Overview Athletic training education has change d tremendously over the past decade and, as a result, has changed the way in which curr icula are provided to st udents. Historically, athletic training educators po ssess different educational hist ories, whereas some have a strong background in pedagogy while others may not have had any exposure to pedagogical knowledge (Hertel et al., 2001). Recent discussions in the medical and athletic training literature are beginning to question whether being a content expert is enough to be an effective educator. The medi cal and allied health educational research has primarily focused on learning styles of the students and implementing instructional strategies to improve learni ng (Brower et al., 2001; Clark & Harrelson, 2002; Heinrichs, 2002; Mensch & Ennis, 2002; Peer & McClen don, 2002; Stradley et al., 2002; Walker, 2003). Unfortunately, not much focus has been given to the teaching styles of these educators and how these styles permeate the classroom environment. In the first section of this chapter, athl etic training education will be traced from its early origins to current practice. In the second section of this chapter, research on educational backgrounds will be presented as it pertains to pedagogical knowledge and subject matter expertise. The third secti on examines the research and literature on
13 teaching styles. The fourth section of this chapter discusses resear ch on learning styles. Finally, the fifth section highlig hts pedagogical strategies as they relate to teaching styles. Athletic Training Education Athletic training has historical roots back to ancient Greece and has evolved significantly over the years. The early days of athletic training education relied heavily on apprenticeships and internships (Ebel, 1999). Formal training in the field of education was seen as a drawback in the early 1900Â’s. Many practicing athletic trainers felt that educated individuals would not be willing to complete menial tasks such as cleaning whirlpools (Ebel, 1999). It was not until 1941 that the first educational lessons in athletic training were published in The Trainers Journal Almost a decade later, the National Athletic TrainersÂ’ Association (NATA) was founded. Â“Recognizing th e need for a set of professional standards and appropriate prof essional recognition, the National Athletic TrainersÂ’ Association helped to unify athle tic trainers across the country by setting a standard for professionalism, education, cer tification, research and practice settingsÂ” (National Athletic Trainers Â’ Association, 2005a, 3). In 1956, the first committee was established under the NATA to oversee the professional preparation of at hletic trainers. Several year s later, a curriculum model evolved that primarily focused on three ma in areas: pre-physical therapy courses, management and prevention of athletic inju ries, and physical edu cation. The next three decades of athletic training education evolve d significantly into identifiable professional preparation programs. Coursework focused mo re on specialization in athletic training and was combined with practic al experience requiring a spec ified number of hours (Ebel, 1999). However, two separate pa ths still existed for prospec tive athletic trainers to
14 achieve certification. Individuals could either graduate from an internship program or an NATA approved program and still be deemed elig ible to sit for the national certification examination. It was in 1970 when the first curricul um-based programs were approved by the NATA (Ebel, 1999). At that time, there we re only 14 NATA approved curriculum-based programs nationwide. Approval of athletic training education programs remained the responsibility of the NATA until the mid-1990Â’ s. During this period, the Joint Review Committee on Athletic Traini ng (JRC-AT) assumed this responsibility under the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Hea lth Education Programs (CAAHEP). The JRC-AT is responsible for developing standa rds and guidelines for the accreditation of entry-level athletic traini ng education programs (Ebel, 1999). In 2006, the JRC-AT will become independent from CAAHEP guideline s and will be the so le accrediting body for athletic training education programs (Joi nt Review Committee on Athletic Training Education, 2005). In 1994, CAAHEP and the JRC-AT announced the elimination of the internship route to achieve national certi fication by the Board of Certif ication (BOC). As of 2004, all students must now graduate from an accr edited undergraduate or graduate athletic training education program to be eligible to sit for the BOC exam (Hertel et al., 2001). The Education Council was formed by the NATA to facilitate quality improvement in accredited undergraduate or graduate athletic training education programs. As a result, the preparation and mission of athletic trai ning programs is more clearly defined by the NATA Education Council in the following statement:
15 Entry-level athletic traini ng education uses a competen cy-based approach in both the classroom and clinical settings. Using a medical-based education model, athletic training students are educated to serve in the role of physician extenders, with an emphasis on clinical reasoning skills. Educational content is based on cognitive (knowledge), psychomotor (skill ), affective compet encies (professional behaviors) and clinical prof iciencies (professional, prac tice-oriented outcomes). (NATA Education Counc il, 2005, 2). In less than 30 years, the number of a pproved accredited programs has significantly evolved. Currently there are approximately 338 entry-level accredite d athletic training education programs in the United States (C ommission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs, 2005). As a result of educ ational reform and the increase in number of accredited programs, a need for doctoral-educa ted athletic trainers ex ists (Hertel, et al., 2001). Hertel et al. (2001) stat e that the need for athletic trainers to attain terminal degrees is imperative if they wish to influence higher education policy, provide leadership in athletic trai ning and higher education, and c onduct necessary research to advance the profession. Educational practices comm only used in athletic trai ning education have been adapted from other disciplines. As a result little research has been conducted to demonstrate its applicability to the athl etic training discipline (Turocy, 2002). Educational research in athl etic training has grown signifi cantly, however, Â“the breadth and depth of that research still is very limitedÂ” (Turocy, 2002, p. S-162). With the recent educational reform requiring curricular changes for athletic training programs, attempts at standardizing and improving the quality of professional preparedness are being made.
16 Competencies and proficiencies are outlined fo r students and those tasks are expected to be integrated into the curriculum (Mensch & Ennis, 2002). Current athletic training curriculum consists of the following components: Assessment and Evaluation, Acute Care, General Medical Conditions and Disabilities, Pathology of Injury and Illness, Pharmacological Aspects of Injury and Illness, Nutritional Aspects of Injury and Illness, Therapeutic Exercise, Therapeutic Modalities, Risk Management and Injury Prevention, Health Care Administration, Professional Development and Responsibilities, and Psychosocial Intervention and Referral (Board of Certification, 2005, 1). In order to meet accreditation standards as outlined by the JRC-AT, athletic training educators must show that the curriculum em phasizes not only formal instruction in the classroom, but also integrates knowledge in to practical settings Instruction of proficiencies and competencies must be co mpleted in a logical sequence and students should be provided with increasi ng responsibilities in a superv ised clinical setting. In addition, athletic training edu cators must show that skills and knowledge are learned over time (Commission on Accreditation of Athle tic Training Education, 2005). Thus, the need for athletic training e ducators to have some pedagogi cal knowledge is evident.
17 Educational Backgrounds To the researcherÂ’s knowledge, only one study (Hertel et al., 2001) has examined the educational backgrounds of athletic training educators. However, the results of this study are limited because they researchers on ly examined doctoraleducated certified athletic trainers. It is not uncommon to see athletic training educat ors holding a masterÂ’s level degree teaching in an athletic training pr ogram. With 116 respondents, Hertel et al. (2001) found that only 24% of those surveyed had a doctoral-level degree in education and/or administration. Approximately 27% held a degree in health and physical education and almost half (49%) held a degree in exercise science. Due to the limited scope of this particular study and a relatively small sample size, the results do not provide a clear picture of what type of educati onal backgrounds athletic training educators possess. However, it is clear that athletic training educators do possess different educational histories. Some educators may have a background in pedagogy, whereas others may not have been exposed to a ny pedagogical knowledge while receiving an education. This phenomenon is no t unique to just the field of athletic training. Across all fields in higher education, not all faculty me mbers are trained to teach. This is often attributed to the lack of pedagogical tr aining in graduate programs, which often emphasize content knowledge (Kreber, 2001). Th e past several decades have placed an increased emphasis on subject matter expert ise over pedagogical knowledge. This has reinforced the popular myth that teaching and pedagogy can be learned on the job. The
18 argument for balance between possessing ade quate pedagogical skills and subject matter expertise has a long history in teacher preparation fields (Cochran-Smith, 2005). With recent changes in the profession, some individuals question if being a content expert is enough. In the past, it ha s been assumed that those individuals with adequate subject matter expertis e would indeed be able to te ach. In the medical field, if the clinical teacher has a reasonable amount of medical knowledge then he/she is deemed capable of teaching (McLeod et al., 2003). Many medical and allied health care professionals will either teach in a formal setti ng or be asked to teach in a clinical setting (Bligh, 2001; McLeod et al., 2003; Pasquale & Pugnaire, 2002). Rarely are these individuals given the opport unity to undergo formal or informal instruction on pedagogical practices. When 116 doctoral-educated athletic trainers were asked what competencies would be most important for newly trained doct oral athletic trainers acquiring skills to teach athletic training courses rated the highest (Hertel et al ., 2001). The results of this study suggest that future athle tic training educators should r eceive adequate training in both classroom and clinical pedagogical pract ices. Exposure to basic pedagogical skills may result in greater achievement gains in the learner (McL eod et al., 2003). According to Kreber (2001), If we further contend, as some of us do, that knowledge is not only disseminated but, occasionally, also advanced in the clas sroom, the fact that future facultyÂ’s pedagogical development has received onl y marginal attention within the disciplines and the academy seems all the more astounding (p. 80).
19 Kreber (2001) recommends five ways to improve ones pedagogical content knowledge in graduate education. First, curriculum at th e doctoral level should include at least two courses in pedagogy. This would allow student s to explore educational issues that are prevalent within their discipline. Second, Kr eber recommends that dissertation projects be allowed to focus on pedagogy within specif ic disciplines. Thir d, graduate students should be allowed the opportunity to teach a nd to receive feedback on their teaching. Fourth, students should be provided with oppor tunities to attend seminars and workshops that focus on educational theory and research. Lastly, professors who are affluent in the scholarship of teaching should act as mentors for graduate students. Shulman (1986) suggests that one must possess content knowledge, knowledge of different instructional methods and pedagogical content knowl edge in order to be an effective instructor. Pedagogical content knowle dge refers to oneÂ’s ability to implement specific instructional strategies for a part icular subject matter (Cochran et al., 1993; Ormrod & Cole, 1996). Instructors must be able to take the content to be presented and carry it through a series of st eps to achieve pedagogical content knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge Â“provides the symbols, language, id eas, concepts, theories, metaphors, analogies, and other forms of know ledge representation, as well as the modes of inquiry, that constitute the knowledge ba se for effective teaching and learningÂ” (Paulsen, 2001, p. 20). The instructor must criti cally reflect and interp ret the material to be learned, find multiple ways of presenting th at information, adapt the material to the studentÂ’s abilities, and tailor the material to a specific group of stude nts (Cochran et al., 1993). This is often a difficult task for novi ce teachers or those individuals who do not have a strong pedagogical background (Feinm an-Nemser & Parker, 1990). However, it
20 is important to note that teaching strategies are influenced by much more than just knowledge. The social, political, cultural, a nd physical environmental contexts of the teaching learning process also contribute to pedagogical content knowledge (Cochran et al., 1993). Research also suggest s that preferences for specif ic instructional strategies stem not only from a variety of social and cultural influences, but also from oneÂ’s individual teaching style (E ntwistle & Walker, 2000). Teaching Styles Research on teaching styles in the past has largely been descriptive. Several approaches exist that attempt to define what encompasses style in the classroom. Classroom behavior, personal attributes of an instructor, teaching methods employed, common behaviors across faculty, teacher roles, personality tr aits, archetypal forms, and metaphors for teaching have all been used in describing teaching styl es (Grasha, 2002). Attempting to create a uniform definition is difficult; however, Heimlich and Norland (2002) define teaching style as Â“a predile ction toward teaching behavior and the congruence between an educatorÂ’s teaching be haviors and teaching be liefsÂ” (p. 17). Several authors have developed differe nt ways of studying teaching styles. Grasha (1994) is a well-known researcher of teaching styles. The fo cus of his research has been at the college and university level. As a result of exte nsive observations and interviews of teaching faculty across a variet y of disciplines and institutions, Grasha performed a thematic analysis suggesting five predominant styles: expert, formal authority, personal model, faci litator, and delegator. The first style is expert, in which th e instructor possesse s the knowledge and expertise and the primary concern for instru ction is transmission of that knowledge
21 (Grasha, 1994, 2002). The advantages of this style are that the instructor possesses adequate knowledge and skills necessary to de liver information. A disadvantage of this style includes not explaining any underlying issues about th e information that is being transmitted to the student (Grasha, 2003). The second style is formal authority, wher eby the teacher is primarily focused on standard and acceptable ways to accomplish task s. An advantage of the formal authority style is that expectations are clearly outlined for the student. A disadvantage of using this style is that learning may become rigid and in flexible. Individual preferences or learning styles may be overlooked. Expert and formal authority styles are teacher-centered styles (Grasha, 2003). The third style is the personal model in which the teacher leads by example. Teaching strategies often include demonstr ation followed by hands-on learning (Grasha, 1994, 2002). Close collaboration between the student and teacher is an essential component of this style (Grasha, 2003). An advantage of the personal model style is showing learners how to follow a role model. A disadvantage of this st yle is that learners may only be exposed to one way of doing things The instructor may think his/her way is best and may not be willing to allow the studen ts to explore other options (Grasha, 2003). The fourth style is the facilitator and focuses on the studentsÂ’ needs, goals, and abilities and the instructorÂ’s willingness to accommodate those needs. Advantages of this style include allowing students flexibility as the instructor focuses on studentÂ’s needs and goals. A disadvantage of the facilitator style is that it seems to be more time consuming than some of the more teacher-centered styles (Grasha, 2003).
22 Lastly, the fifth style is the delegato r, in which students primarily work independently on projects or in teams (G rasha, 1994, 2002). An advantage of the delegator style is that the students feel as if they po ssess the knowledge and skills to complete a task with competence. A disadvant age of this style in cludes the opportunity for misjudgment of studentÂ’s ab ilities. The fac ilitator and delegato r styles reflect a student-centered approach to teaching in wh ich faculty members play the resource or consultant role (Grasha, 2003). Grasha (1994, 2002) describes that most instructors posse ss each of the styles to varying degrees. Therefore, it is imperative to understand that a teacher is not likely to fit into one category. As a result, Grasha ( 1994, 2002) developed the following clusters of primary and secondary styles. The clusters are as follows: Cluster 1: Primary Teaching Styles: Expert/Formal Authority Secondary Teaching Styles: Pe rsonal Model/Facilitator/Delegator Cluster 2: Primary Teaching Styles: Personal Model/Expert/Formal Authority Secondary Teaching Styles: Facilitator/Delegator Cluster 3: Primary Teaching Styles : Facilitator/Personal Model/Expert Secondary Teaching Styles: Formal Authority/Delegator Cluster 4: Primary Teaching Styl es: Delegator/Facilitator/Expert Secondary Teaching Styles: Formal Authority/Personal Model Based on 381 faculty memberÂ’s responses across several disciplines, 38% fell into cluster one, 22% into cluster two, 17% into cluster th ree, and 15% into cluster four (Grasha, 1994).
23 Mosston and Ashworth (1990) identified teaching styles along a spectrum, ranging from command style to di scovery style. This spectrum contains eleven different teaching styles that are based on the peda gogical unit, which consists of teaching behavior, learning behavior, and objectives. The first half of the spectrum is comprised of styles that focus on the reproduction of knowledge, whereas the second half of the spectrum focuses on knowledge production. Knowledge reproduction results in the regurgitation of alrea dy stated facts and concepts, wh ereas knowledge production focuses on creating or discovering new information. St udies have shown that students in the United States actually prefer styles that focus on reproduction of knowledge as opposed to knowledge production styles (Cothran, Kuli nna, Banville, Choi, Amade-Escot, et al., 2005). Similarly, Reinsmith (1994) develope d a continuum of archetypal forms of teaching. He identified nine different st yles of teaching progressing from a teachercentered approach to a more student-cente red approach. The spectrum and archetypal approach both recognize that there is likel y to be an overlap of styles used by the instructors (Mosston & Ashw orth, 1990; Reinsmith, 1994). Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse (1999) al so take a similar approach to that of Reinsmith and Mosston and Ashworth. Tr igwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse (1999) qualitatively studied teaching styles and as a result developed an Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Five different a pproaches were iden tified on a continuum starting with a teacher-focused strategy and ending with a stud ent-focused strategy. Educators, who feel that teaching is a process whereby informa tion is transmitted and learning occurs as information is accumulated, tend to employ more teacher-focused strategies. However, individuals who feel that teac hing and learning is a means to help students develop and
24 change their conceptions tend to use a mo re student-focused strategy (Prosser and Trigwell, 1998). Pratt and Collins (2000) developed a t eaching perspectives inventory from observations of faculty members in five di fferent countries and across many different cultures. These perspectives focus on differe nt approaches that te achers use based on Â“an interrelated set of beliefs and intentions that gives direction and justification to our actionsÂ” (Pratt, 2002, p. 6). From those obser vations, five different perspectives on teaching were identified, which include transmission, developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing, and social reform. Pratt (2002) iden tified the transmission perspective as the most common perspective used in secondary an d higher education, in which the learner is an empty container to be filled with th e teachersÂ’ knowledge. The developmental perspective focuses on enhancing higher leve ls of reasoning and problem solving. The apprenticeship perspective identifies l earning when students are provided with opportunities to work on authenti c tasks in real settings. Fr om the nurturing perspective, the teacher models the behavior that hard wo rk and motivation will lead to achievement. Lastly, from the social reform perspective, the teacher demonstrates a passionate set of ideals that are necessary for the im provement of society (Pratt, 2002). Previous research on teachi ng styles or teaching perspec tives reveals that styles and perspectives vary across disciplines. Collins, Selinge r, and Pratt (n.d.) found that individuals teaching in the life sciences and math/sciences scored significantly higher on the transmission perspective when compared to other disciplines such as language arts. Physical education instructors also scored higher on the transm ission perspective. Grasha (2002) also found variance in faculty teaching styles across disciplines. Approximately
25 77% of the teaching styles employed by 378 cr oss-discipline faculty members fell into one of the four clusters described by Gras ha. Quitadamo and Brown (2001) found that the facilitator and delegator teaching styles were most commonly used in an online learning environment; however, evidence of pers onal model, expert, and formal authority were also present in the same sample. Researchers suggest that certain teaching styles lend themselves to implementation of different instructional methods based on teacher preference or the teacherÂ’s learning style (Grasha & Yanga rber-Hicks, 2000; Harrelson et al., 2000). Grasha (2003) states, Â“in effect, when people adopt a pa rticular teaching style, various roles, attitudes, and behaviors Â‘come along fo r the rideÂ’Â” (p. 180). Implementing specific teaching styles has been found to create and promote an effective learning environment (Quitadamo & Brown, 2001). As stated by many researchers, teaching styles are not isolated constructs, but rather a blend of different ideologies. Furt hermore, it is unlikely that individuals will have just one isolated style of teaching. Most research suggests that individuals have a dominant style and a secondary style (Colli ns, Selinger, & Pratt, n.d.). Developing a teaching style is often a life-long process that continues to evolve with time and experience (Heimlich & Norland, 2002). As stated previously, it is not uncommon for faculty members to develop teaching styles based on previous educational experiences (Schaefer & Zygmont, 2003). Richlin and Cox (1994) believe that it is not unusual for teachers to learn how to teach by trial and error. Teachi ng styles are influenced by a variety of factors, including the capability of the learne r, relationships between the students and the instructor, the need for contro l over an environment or task, the learning
26 style of the student, and the demands of the situation (Grasha, 2003). Examining teaching styles allows educators to identif y a starting point for understanding their own beliefs and how those beliefs carry over into in structional strategies used in the classroom (Heimlich & Norland, 2002). Learning Styles Learning styles represent an individualÂ’s preference for learning. Understanding the complexities of learning styles is essentia l to understanding the in teractions that take place between the student and teacher in a cl assroom environment. Cognitive variables, such as information retention and retrieval, sensory variables, such as visual, auditory, and taste, and interpersonal variables, such as leadership and role modeling are all pieces of the learning style puzzle (Grasha, 1983). Often an individual will employ multiple learning styles, although preferen ces for one or two do exist. Grasha (2003) states that learning style dominance occurs for two reasons: the first reason is that certain learning experiences reinforce specific behaviors; th e second reason is that teaching styles of educators often reinforce a pa rticular learning style. Gr asha (2002, 2003) describes this interaction as a dance, where the teacher may l ead with a specific teaching style while the student follows by using a particular learning style. Based on classroom observations and previous research in student learning styles and instructor teaching styles, the following patterns have been described by Grasha: Pattern 1 o Teaching style: Expert-Formal authority o Learning style: Dependent-Participant-Competitive
27 Pattern 2 o Teaching style: Personal Model-Expert-Formal Authority o Learning style: Participan t-Dependent-Collaborative Pattern 3 o Teaching style: Facilitato r-Personal Model-Expert o Learning style: Collaborativ e-Participant-Independent Pattern 4 o Teaching style: Facilitator-Delegator-Expert o Learning style: Independ ent-Collaborative-Participant (Grasha, 2002, p. 177, 2003, p.184). Several different researcher s have developed models de scribing learning styles of individuals. Grasha (2002) describes several different learning styles as bipolar constructs. Competitive-collaborative, dependent-independent, and participant-avoidant are the six main dimensions. A competitiv e individual typically seeks recognition and likes to take the lead, whereas a collaborative individual likes to be involved with group projects and group work. A de pendent learner typically only learns what is expected, does not like ambiguity, and prefers structure in the learning process. In contrast, an independent learner tends to work alone, thinks for oneself, and typically likes work that is self-paced. A participant learner enga ges in activity and discussion and is often considered eager, whereas an avoidant lear ner does not like to pa rticipate and does not like to be put on the spot (Grasha, 2002). Perhaps one of the most popular measures of learning styles is KolbÂ’s Learning Style Inventory. This inventory is inte nded to measure the studentÂ’s information
28 processing capabilities (Stradle y et al., 2002). Kolb describes learner dimensions that are bipolar, such as concrete-abstract and reflect ive-active. Combinations of dimensions result in identification of different learni ng styles such as: accommodators, divergers, assimilators, and convergers (Kolb, 1984 as cite d in Theall, 1999). Stradley et al. (2002) examined the learning styles of 193 undergra duate athletic traini ng students using the KolbÂ’s Learning Style Inventory. These res earchers found that there was a relatively even distribution of learning (29.3% accommodators, 19.7% divergers, 21.8% convergers, and 29.3% assimilators). Brow er et al. (2001) found similar results in another sample of undergraduate athletic tr aining students using the KolbÂ’s Learning Style Inventory. However, when compared to other students in similar health care professions, these results are a bit unusua l. Nursing, physical therapy, medical, and physician assistant students all demonstrate a dominant learning style preference (Brower et al., 2001). Harrelson, et al. (2000) examined the learning styles of athletic training educators. Of the one hundred and sixty athletic training educators, approximately 39% were convergers, 37% were assimilators, 8% were divergers, and 16% were accommodators. These authors contend that athletic trai ning educatorÂ’s teaching practices may be reflective of oneÂ’s individual learning styl e. Harrelson, et al.(2000) recommend that educators make a conscious effort to use a va riety of instructional methods in order to appeal to a variety of lear ning styles. Clark and Harrels on (2002), Crews et al. (2000), Peer and McClendon (2002), Stra dley et al. (2002), and Walk er (2003) also make similar recommendations, stating that a variety of pedagogical practices should be implemented in the classroom environment. Â“One goal of instruction could be to teach people new
29 learning styles or at least let them sample unfamiliar ones to determine their personal advantages and disadvantagesÂ” (Grasha, 1983, p. 52). The Adult Learner Although educators are advise d to implement a variety of instructional strategies in the classroom, it is imperative that the educator understand adu lt learning principles. In addition, educators should be aware of what teaching styles and inst ructional strategies are preferred by learners. In the 1960Â’s, Malcolm Knowles introduced the concept of andragogy, which is defined as the science of helping adults learn (Baumgartner, Lee, Birden, & Flowers, 2003). Knowles proposes fi ve basic assumptions in his adult learning model. First, adult learners are more i ndependent and are more self-directed. Thus, teaching styles and strategies used in th e classroom should reflect upon this. Second, Knowles proposes that adults come with va st experiences and know ledge and the adult learner should be able to use this knowledge and experience to help drive discussions in the classroom. Third, learning activities should directly relate to the adultÂ’s interest. Fourth, educators should provide activities that are more problem-centered rather than subject-centered. Lastly Knowles proposes that adult lear ners are motivated intrinsically rather than extrinsically (Bau mgartner, et al., 2003; Kerka, 2002; Knowles, 1969; Leith; 1997). Brown (2003) suggests that educators who are aware of adult learning principles will create a classroom environment that is more student-centered, which is often characterized by collaborative efforts and a s upportive learning environment. It has been proposed that this type of a learning environment is conduci ve to learning at all ages (Kerka, 2002). However, some research shows evidence that many adult learner
30 classrooms are primarily teacher-directed. Most adult students do not have a clear preference for either a teacher -director or a student-centere d approach. Students were more concerned with the teacher using appr opriate methods and characteristics of the teacher. Other students preferred a mix of both approaches (Brown, 2003; Kerka, 2002). Heimlich and Norland (1994) suggest that edu cators use a wide variety of methods and techniques to appeal to the adult learner. A study of 395 first-year undergraduates re vealed that students expected that the primary teaching method to be used by profe ssors would be formal lecture. This was identified as one of the least favorite teachi ng methods by this same group. In addition, these students identified role-p laying and student presentations as other methods leastpreferred. Preferred teaching methods iden tified by this group include interactive lectures and discussions, as well as group-based activities (Sander, Stevenson, King, & Coates, 2000). In a different study, Ha tiva and Birenbaum (2000) surveyed 175 engineering and education undergraduates about their preferred approaches to teaching. The students reported a preference for a professor who was clear, organized, and interesting, as well as a profe ssor who encourages students to seek help, and promotes a supportive learning environment. Students least preferred thos e professors who promoted information transmission and self -regulation. Murray (1985) suggests that students prefer educators th at are enthusiastic about his/her profession, speak emphatically, use humor, encourage active engagement of learners, and provide information in a variety of ways. Although, there is no conclusive evidence in which specific teaching styles or strategies are mo st effective, it does appear that educators
31 should demonstrate flexibility in his/her approach to the classroom to facilitate meeting the needs of a variety of learning styles. Pedagogical Strategies Learning styles of students is more commonly studied than teaching styles (Richlin & Cox, 1994). As a re sult, a plethora of studies have been conducted reporting different pedagogical strategies perceived to enhance learning. Mensch and Ennis (2002) suggest that athletic trai ning educators should reflect on their current pedagogical practices and also consider implementing what students and other instructors deem to be useful instructional strategies Within the realm of athlet ic training, implementing active learning techniques, using problem-based lear ning, incorporating scenarios, using case studies, and providing authentic experiences have all been id entified as strategies that may facilitate learning within the classroom (Heinrichs, 2002; Mensch & Ennis, 2002; Walker, 2003). Fostering a positive learni ng environment for the student enhanced student learning in athletic training education (Mensch & Ennis, 2002). In addition, sociocultural learning theory (Peer & McClendon, 2002) and cognitive learning processes (Clark & Harrelson, 2002) have been readily id entified as conceptual frameworks for use by educators. Perhaps one of the greatest challenges that any professional education program faces is: To produce professionals who are capable of independent and critical thinking, who can sequentially analyze and so lve dynamic problems, who possess a commitment to lifelong learning, who can ra pidly understand problems in order to make critical decisions on the field and in the clinic, and who can work as part of a team (Heinrichs, 2002, p. S-189).
32 However, little research has been conduc ted on the role of athletic training educatorsÂ’ teaching styles in the use of these st rategies. Across all disciplines, it is rare that educators are trained in designing, developing, or eval uating the effectiveness of instructional methods. As a result, factors such as academic discipline and personal beliefs influence instructional strategy selec tion (Theall, 1999). Educators tend to select specific pedagogical strategies that are personally attractive, which resu lts in instructional bias (Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000). Livecchi, Merrick, Ingersoll, and Stemmans (2004) examined the effectiveness of different modes of instruction on examinati on performance. These authors identified the learning styles of the students and subjected the students to either student-centered or teacher-centered instructional approaches prior to taking a written and practical examination. No differences were found in test performance for the practical examination between modes of instruction; however, the teacher-c entered instruction students performed better on the written exam. Walker (2003) suggests that educators using lecture methods, which is a teacher-cente red strategy, may actually enable students. The instructor is telling the student what information is important without any student input. Trigwell et al. (1999) report that teac hers who use a more teacher-focused strategy tend to lead students to use a surface approach to le arning. Using teacherfocused instructional strategies tends to em phasize formal testing and the assignment of very specific tasks (Schaefer & Zygmont, 2003). In contrast, those teachers who use student-focused strategies typi cally lead students to a deeper approach to learning. These students tend to take on a more active role in the learning process, sometimes even
33 selecting what is to be lear ned in the class. Schaefer a nd Zygmont (2003) reported that nursing faculty members described using a more teacher-centered focus on a self-report assessment of teaching style; however, furthe r examination of teaching philosophies of these same faculty members show a signifi cant trend toward using student-centered instructional strategies. Furt hermore, Schaefer and Zygmont (2003) state that a variety of methods were selected by the nursing faculty members to appeal to different learning styles, but there was not any evidence that th ese instructional methods selected actually met the needs of the learners. Clearly, mo re research is warranted in this area, specifically examining the implications of different teaching styl es and instructional strategies used in the classroom. Summary Due to the limited amount of athletic tr aining educational research, a closer look at the educational backgrounds of athletic training educat ors is essential to fully understand to what extent these individuals are educated in peda gogical practices. In addition, understanding the teach ing styles of athletic tr aining educators may provide insight to the pedagogical stra tegies used within the athl etic training classroom. Few research studies exist in this area; thus, co llecting this informati on may provide a deeper understanding of current educational prac tices among athletic training educators.
34 Chapter Three Methodology As outlined in the first two chapters, the purpose of this study was to describe the educational backgrounds and teaching styles of athletic training educators. The second purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship existed between educational backgrounds and teaching styles of the afor ementioned population. In order to answer the research questions, a correlational research design was used. Participants completed a demographic and educational history questi onnaire to assess edu cational backgrounds. GrashaÂ’s (2002) Teaching Style Inventory was us ed to assess teaching styles. The results are presented in Chapter 4. This chapter discusses the design of the research study. It incl udes a review of the research questions, the populati on and sample, selection of th e participants, the research design, and the instruments used. Validity and reliability of the instruments are discussed, in addition to the methods of data collection and analysis. Research Questions The following research questions were addressed in this study: a) What is the educational background of athletic training educators? This research question was answered by obtaining in formation on the following variables: Major/Minor in Undergraduate, Grad uate, and Postgraduate Degree, Number of years of teaching experience,
35 Number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and Number of workshops or educationa l sessions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teac hing practices, or address other pedagogical issues. b) What teaching styles are predominant am ong athletic training educators? This research question was measured by usi ng the Teaching Styles Inventory as developed by Grasha (2002). Teaching styles are categorized as follows: Expert, Formal authority, Personal model, Facilitator, and Delegator. c) What is the relationship between edu cational background and teaching styles among athletic training educators? Rela tionships were explored between the predominant teaching style and the following variables: Major/Minor in Undergraduate, Gr aduate, and Postgraduate Degree, Number of years of teaching experience, Number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and Number of workshops or educationa l sessions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teac hing practices, or address other pedagogical issues.
36 Participants The population for this study consisted of certified athletic trainers (ATCÂ’s) within the United States. Currently, it has been estimated that the National Athletic TrainersÂ’ Association (NATA) has 32,000 practic ing ATCÂ’s (National Athletic TrainersÂ’ Association, 2005d). Traditionally, White males have dominated the profession of athletic training. Rapid growth of female athletic trainers in the field has been evident over the past few decades. Currently, 48% of NATA members are female (Hunt, 2004). Approximately 87% of the members are White 2% Hispanic, 2% African American, and 3% Asian or Pacific Islander. The overal l growth of the profession has significantly developed over the past few decades (Na tional Athletic Traine rsÂ’ Association, 2005b). Certified athletic trainers may be empl oyed in a variety of settings. Typical settings include high schools, colleges, professi onal sports teams, spor ts medicine clinics, and industrial corporations. Recent membersh ip statistics show that 19% of NATA members, or approximately 6,400 ATCÂ’s, are empl oyed at the collegiate level. However, this statistic does not specify if the certified athl etic trainer is employed by an academic department or by the athletic department. It should also be noted that the membership statistics collected by the NATA do not report specifically whether an individual has any teaching responsibilities at the college/university level. Ther efore, it is unclear at the college/university level as to what percenta ge of the NATA members that are certified athletic trainers have teachi ng responsibilities. Athletic tr ainers are also employed at clinics (18%) and high schools (17%) (Nationa l Athletic TrainersÂ’ Association News, 2005).
37 Selection of Participants Participants for this study were Board of Certification (BOC) certified athletic trainers who taught two or more core athletic training classes per year in an entry-level, undergraduate or graduate accredited athletic training education program. Core athletic training classes include course s in risk management and in jury prevention, pathology of injury, assessment of injury and/or illn ess, general medical conditions, therapeutic exercise and rehabilitation, pharmacology, h ealth care administration, and professional development (National Athletic Trainers Â’ Association Education Council, 2005). Currently, the Commission on the Accreditati on of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP) identifies 338 entry-level underg raduate and graduate athletic training education programs (Commission on the Accr editation of Allied Health Education Programs, 2005). It has been estimated th at there will be close to 350 entry-level accredited programs in the next year. A non-random, purposive sampling technique was used (Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). With th is sampling strategy, Â“the researcher specifies the characteristics of the populati on of interest and locates individuals with those characteristicsÂ” (Johnson & Christ ensen, 2004, p. 215). Entry-level accredited undergraduate and graduate athletic trai ning programs were identified through the CAAHEP and NATA Education Council webs ite. Contact information for each academic program and its program director is provided on the CAAHEP website. Program directors were contacted and asked to forward information to other instructors who meet the requirements for the study. Furthermore, an email was posted on the athletic training educatorÂ’s listserv in an attempt to recruit more participants. Most entry-
38 level, accredited undergraduate and graduate athletic training education programs employ at least two faculty members that teach fulltime loads. Some programs have more and some have less. Since there are currently 338 accredited, entry-level programs, it was estimated that the sample size for this st udy would be approximately 700 participants. Johnson and Christensen (2004) recommend for a population of 6,400 that a sample size of 361 would be adequate based on a 95% confidence interval. With the planned sample size of approximately 700 participants, this was almost twice the sample size recommended to obtain adequate power of 0.80 at the alpha = 0.05 le vel. It was hoped that with this sample size a moderate e ffect size would be obtained. Using StevenÂ’s (2002) a priori power analysis tables, the sample size needed for a 5 group MANOVA with 7 dependent variables, was roughly 92 pa rticipants in each group to obtain adequate power of 0.80 at the alpha = 0.05 (c = 0.3354, whereby c is the standardized mean difference). Using these criter ia suggested that a sample size of 460 would be adequate. However, it is important to note that a larg er sample size would give the researcher a better chance of identifying a ny real statistical significance that is not due to sampling error (Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Ethical Nature of Data Collection Prior to collecting any information, the researcher received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Participants were pr ovided with an informed consent that was part I of the online survey (Appendix A). Co mpletion of the survey instrument indicated permission and participants were instructed to print a copy of the informed consent for their records. All information collected in this study was kept st rictly confidential. Records will be kept for a minimum of three years.
39 Procedures The procedures for the quantitative data collection in this study consisted of sending out the educational history form and Teaching Styles Inventory (TSI) developed by Grasha (2002) electronically to the part icipants (Appendix C). This was done by using an internet-based survey collection so ftware called Survey Monkey. Permission to use the TSI was obtained prior to the start of the research study (Appendix D). Prior to sending the surveys out to the pa rticipants, the researcher piloted the survey with a small sample of Certified Athletic Trainers (n=11). This provided the researcher with information on clarity of the questions, readab ility of the survey, and an estimate on time to complete the survey. Corrections were made to the survey as suggested by the participants of the pilot study. The anticipated timeline for this study was to obtain IRB approval in the fall of 2005. Approval was obtained in November, and e-mails containing the link to the informed consent, demographic questionnaire an d Teaching Styles Inventory were sent to the sample in early January 2006. Program dire ctors of each entry-le vel athletic training education program were contacted via e-mail and asked to forward the e-mail to anyone in his/her program who teaches two or more co re classes per year in the athletic training program. The e-mail contained the link to the internet-based survey. Follow-up e-mails were sent 2 weeks and 4 weeks later to enhan ce response rates. At the same time, an email was posted on the athletic training educat orÂ’s listserv. The deadline for completion of data collection was February 1, 2006. The remainder of Spring, 2006 semester was spent analyzing data and writi ng the results. All e-mail communication can be found in Appendix B.
40 Responses from the demographic and educat ional history instrument were entered into a spreadsheet. The Teaching Styles Inventory was scored and entered into a spreadsheet downloaded from Survey Monkey. Pa rticipants that want ed to receive their Teaching Styles profile entered a code upon completion of the survey. This code consisted of the first four digits of the participantÂ’s date of birth and his/her initials (ex: 0520VJR). This enabled the researcher to share the results of the Teaching Styles Inventory with those participants interested in obtaining his/ her results. The results were posted on a website and participants were pr ovided with the link to this website. A total of 198 athletic tr aining educators responded to the survey. A total of 174 participants completed the survey in its entire ty. A total of 338 e-mails were sent out for each wave of data collection. The res ponses by wave are presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Response Rates by Wave of Athletic Training Educators ________________________________________________________________________ Total Returned Complete Surveys Wave Number Percent Number Percent First E-mail 143 72% 127 73% Second E-mail 38 19% 33 19% Third E-mail 17 9% 14 8% Total 198 100% 174 100% For this study, a quantitative approach was used to explore the research questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). The desi gn of the study was a non-experimental, correlational design (Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). The
41 study was non-experimental because participan ts were not randomly selected and were not assigned to a particular group. A correla tional approach was appropriate because the research question aimed to explore the rela tionship between educational backgrounds and teaching styles (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). Variables The primary variables studied were edu cational background and teaching style. Educational background was measured by collecting information on the following variables: Major/Minor in undergraduate, gr aduate, and postgraduate degree, number of years of teaching experience, number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and number of workshops or educational se ssions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teaching pr actices, or address other pedagogical issues. Other demographic variables such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, current job title, academic rank, number of years certified as an athletic trainer, and de partment or college and type of institution currently employed were obtained. Teaching styles were measured using GrashaÂ’s Teaching Style Invent ory (2002). Grasha (1994) st ates that teaching styles Â“represented a pattern of needs, beliefs, a nd behaviors that faculty displayed in their classroomÂ” (p. 142). Teaching styl es are classified into five different categories, which include: Expert, Formal Authority, Personal Mo del, Facilitator, and Delegator (Grasha, 2002). Instruments For this study, two instruments were used to collect data. The first instrument was a demographic and educational history questionnaire. The second instrument was the Teaching Styles Inventory. Both of these instruments may be found in Appendix B.
42 Demographic and Educational History Survey Participants completed a demographic and educational history questionnaire developed by the researcher outlining educat ional experiences and current employment. Information collected on this form was similar to the data collected in the Hertel et al. (2001) study examining educational histories of doctoral-educated athletic trainers. Participants were asked to report informa tion on age, gender, race, current job title, academic rank, number of years certified as an athletic trainer, number of years of teaching experience, department or college and type of institution of which they are currently employed. Only the researcher will have access to this information. Teaching Styles Inventory The quantitative instrument used was th e Teaching Styles Inventory (TSI), which is a 40-item questionnaire (Grasha, 2002; Gr asha & Yangarber-Hicks 2000). Multiple conceptualizations of teaching styles exist; however, not all of these approaches were developed and intended to be used at the coll egiate or university level. Therefore, GrashaÂ’s Teaching Styles Inve ntory was used to gain insi ght into athletic training educatorÂ’s teaching styles at the collegiate a nd university level. This instrument was selected because it is widely recognized in t eaching style research and is often used as a tool for faculty development. The purpose of the inventory is to allow teachers to evaluate their attitudes toward instructional behavior. The inventory is a self-report instrument containing five subscales representi ng different teaching styles, each subscale containing eight items. Items are scored on a 7-point scale; with participants indicating to what extent they agree or disagree with the statement. Scores may range from 8 to 56
43 on each subscale. A high score on the scale i ndicates an increasing agreement with that style (Grasha & Yangarb er-Hicks, 2000). The development of the Teaching Styles Inventory occurred in the mid-1980Â’s. Grasha (1994) decided to extend his research at that time beyond le arning styles into teaching styles. As a result, he spent se veral years conducting extensive literature reviews, interviews, and observa tions with faculty members across several disciplines. In addition, he conducted several workshops and seminars in which he also collected information on teaching styles. Subsequentl y, a thematic analysis was conducted on the thick, rich qualitative data he collected resu lting in the development of five different teaching styles. Once the inventory was developed, a total of 381 faculty members completed the TSI. Over 125 different public and private colleges and universities were represented in this sample. Informa tion on 762 classrooms across 10 groups of disciplines was obtained from this study (Grash a, 2002). Reliability measures for each of the subscales across these samples using Cr onbachÂ’s alpha were measured as: Expert (.78); Formal Authority (.82); Personal Model (.74); Facilitator (.80); and Delegator (.72) (A. Grasha, personal communi cation, February 17 and 22, 1998 as cited in Gohagan, 2000). Grasha (2002) states that the five di fferent teaching styles he describes are grounded in the teacher-student in teraction in the classroom. Th erefore it is impossible to place teachers into one particular category. As a result, Grasha (2002) developed clusters as a result of a thematic analysis from his observations and interviews. Within each of these clusters are basic instructi onal strategies that the instruct or is likely to use. Based
44 on 381 faculty memberÂ’s responses, 38% fell in to cluster one, 22% into cluster two, 17% into cluster three, and 15% into cluster four (Grasha, 1994). The clusters are as follows: Cluster 1: Primary Teaching Styles: Expert/Formal Authority Secondary Teaching Styles: Pe rsonal Model/Facilitator/Delegator Cluster 2: Primary Teaching Styles: Personal Model/Expert/Formal Authority Secondary Teaching Styles: Facilitator/Delegator Cluster 3: Primary Teaching Styles : Facilitator/Personal Model/Expert Secondary Teaching Styles: Formal Authority/Delegator Cluster 4: Primary Teaching Styl es: Delegator/Facilitator/Expert Secondary Teaching Styles: Formal Authority/Personal Model Once the initial results were obtained and the clusters were developed, content validation of the instrument was completed by having e ducators provide feedba ck while attending the researcherÂ’s workshops and seminars. As a result, these educators agreed with the clusters and provided some additional instructio nal strategies that could be used in each cluster. The original Teaching Styles Inventory asked individuals to respond to the assessment by identifying two courses that they were currently inst ructing and answered the 40 questions for each course. For this st udy, participants were asked to identify one course that they were currently teaching or have taught within the past year (2005-2006) and answer the 40 items accordingly. Each respondent completed the assessment based on the extent to which those items applied to that particular cour se. The researcher elected to have participants complete the inventory based on only one class to simplify the procedures and minimize the burden for the participants.
45 Both the demographic and educational hi story questionnaire and Teaching Styles Inventory were available online to the particip ants of the study. It is estimated that the instruments took approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. Once the surveys were returned, the researcher scored each inventor y with the scoring key (Grasha, 2002). First, the scores for each style were calculated by summing the item responses on each of the subscales. A mean score was calculated by ta king the sum score of each subscale and dividing that number by 8 (number of items on each subscale). The information on the demographic and educationa l history was also entered into a spreadsheet. Data Analysis The alpha level for this study was set at .05 a priori Initially, data analysis began with the calculation of score reliability fo r the Teaching Styles Inventory. CronbachÂ’s alpha was calculated for scores pertaining to each of the subs cales and the overall inventory to assess score reliability of the Teaching Styles Inventory (Crocker & Algina, 1986). Because information regarding score reliability and validity of the Teaching Styles Inventory has not been reported frequently, the researcher elected to perform a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the fit of the measured variables to their corresponding latent structur e (Raykov & Marcoulid es, 2000; Stevens, 2002). Based on the strong evidence that these items do in f act fit into the subscales, a confirmatory procedure was selected. The model was es timated using maximum likelihood estimation. Chi-square, goodness of fit indices (GFI), and co mparative fit indices (CFI) were used to determine the fit of the model (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2000). A path diagram for the confirmatory model of the Teaching Styles In ventory is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
46 The next step in data analysis was to obt ain descriptive statis tics on the variables from the biographical and educational instru ment using SAS, 9.1 statistical software package (SAS Institute, Inc., 2005). These va riables include age, gender, race, current job title, academic rank, number of years certified as an athle tic trainer, number of years teaching experience, department, college, and type of institution of which the educators are employed. Mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis were reported for variables on a continuous scale. Frequencies and percentage s were used to summarize data that are nominal. For those variables that provided ratio level data, Pearson-product moment correlations were calculated (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). For variables that provided data at the nominal leve l, a chi-square analysis was used to see if relationships existed. Effect sizes from the chi-square an alysis were calculated using CramerÂ’s V, which is interpreted much like the size of a correlation coefficient. The basic assumption of independence of data was met because par ticipants filled out the instrument on an individual basis. Normality of the data was assessed once the descriptive statistics were obtained.
47 Figure 3.1 Initial Confirmatory Path Model for Teaching Styles Inventory
48 Data analysis for each research question is outlined below. a) What is the educational background of athl etic training educators? Descriptive statistics and confidence intervals were calculated for the following variables: Major/Minor in Undergraduate, Grad uate, and Postgraduate Degree, Number of years of teaching experience, Number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and Number of workshops or educationa l sessions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teac hing practices, or address other pedagogical issues. b) What teaching styles are predominant among athletic training educators? Scores for each participant were calculated on each of the subscales on the Teaching Styles Inventory. Proportion of particip ants falling into each category were calculated along with confidence intervals. In addition, participants were placed into the Teaching Styles Clusters as desc ribed by Grasha (2002). Teaching styles are categorized as follows: Expert, Formal authority, Personal model, Facilitator, and Delegator. c) What is the relationship between edu cational background and teaching styles among athletic training educators? The va riables listed below were categorized.
49 Relationships were explored between the teaching styles and the following variables: Major/Minor in Undergraduate, Gr aduate, and Postgraduate Degree, Number of years of teaching experience, Number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and Number of workshops or educationa l sessions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teac hing practices, or address other pedagogical issues. In order to answer this research qu estion, a MANOVA was used to determine if an overall relationship exists between t eaching style and the educational background variables. The grouping variables for the MANOVA included each of the teaching styles: delegator, formal author ity, expert, personal model, a nd facilitator. The dependent variables for the MANOVA included a collectio n of educational history variables: number of years of teaching experience, number of courses taken in pedagogy, number of workshops or educational sessions attended focusing on pedagogy, major in undergraduate education, minor in undergraduate educati on, area of study in graduate education, and area of study in postgraduate education.
50 Chapter Four Results The purpose of this study was to desc ribe the educational backgrounds and teaching styles of athletic training edu cators in CAAHEP accredited undergraduate or graduate athletic training e ducation programs. Certified at hletic trainers who taught two or more core athletic traini ng classes in one year were as ked to complete an electronic survey online. The findings of this research study are presented in this chapter by each research question. A total of 338 e-mails were sent out to academic program directors of CAAHEP accredited undergraduate and graduate athletic training education programs. In addition, an e-mail was posted on the athletic training educatorÂ’s listserv in an attempt to capture more participants. A total of 198 athletic training educators responded to the survey. Twenty-four respondents did not complete the survey in its entirety, thus these participants were removed from the sample. The total sample size for this study was 174. Reliability and Validity of the Teac hing Styles Inventory Instrument CronbachÂ’s alpha was calculated for each of the Teaching Styles Inventory subscales. For each of the subscales, Cr onbachÂ’s alpha was: Expert, .54, Formal Authority, .57, Personal Model, .68, Facilitato r, .68, Delegator, .32. These reliability estimates are comparable to what Gohagan (2000) obtained in her research on teaching styles of social work ed ucators and lower than what Grasha had communicated to
51 Gohagan from his national sample. Table 4.1 re ports the reliability estimates from these three samples. Table 4.1 Estimates of Internal Consistency for Teaching Styles ________________________________________________________________________ Current Gohagan Grasha Teaching Style Sample Samplea Sampleb Expert .54 .58 .78 Formal Authority .57 .69 .82 Personal Model .68 .64 .74 Facilitator .68 .66 .80 Delegator .32 .54 .72 aGohagan (2000); bGrasha (1998 ) as reported in Gohagan (2000) Construct validity was assessed by perfor ming a confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation. Prior to proceeding with the confirmatory factor analysis, the data were screened. Normality was assessed for each item on the inventory and the overall distributions were relativel y normal. Items 3, 27, and 32 had slightly leptokurtic distributi ons with values of 3.77, 2.33, a nd 2.55 respectively. Data were screened for outliers and there were several out liers detected. The de cision was made to include outliers in the data for analysis. The five-factor measurement model did not represent a good fit to the 40-item inventory. The standardized measuremen t model may be found in Figure 4.1. The correlations between latent cons tructs may be found in Table 4.2. It should be noted that the correlation between factor four and factor five was r = -1.10, which is not a possible value. This indicated that the measurem ent model was not functioning properly. A chisquare value of 1247.28 was obtained and was statistically signifi cant (p < 0.0001). The
52 Comparative Fit Indices (CF I) was 0.59, which suggests that the proposed model may not be a good fit. In addition, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) was .74, whereby values closer to 1 suggest a better fit of data to the model (Ravkov and Marcoulides, 2000). Table 4.2 Correlations between the Teaching St yles Inventory Latent Constructs _______________________________________________________________________ F1 F2 F3 F4 F5_ ________ F1 1.00 F2 0.82 1.00 F3 0.57 0.83 1.00 F4 0.11 0.54 0.69 1.00 F5 0.29 -0.42 -0.53 -1.10* 1.00 The author recognizes that an r value of 1.10 is not possible. This was one indication that the current model was not functioning properly. Therefore, the researcher elected to crea te composite factor scores. Composite factor scores were calculated by summing the values of the items on one teaching style subscale to create one composite score. For example, items 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 were added together to create the delegator fa ctor score. This was repeated for each of the subscales. Following the calculation of the composite factors, five different confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for each of the subscales to see if in fact the intended items were loading on their prescribed scale. This was performed to see if the construct of the individual scales were a good f it. As a result, the fit indices improved for each of the subscales, with the exception of th e delegator scale. Individual items were examined on the delegator scale to see if a ny of the items were not functioning properly
53 within the estimation models. It was found that item 10 on the delegator scale was not functioning properly and would produce negative parameter estimates. This item was removed from the confirmatory analysis on the delegator scale to determine if the overall fit improved for this particular scale. The fit of the model did improve with the removal of item 10. Table 4.3 reports the fit indices of each of the conf irmatory factor analyses. These results suggest that each of the scales were somewhat reliable and that it was safe to proceed cautiously with data analyses. Table 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analyses Fit Indices for Each of the Teaching Styles Subscales ________________________________________________________________________ Scale Chi-Square GFI CFI Expert 49.53 0.93* 0.68 (p=0.0003) Formal Authority 39.31 0.95* 0.80 (p=0.0061) Personal Model 36.94 0.96* 0.89* (p=0.0119) Facilitator 30.73* 0.96* 0.94* (p=0.0588) Delegator 78.03 0.90* 0.39 (p=0.0001) Delegator 36.22 0.95* 0.57 (w/o item 10) (p=0.0010) Suggests that model would be a reasona ble fit based on reco mmended criteria Subsequently, Pearson product moment corr elations were calculated among the factor scores to determine if relationships existe d between the different teaching styles.
54 Table 4.4 shows the correlations among the f actors. Moderate correlations were found between the expert and formal authority scales (r = 0.45), expert and personal model scales (r = 0.31), formal aut hority and personal model scales (r = 0.44), and facilitator and personal model scales (r = 0.43). This suggests that there may be some overlap in the overall constructs of each of these styles. Table 4.4 Correlations Between the Teaching St yles Inventory Composite Factors _______________________________________________________________________ Formal Personal Expert Authority Model Facilitator Delegator ___ Expert 1.00 Formal 0.45* 1.00 Authority Personal 0.31* 0.44* 1.00 Model Facilitator -0.02 0.19* 0.43* 1.00 Delegator 0.01 0.08 0.11 0.29* 1.00 indicates statisti cal significance, p< 0.05
55 Figure 4.1 Standardized Model for Teaching Styles Inventory Confirmatory Factor Analysis
56 Demographic Data A number of demographic variables were collected to describe the participants. These variables include: Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Current job title, Academic rank, Number of years as a cer tified athletic trainer, Academic department in which he/she is employed, Academic college in which he/she is employed, and, Type of institution in which he/she is employed. Age and Gender Of the 174 participants that complete d the survey, the mean age was 37.2 years (95% CI = 36.04, 38.29). The standard deviation was 7.6 years. Ages ranged from 25 to 56. The distribution of ages reported wa s relatively normal (sk = 0.51, ku = -0.54). There were no outliers in this distribution. Approximately 47% of the respondents were female (n = 82) and 53% were male (n = 92). Race/Ethnicity One hundred seventy of the respondents identified themselves as White, which accounts for 98% of the participants. Two res pondents identified themselves as Hispanic (1%). One respondent identified him/hersel f as Asian (0.5%), and one as other
57 (Japanese/American, 0.5%). None of the part icipants identified themselves as AfricanAmerican. Current Job Title Participants were asked to identify their cu rrent job title as part of the survey. In order to provide a clear picture of the type s of positions respondents were currently in, a classification system was used to describe th ese positions. ParticipantsÂ’ responses were placed into categories based on the job titles used for the NATA News Salary Survey (2005). Predominantly, participants were pr ogram directors (n = 102, 59%). Table 4.5 shows the distribution of job ti tles. Some respondents reported more than one job title. Examples include: department chair and progr am director, program director and head athletic trainer, or clinical c oordinator and assistant athletic trainer. In these cases (n = 13), participants were counted in both categories, which is why the total percentages added up from each category equals more than 100%. Academic Rank Most of the respondents who participated in this study were currently at the rank of assistant professor (n = 68, 38 %). Forty-nine of the particip ants were at the instructor level (28%). There were a to tal of 34 associate professors (20%) and 8 full professors (5%). Five identified themselves as ad junct instructors (3 %) and 10 identified themselves as other (ex: visiting professor, lecturer) (6%). Figure 4.2 illustrates the break down of academic ranks.
58 A ssistant Professor 38% Instructor 28% Adjunct 3% Other 6% A ssociate Professor 20% Full Professor 5% Figure 4.2 Academic Rank Held by Athletic Training Educators Table 4.5 Job Titles Reported by Athletic Training Educators ________________________________________________________________________ Job Title % (n=)* Department Chair 6% (10) Program Director/Coordinator 59% (102) Clinical Coordinator/Director/S pecialist 14% (25) Head Athletic Trainer 4% (8) Assistant/Associate Athletic Trainer 12% (21) Assistant/Associate Professor 6% (10) Full Professor 1% (2) Director/Coordinator-Sports Me dicine 0.5% (1) Physical Therapist/Athletic Tr ainer 0.5% (1) Instructor 1% (2) Graduate Research/Laboratory Assistant 1% (2) Athletic Trainer 2% (3) Percentages do not sum up to 100% because respondents may fit into more than one category Number of Years as a Ce rtified Athletic Trainer On average, the athletic training educators who particip ated in this study had been certified for 13.8 years (95% CI = 12.7, 14.8) The minimum value reported for the
59 number of years certified as an athletic trainer was 2.5 years and the maximum value reported was 31 years. The standard deviat ion of scores was 7 years. The overall distribution of scores was relatively normal (sk = 0.63, ku = -0.46) and there were no outliers present. Academic Department Participants were asked to identify wh ich department that he/she is currently employed. The researcher grouped departments that were closely related into a single category. As a result, a total of 7 categories were used : 1) Athletic training/ Sports medicine, 2) Exercise science, Sport scie nce, Movement science, 3) Kinesiology, 4) Health, physical educatio n, recreation, dance, 5) Health sciences, Rehabilitation sciences, Health and human performance, 6) Allied h ealth (physical therapy, occupational therapy, etc), and 7) Other (education, math, science, nutrition, and educational leadership). Most participants worked in Hea lth, physical education, recreat ion, and dance (n = 43, 25%). Closely following were Kinesiology (n = 31, 18%) and Exercise scie nce, Sport science, Movement science (n = 30, 17%). Figure 4.3 illustrates the frequencies for each department.
60 29 30 31 43 28 8 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 AT /S p o rts Me d Ex. Science Kines i ology H PER H e a l th/ H um a n Per f All ie d He a lth Oth e r Figure 4.3 Academic Departments in which At hletic Training Educators are Employed Academic College Athletic training educators were asked to identify which college that he/she was currently employed. The researcher examin ed the responses and again categorized responses that were closely re lated. In this case, 5 categor ies/colleges were predominant: 1) Education, 2) Arts and Scie nces, 3) Allied health, Health professions, or Health and human services, 4) Other (Busin ess administration, fine arts, applied life studies), and 5) Not applicable (based on the type of inst itution in which he/she was employed). A majority of athletic training educators were employed in the College of Education (n = 62, 35%). The allied health and health pr ofessions category employed the second highest number of athletic training educators (n = 47, 27%). Figure 4.4 illustrates the break down of employment of athletic training educators by college.
61 A rts and Sciences 16% Education 35% Not Applicable 20% Other 2% Allied Health 27% Figure 4.4 Academic Colleges in which At hletic Training Educators are Employed Type of Institution Using the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2005) classification system, a majority of the respondents were currently employed at a Baccalaureate CollegeLiberal Arts instituti on (n = 53, 31%). Thirty-two participants were employed at a MasterÂ’s College and Univ ersityType I institution (19%), 25 were employed at a Doctoral/Research University Intensive institution (14%), 23 were employed at a MasterÂ’s College and Universi tyType II institution (13%), and 21 were employed at a Doctoral/Research University Extensive institution (12%). Eighteen participants were employed at a Baccalaureat e CollegeGeneral (10% ) and 2 participants were employed at a Baccalaureate/Associ ateÂ’s College (1%). Figure 4.5 provides a graphic illustration of the participantÂ’s responses.
62 2 18 53 32 23 25 21 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Bacc alau re at e/A s soc iate 's Co ll ege B ac cal aureate C ol leg e G eneral Bacca lau re at e Col l egeLiberal Arts M aster's Coll eg e and Un i versity T ype I Master's Col l ege and UniversityT y pe II Do c t o r al /Re s ea rc h Un iv ersi t y Int e ns iv e Doctoral/R e search U n iversit y Extensive Figure 4.5 Types of Institutions in which Athletic Training E ducators are Employed Research Question One The first research question was to de scribe the educational backgrounds of athletic training educators. The following variables were studied: Major/Minor in Undergraduate, Grad uate, and Postgraduate Degree, Number of years of teaching experience, Number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and Number of workshops or educationa l sessions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teac hing practices, or address other pedagogical issues.
63 Major/Minor in Undergraduate Degree A majority of the particip ants attained a Bachelor of Science degree (n = 137, 78%), whereas only 35 participants attained a Bachelor of Arts degree (20%). Four participants reported attaining ot her degrees such as a Bachelor of Behavioral Sciences or a Bachelors of Education (2%). Most of these degrees were awarded in Physical Education (n = 63, 33%) or in Athletic Trai ning (n = 59, 31%). A total of 12 athletic training educators reported a double major and one respondent reported having majored in 4 subject areas. All majors reported by the respondents were counted (for n = 174, a total of 189 majors are reported). A wide vari ety of majors were reported for this sample and can be found in Table 4.6. Approximately 45% of the respondents re ported not having a minor degree or mentioned that it was not re quired (n = 81). Those res pondents who did report fulfilling the requirements of a minor degree obtained t hose degrees in areas of athletic training (n = 25, 14%), health and/or wellness (n = 17, 10%), and natural sciences (n = 15, 8%). In addition, five participants reported a double minor. Table 4.6 illustrates the variety of minors that were reported.
64 Table 4.6 Athletic Training EducatorÂ’s Areas of Study Completed in Undergraduate Education ________________________________________________________________________ Area of Study Major %(n)* Minor %(n)* Physical Education 33% (63) 3% (5) Athletic Training/Spor ts Medicine 31% (59) 14% (25) Exercise Science 9% (17) 2% (3) Natural Sciences 7% (14) 8% (15) Health/Wellness 6% (11) 10% (17) Kinesiology 3% (5) ----------Education 1.5% (3) ----------Math 1% (2) ----------Secondary Education 1% (2) ----------Psychology 0.5% (1) 6% (10) English 0.5% (1) 3% (5) History -----------2% (4) Pre-Physical Therapy/Medicine 0.5% (1) 2% (3) Coaching 0.5% (1) 1% (2) Nutrition -----------1% (2) Political Science 0.5% (1) ----------Elementary Education 0.5% (1) ----------Sociology 0.5% (1) ----------Journalism 0.5% (1) ----------Recreation 0.5% (1) ----------Exercise Physiology 0.5% (1) 0.5% (1) Rehabilitation Science 0.5% (1) ----------Technical Theater 0.5% (1) ----------Biblical Studies 0.5% (1) 0.5% (1) Special Education -----------0.5% (1) Broadcasting -----------0.5% (1) Vocal Performance -----------0.5% (1) Child and Youth Care -----------0.5% (1) Spanish -----------0.5% (1) No degree -----------45% (81) Percentages do not sum up to 100% because respondents may fit into more than one category
65 Area of Study Graduate Degree Over half (63%) of the at hletic training educators that participated in this study attained a MasterÂ’s of Science degree (n = 111). Attainment of a MasterÂ’s of Arts (16.5%) and MasterÂ’s of Edu cation (16.5%) was equally spl it (n = 29 for each). Seven participants (4%) reported other MasterÂ’s degr ees earned and they in cluded: MasterÂ’s of Science in Education, MasterÂ’s of Human Rela tions, MasterÂ’s of Public Health, MasterÂ’s of Business Administration, and MasterÂ’s of Physical Therapy. One participant was currently in progress of completing a Maste rÂ’s of Science degree and two participants reported having two MasterÂ’s degrees. Participants attained their MasterÂ’s de grees in similar content areas as their undergraduate content areas. Twenty-three percen t of the participants attained degrees in athletic training and sports medicine (n = 42). Other degree programs focused on physical education (15%, n = 27) exercise science (12%, n = 23), kinesiology (12%, n = 22), and education (12%, n = 22). These content areas may be found in Table 4.7.
66 Table 4.7 Athletic Training EducatorÂ’s Areas of Study Completed in Graduate School ________________________________________________________________________ Area of Study MasterÂ’s (n)* Athletic Training/Sports Medicine 23% (42) Physical Education 15% (27) Exercise Science 12% (23) Kinesiology 12% (22) Education 12% (22) Exercise Physiology 5% (10) Sports Administration 5% (10) Biomechanics 3% (6) Health and Human Performance 3% (6) Health Care 3% (6) Psychology 2% (4) Physical Therapy 2% (3) Guidance Counseling/Student Development 1% (2) Nutrition 0.5% (1) Biology 0.5% (1) Motor Behavior 0.5% (1) Percentages do not sum up to 100% because respondents may fit into more than one category Area of Study Postgraduate Degree At the time of this study, 37% of the respondents for this survey had not worked on a postgraduate degree (n = 64). Of thos e that had completed postgraduate work, 27% had attained a Doctorate of Philosophy (n = 47) and 15% had attained a Doctorate in Education (n = 26). Twenty-nine respondents (1 7%) reported that their doctoral degrees were in progress at the time of the study. Eight individuals repor ted attainment of a postgraduate degree in other ar eas including a Doctorate of Ar ts (n = 3), Doctorate of Health Science (n = 2), Doctor ate of Science (n = 1), and Do ctorate of Health and Safety (n = 1).
67 The areas of study in postgraduate work for athletic training educators were diverse (see Table 4.8). Post graduate work in curriculum and instruction was the most common area of study reported (9%, n = 15), fo llowed closely by hi gher education (7%, n = 13), higher education administration (6%, n = 10), and higher ed ucation leadership (6%, n = 13). Table 4.8 Athletic Training EducatorÂ’s Areas of Study Completed in Postgraduate Education ________________________________________________________________________ Area of Study Doctorate (n) Curriculum and Instruction 9% (15) Higher Education 8% (13) Higher Education Administration 6% (10) Higher Education Leadership 6% (10) Exercise Physiology 5% (9) Athletic Training/Sports Me dicine 3% (6) Health Education 3% (6) Exercise Science/Biomechanics 3% (6) Health and Human Performance 3% (5) Physical Education 3% (5) Sport/Exercise Psychology 2% (3) Adult Education/Learning 2% (3) Health Care/Sports Administration 2% (3) Physical Therapy 1% (2) Statistics and Measurement 1% (2) Interdisciplinary Studies 1% (2) Kinesiology 1% (2) Human Development 1% (2) Health Sciences Leadership 0.5% (1) Biomechanics 0.5% (1) Manual Therapy Cervical Spine 0.5% (1) Rehab Sciences 0.5% (1) Motor Behavior 0.5% (1) Library and Information Science 0.5% (1) None 37% (64)
68 Number of Years of Teaching Experience The number of years of fu ll-time teaching for athletic training educators averaged 8.16 years (95% CI= 7.1, 9.2). Number of years teaching full-time ranged from 0 to 30 years with a standard deviation of 6.85 years. The distribution of scores was slightly positively skewed (sk = 1.15; ku = 0.69). There were some outliers in the distribution for those individuals who reported more than 26 years of teaching full-time. For athletic training educators who have taught part-time, the average number of years teaching was 2.58 (95% CI = 2.08, 3.08). The minimum number of years teaching part-time was 0 and the maximum number of years teaching part-time was 18. The standard deviation of scores was 3.3 years. The scores were positively skewed (sk = 1.89) and had a leptokurtic distribution (ku = 4.06 ). Outliers were also present in this distribution. These individua ls were those who taught part-time for more than approximately 10 years. Number of Courses Take n in Education/Pedagogy A variety of responses were provided to this particular question including: numerical values (ex: 10), credit hours (ex: 42 credits), ranges of numbers of courses taken (ex: 5 to 7), and approximations (ex: approx. 12, or 8?). This occurred in approximately 11% of the responses (n = 20) In the instance where credit hours were reported, total credit hours were divided by 3 (typical 3 credithours per course) to determine the number of cour ses taken in education. Wh ere ranges were provided, the middle value of that range was recorded (from previous example, 6 was entered as the
69 value). In the case where approximations we re provided, the actual value provided by the participants was used (from previous example, 12 was entered as the value). The average number of courses take n in education was 8.13 (95% CI = 6.48, 9.79). The standard deviation was 11.06. The number of courses taken ranged from 0 to 70. The distribution of scores for number of courses taken in education was positively skewed (sk = 3.13) and leptokurtic (ku = 12.37). Outliers were present in this distribution, whereby individua ls who reported taking approx imately 20 or more courses fell into this part of the distribution (n = 11). Number of Workshops or E ducational Sessions Attended Again, responses varied among participan ts when asked to report the number of workshops or educational sessions atte nded that were pedagogy-based. Some respondents gave numerical values (ex: 10), while others provided ranges of numbers of courses taken (ex: 5 to 7) or approximations (ex: approx. 12, or 8?). This occurred in approximately 12% of the responses (n = 21). Where ranges were provided, the middle value of that range was recorded (from previous example, 6 was entered as the value). In the case where approximations were pr ovided, the actual value provided by the participants was used (from previous example, 12 was entered as the value). On average, athletic trai ning educators had attended 8 workshops that pertain to educational practices or had focused on peda gogy (95 CI = 6.9, 9.3). Some participants responded that they had not attended any wo rkshops of this nature; where as the maximum value reported was 35. The standard deviation was 7.86. The distribution of scores was relatively normal (sk = 1.18, ku = 0.73). There were a few outliers present.
70 These outliers were individuals who re ported attending 30 or more educational conferences (n = 5). Research Question Two The second research objective of this study was to describe the predominant teaching styles of athletic training educator s using the Teaching Styles Inventory (TSI) developed by Grasha (2002). Participants were asked to identify one course to use as a frame of reference when answering the questi ons on the TSI and were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 7 how much he/she enjoyed t eaching that particular course. A 1 indicated that the individual did not enj oy teaching that course and a 7 indicated that the individual really enjoyed teaching the course. In addi tion, participants were asked to report the primary level of the course taught. Freque ncies and percentages of respondents falling into each teaching style category were calcula ted. The five teachi ng styles described by Grasha include: expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. In addition, participants were placed into one of the four clusters described by Grasha (2002). Course Level and Title As part of the TSI, particip ants were asked to select a course to use as a frame of reference. Participants were also asked to identify the primary level of the course. Thirty-nine percent (n = 70) of the participants identified that the class they were teaching was primarily a junior level, undergraduate at hletic training course. Twenty-nine percent (n = 51) were sophomore level, undergraduate classes, 15% (n = 27) were freshman, undergraduate level, 13% were at the senior, un dergraduate level, and 4% (n = 8) were at the graduate level. Some participants reporte d more than one primary level of the course,
71 indicating that the same course was taught at two levels. Ther efore, each value was used for data analysis. Seventeen different types of courses were used as a frame of reference for participantÂ’s completing the Teaching Styles Inventory. The most common course reported was evaluation and assessment of athletic injuries (34%), followed by therapeutic modalities (14%) and therapeutic exercise/rehabilitation (10%). Table 4.9 illustrates the course titles reported. Table 4.9 Course Titles Used as Frame of Refere nce for Teaching Styles Inventory Responses ________________________________________________________________________ Course Title % (n) Assessment/Evaluation of Athl etic Injuries 34% (59) Therapeutic Modalities 14% (24) Therapeutic Exercise/Rehabilitation 10% (17) Introduction to Athletic Tr aining 7% (12) General Medical Conditions/Pharmacology 7% (12) Principles of Athletic Tr aining 7% (12) Organization/Administra tion in Athletic Training 4% (8) Anatomy 3% (5) Emergency Care/First Aid 3% (5) Clinical Education/Practicum 2% (4) Kinesiology 2% (3) Course Number Reported 2% (3) Research in Athletic Trai ning 1% (2) Professional Topics in Athletic Training 1% (2) Physiology 1% (2) Advanced Athletic Training 1% (2) Psychology 0.5% (1) Nutrition 0.5% (1) Participants were also asked to rate the extent to which they enjoyed teaching their particular class that was used as a frame of reference. On average, participants rated
72 their identified class as a 6.4 (95% CI = 6.26, 6.5 3) on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 indicates, Â“I really like teaching this course.Â” Th e standard deviation was 0.92. The minimum value reported was a 1 and the maximum value reported was an 8 (this participant really enjoyed teaching that particular course as not ed in the response). The response of 8 was scored as a 7. The distributi on of scores for this question was negatively skewed (sk = 2.30) and was leptokurtic (ku = 8.54). Most of the participants (n = 168) reported values of 5, 6, or 7 in rating their class. Teaching Styles Inventory Mean scores were calculated among all athl etic training educators for each of the five subscales. Mean scores, standard de viations, skewness, and kurtosis values are presented in Table 4.10 for each of the teach ing styles. Preferred teaching style was reported by identifying the highest mean score on each of the subscales for each of the participants. Overall, the personal model te aching style had a higher average score (M = 5.56) among athletic training e ducators. As a result, the preferred teaching style among athletic training educators app ears to be the personal mode l style (50%, n = 96, CI 95% = 42%, 57%). Formal authority was reported as the second most preferred style (27%, n = 52, CI 95% = 24%, 37%), facilitator was thir d (19%, n = 36, CI 95% = 13%, 25%), and expert was fourth (5%, n = 9, CI 95% = 3%, 9% ). Strikingly, none of the participants in this study showed a preference for the delegato r teaching style (none of the participants mean scores on the subscales were higher on the delegator scale when compared to the four other subscales).
73 Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics for Teaching Styles Identified in the Te aching Styles Inventory ________________________________________________________________________ Preferred Teaching Style Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Style (n) Expert 4.68 0.66 -0.04 -0.19 5% (9) Formal Authority 5.34 0.60 -0.11 -0.35 27% (52) Personal Model 5.56 0.53 -0.39 0.07 50% (96) Facilitator 5.14 0.70 -0.22 0.08 19% (36) Delegator 3.79 0.58 -0.07 0.15 0% (0) Preferred teaching style was also examined to see if gender played a significant role. A chi-square analysis was conducted to see if this relationship was statistically significant. Table 4.11 shows the preferre d teaching styles by gender among athletic training educators. A chi-square value of 8.08 (df = 3) resulted in a p-value of 0.04. Results suggest that there is a significant difference between gender and teaching style, whereby females prefer the facilitator, and ma les prefer more of a personal model style. Preferred teaching style was also examined to see if it was a function of the course that participantÂ’s were asked to use as a frame of reference. A chi-square value of 52.4 was obtained, which was not statistica lly significant (p = 0.42). This suggests that the type of course that an athletic traini ng educator teaches does not dire ctly relate to oneÂ’s preferred teaching style. Once the primary teaching styles of athle tic training educators were determined, participants were placed into the teaching styles clusters as described by Grasha (2002). Approximately 61% (n = 106) of the participants in this study fell into cluster 2, in which the personal model, expert, and formal auth ority teaching styles were predominant.
74 Thirty-seven percent (n = 64) of athletic training educators fell into cluster 3, in which facilitator, personal model, and expert we re the primary teaching styles. Only two percent (n = 4) of at hletic training educators fell into cluster one, in which expert and formal authority are the predominant styles, and no participants fell into cluster 4, in which the delegator, facilita tor, expert teaching styles are predominant. Preferred teaching style cluster was not a functi on of gender (chi-square = 0.84; p = 0.65). Table 4.11 Preferred Teaching Styles of Athl etic Training Educators by Gender ________________________________________________________________________ Formal Personal Gender Expert Authority M odel Facilitator Delegator Male 5% 28% 60% 7% 0% Female 5% 32% 44% 19% 0% Research Question Three The third objective of this study was to determine if a relationship existed between educational background and teaching styles of athletic training educators. Relationships were explored between the te aching styles and the following variables: Major/Minor in Undergraduate, Gr aduate, and Postgraduate Degree, Number of years of teaching experience, Number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and Number of workshops or educationa l sessions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teac hing practices, or address other pedagogical issues.
75 Prior to running a MANOVA, a correlationa l analysis was conducted to see if relationships were present among the depe ndent variables. Major and minor in undergraduate, area of study in graduate, and area of study in postgraduate degrees were dummy coded, so that participants were identified as having an education/pedagogy based degree or not. The percentage of at hletic training educator s holding a degree in education/pedagogy at the undergraduate, gradua te, and postgraduate le vels is reported in Table 4.12. Overall, 71% (n = 124) of athletic training educ ators have achieved a degree that is pedagogy-based throughout their educa tional tenure. Only 29% (n = 50) of the participants never atta ined a degree in their education that was pedagogy-based. Of those 50 participants, 45 reported that they had taken courses in pedagogy or attended workshops focusing on improving pedagogical stra tegies. The five participants that reported no formal exposure to pedagogy had preferred teaching styles of formal authority (n = 3) and personal model (n = 2). Table 4.12 Athletic Training EducatorÂ’s Attain ing an Education Based Degree at the Undergraduate, Graduate, and Postgraduate Level ________________________________________________________________________ Education Unrelated to Type of Degree Based %(n) Education %(n) Major in Undergraduate 41% (72) 59% (102) Minor in Undergraduate 5% (9) 95% (165) Area of Study Graduate 28% (49) 72% (125) Area of Study Postgraduate 36% (63) 64% (111) Correlational analysis among the dependent variables revealed Pearson product moment correlations ranging fr om a low score of -0.02 (relati onship postgraduate area of study between undergraduate major) to a high score of 0.50 (relationship full time
76 teaching experience and undergraduate major). Several multiple regressions were run to determine if the set of dependent variables we re good predictors of each other. However, after analysis of several different models, the highest R2 value obtained was 0.30. From this, it was determined that each of the de pendent variables was in fact contributing uniquely to the overall constr uct of educational background. A MANOVA was used to determine if an overall relationship existed between teaching style and the educational background variables. Data were screened prior to running the MANOVA for violations of th e underlying assumptions of multivariate normality, independence, and homogeneity of variances. The assumptions of the MANOVA were not violat ed, thus it seemed reasonable to proceed with the MANOVA. The MANOVA was not statistically significant ( = .83, F(24, 473) = 1.33, p = 0.1377), thus suggesting that an overall relation ship does not exist between educational backgrounds and teaching styles Since the MANOVA was not statistically significant, CohenÂ’s (1992) effect si ze was calculated to be f2 = 0.09 for the current sample. This is considered to be a small effect size. Summary A total of 198 participan ts responded to the survey, of which only 174 completed the survey in its entirety. An overwhelmi ng majority of the participants were White (98%) and a fairly equal number of men and women comprised the sample. Over half of the participants were program directors (59% ) and 38% were at th e assistant professor rank. Thirty-one percent of those that re sponded were currently employed at a liberal arts institution. A large number of the pa rticipants were employed in a College of
77 Education (36%) and were working in a depa rtment of health, physical education, and recreation (25%). The athletic training edu cators had diverse educational backgrounds. A Bachelor of Science degree had been awarded to 78% of the respondents and 33% of them had BachelorÂ’s degrees in physical education. Fo rty-five percent of th e participants did not have a minor degree. At the masterÂ’s level, most of their degrees were MasterÂ’s of Science (63%) and 23% were in athletic training/sports medicine. Most of the participants did not hold a pos tgraduate degree (37%). Of those holding a postgraduate degree, 27% held a Doctorate of Philosophy. Nine percent of those degrees were in curriculum and instruction. On average, th ese athletic training educators had been teaching for 8 years, had completed 8 courses in pedagogy, and had attended 8 workshops that were based on improving pedagogical practices. The predominant teaching style among th e athletic training educators was the personal model style (50%). Surprisingly, none of the participants had a delegator teaching style as their predominant style. The results of the MANOVA suggested that a significant relationship did not exist betw een educational backgrounds and teaching styles among these athle tic training educators.
78 Chapter Five Discussion Introduction This research was designed to explor e and describe the educational backgrounds and teaching styles of athletic training educat ors. Another purpose of this research was to determine if a relationship exists between educational backgrounds and teaching styles. The results of this study provide insight to the diverse educat ional backgrounds that athletic training educators posse ss. In addition, the results suggest that there may be a predominant teaching style among athletic traini ng educators. This research study makes a notable contribution to the athletic training education literature providing information that has yet to be expl ored in great detail. Chapter 5 discusses the results that were reported in the previous chapter. In addition, the implications of these findings on th e field of athletic tr aining are discussed. The limitations of this research design and procedures are reported. Lastly, recommendations for future research in this area are made. Research Questions The following research questions were addressed in this study: a) What is the educational background of athle tic training educators? This research question was answered by obtaining in formation on the following variables: Major/Minor in Undergraduate, Grad uate, and Postgraduate Degree,
79 Number of years of teaching experience, Number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and Number of workshops or educationa l sessions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teac hing practices, or address other pedagogical issues. b) What teaching styles are predominant am ong athletic training educators? This research question was measured by usi ng the Teaching Styles Inventory as developed by Grasha (2002). Teaching styles are categorized as follows: Expert, Formal authority, Personal model, Facilitator, and Delegator. c) What is the relationship between edu cational background and teaching styles among athletic training educators? Rela tionships were explored between the predominant teaching style and the following variables: Major/Minor in Undergraduate, Gr aduate, and Postgraduate Degree, Number of years of teaching experience, Number of courses taken in education/pedagogy, and Number of workshops or educationa l sessions attended that focus on pedagogical practices, improving teac hing practices, or address other pedagogical issues.
80 Discussion and Conclusions Demographic Data Although specific demographic data of athl etic training educators are not readily known or published, the results from this study pr ovide some insight about this particular population. In 2004, Hunt reported that a pproximately 48% of NATA members are female and 52% are male. In addition, sh e reported that approximately 87% of NATA members are White, 2% are Hispanic, 2% Af rican-American, and 3% Asian or Pacific Islander. The sample in this study closel y resembles the larger NATA population in regards to gender. For this study, 48% of the respondents were female and 52% were male. Also reflective of the NATA membersh ip, a large percentage of respondents for this study were White (98%). Although the lack of diversity in race among athletic training educators is not surpri sing as it reflects the national membership, it is an area of concern for athletic trainers. Hunt (2004) stated that concen trated efforts should be made to improve diversity in the athletic trai ning profession as a whole. The NATA has created an Ethnic Diversity A dvisory Committee in an effort to raise awareness and to promote diversity. Achieving diversity in the pr ofession of athletic tr aining is essential to provide adequate health care a nd education to an increasingly diverse nation and athletic population. In terms of employment characteristics, results indicated th at over half of the participants were directors of athletic training education pr ograms (59%). Interestingly, only 24% (n= 42) of the particip ants held the rank of associ ate or full professor. The athletic training educators in this study predominantly held lower levels of academic rank (assistant professor, instructor, or adjunct). However, it s hould be noted that the mean
81 age of the participants was 37 years, whic h may explain why lower levels of academic rank were evident. Similar findings were re ported in Hertel et al.Â’s (2001) study of 116 doctoral-educated certified athlet ic trainers. Forty-four perc ent of the respondents in that study were at the lower levels of academic rank. Research Question One The first research question attempted to describe the educatio nal backgrounds of athletic training educators. Th e results indicated that the content areas studied by athletic training educators were varie d. Although, as many as 22 different undergraduate majors were reported, many participants were awarded a degree in ph ysical education (33%). Almost half of the participants had not fulfille d or were not required to complete a minor degree, those that did, reported as many as 18 different areas of study. The same variety was mirrored in the attainment of a masterÂ’s degree. Sixteen different areas of study were reported, in which 23% of the participants completed a masterÂ’s degree in athletic training or sports medicine. At the postgraduate level, 24 different content areas were identified as areas of study for a doctoral degree. Hertel et al. (2001) looked at the educational histor ies of 116 doctoral-certified athletic trainers. The researchers found that almost half of those participants obtained doctoral degrees in exercise science, 27% in health and physical education, and 24% in education and administration. To compare the re sults of this study to Hertel et al. (2001), the 24 different content areas reported in Ta ble 4.8 were categorized into three main content areas: exercise science, health and physical education, and education and administration. In doing so, 52% of the doctora l degrees awarded to participants in this study were in education and administration, 30% in exercise science, and 18% in health
82 and physical education. The differences noted between the two studies may be attributed to different sampling strategies and inclusion criteria for the studies. The variety of content areas is reflective of the athl etic training educational structure that was in place pr ior to the required accreditation of athletic training education programs. Students were allowed to sit for the national certification exam after completing either the internship route or an NATA approved program. Because most colleges and universities did not have NATA approved athletic training programs (only 14 NATA approved programs existed in 1970), a large number of students studied other content areas. It wasnÂ’t until 2004 that all students wanting to become a certified athletic trainer were required to graduate from an accredited undergraduate or graduate athletic training education program. This attempt to create a more uniform educational system for athletic training students should eliminat e some of the variab ility in educational backgrounds of athletic tr ainers in the future. Research Question Two GrashaÂ’s Teaching Styles Inventory (2002) was used to assess what the predominant teaching style was among athletic training educators who participated in this study. Results indicated that 50% of the respondents s howed a preference for the personal model style. The instructor lead ing by example or role-modeling characterizes this style. Teaching strategies often in clude a hands-on approach to learning. The personal model style is advantageous because it allows the students to see how tasks or skills are performed correctly by following a role model. This style is commonly seen in apprenticeships or internships, where lear ning occurs by watching and then doing. In
83 GrashaÂ’s national sampling of 381 faculty members, the predominant teaching style for this group was also personal model (1994, 2002). The personal model style is re flective of athletic traini ng education. Students are typically taught the content knowledge in th e classroom, with time set aside to practice skills. More importantly, the clinical education component of athletic training education programs allows students to bridge the conten t knowledge to everyday practice. This is done by working with a certified athletic tr ainer, who is often modeling skills of the profession that the student is able to observe and eventually perform. The second most preferred style was fo rmal authority (27%) followed closely by facilitator (19%). Again, this closely mirrors the results of GrashaÂ’s national sampling of 381 faculty members across 10 different disc iplines (1994, 2002). A formal authority teaching style is characterized by a standard and acceptable way of accomplishing tasks. Expectations are clearly outlined for students. This closely ties in to athletic training education because of the edu cational competencies outlined by the accrediting bodies. Athletic training educators must show that sp ecific competencies are formally instructed to the students and that these skills and knowledge are learned over time (Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education, 2005). When Grasha developed the Teaching Styl es Inventory, he reported that it was not likely that an individual would fall only into one category. Rather, an individualÂ’s teaching style was a blend of the different styles he presented. As a result, Grasha (2002) developed teaching style clusters, in which two or three styles are primary teaching styles. Over half of the athl etic training educator s (61%, n = 106) in this study fit into cluster 2, whereby the primary teaching styles were personal model, formal authority, and
84 expert. Individuals in this cl uster are more likely to use peda gogical strategies that focus on sharing personal experiences, discussing al ternate approaches to performing tasks, coaching and guiding students. Thirty-seven percent fell into cluster 3, in which facilitator, personal model, and expert were the primary teaching styles. Individuals in this cluster are more likely to use pedagogi cal strategies that include case studies, problem-based learning, simulations, and labor atory projects (Grash a, 2002). Although similar teaching styles are found in both cluste rs 2 and 3, cluster 2 strategies tend to be heavily based on role modeling. Cluster 3 pe dagogical strategies tend to allow more guided learning using the edu cator as a resource. Interestingly, none of the participants in this study had delega tor as their primary or preferred teaching style and none of the pa rticipants fell into cluster 4, whereby the predominant styles are delegator, facilitator, and expert. These results are very different when compared to other studies using th e Teaching Styles Inventory. Based on 381 faculty memberÂ’s responses across several disc iplines, 38% fell into cluster 1, 22% into cluster 2, 17% into cluster 3, and 15% into cluster 4 (Grash a, 1994). The differences seen in the distribution of scores among clusters may be due to the differences in the samples. GrashaÂ’s sample was very heterogeneous, whereas the sample from this study was relatively homogenous in terms of academic discipline. The delegator style focuses more on th e teacher/instructor allowing students to work independently on assignments, groups, and projects. The teacher/instructor functions in the capacity of a resource for th e student. Students learn to be independent learners. This strategy may not be appropria te for service or me dical professions in which students are dealing with Â“liveÂ” patients; whereas other disciplines may allow the
85 student more room to explore in the learni ng process. In athle tic training education, typically a younger athletic tr aining student works closely wi th his/her instructors to develop entry-level athletic training knowledge and skills. Turning a student loose to independently learn these skills may not be an appropriate strategy for a younger student. As a student develops and matures in the pr ofession, it would seem a ppropriate that this strategy be implemented. In th is particular study, participan ts reported that only 13% of the courses taught at the senior level were used as a refe rence for the Teaching Styles Inventory. Only 4% were at the graduate level. Perhap s this is why most of the participants did not favor th is particular style. Research Question Three In order to answer this question, particip ants were identified as having a degree in education or not having a degree in educati on. This was repeated for all levels of education (undergraduate, gradua te, and postgraduate). When classified as such, 71% of the participants in this study a ttained a degree in education at some level. Of those that did not, all but five reported having a ttended workshops that focused on improving pedagogical practices or have taken courses related to peda gogy. For the most part all participants had some exposur e to pedagogy in their career. However, it appears that the variables comprising educational background for this study were not good predictors of teaching styl e. The variables used to create the construct of educational background included major and minor in undergraduate, area of study for graduate and postgraduate work, full-time and part-time teaching experience, number of courses in pedagogy, and number of educational workshops attended focusing on improving pedagogical strategies. These variables may not be a good predictor of
86 teaching style because the focus was on the amount of educational background. Participants were asked to report Â‘how manyÂ’ or Â‘how muchÂ’ of these particular variables. Perhaps it is the quality of those experien ces that matter rather than the quantity. Limitations There were several limitations discu ssed in Chapter 1; however, some merit further discussion after comple ting this study. There were lim itations in the design of the survey instrument. The instrument was pilote d with a small sample of certified athletic trainers and feedback was provided regardi ng the clarity of ques tions, any grammatical errors, and the structure of the questions. At the same time, the pilot sample was actually able to test the link to the survey online and was able to determine if any technical issues with the online survey existe d. None were reported from the pilot sample. However, when the initial e-mail was sent out and pa rticipants began to complete the survey, several participants contacted the researcher because they were unable to move from page 2 of the survey to page 3. After re-exami ning the structure of the survey, there were 2 questions in which participants were havi ng difficulty. Question 9 (see Appendix C) on the survey required responses to both full-time and part-time. Some participants were entering only one value. The same was true for question 11. Participants were not entering a response to both major and minor Once notified of this problem, the researcher went into the survey and ma de a note to the participants to enter values/responses to both. This technical di fficulty may have prevented participants from completing the survey, thus affecting the to tal number of completed surveys obtained. A second issue in relation to the structur e of the survey pertained to questions 14 and 15 (see Appendix C). A vari ety of responses were reporte d for these two questions.
87 Some respondents gave numerical values (ex: 10), while othe rs provided credit hours (ex: 42 credits), ranges of numbers of courses ta ken (ex: 5 to 7), a nd approximations (ex: approx. 12, or 8?). Some participants provide d responses such as Â“too manyÂ” or Â“canÂ’t rememberÂ” and as a result were not used as part of the data analysis (n = 6). One participant even suggested that a range be provided along with the question. If this educational background survey is used again, then further revisions on the wording and structure of the question should be considered for future research. In addition, it appears that the length of the survey may have prevented some individuals from completing the entire surve y. Eighteen participants completed only the first portion of the survey, which reported only demographic information. These individuals did not complete the Teaching Styles Inventor y and were, therefore, not included in the data analysis for this study. Another small change to th e structure of the Teaching Styles Inventory was made. In the original survey, Grasha (2002) asked individuals to answer the inventory based on two courses. In this survey, the researcher elected to have particip ants only answer the inventory based on one course to minimize the burden on the participants. This change in the structure of the survey may have cont ributed to the lower reliability estimates obtained in this sample. Another possible r eason for the lower reliability estimates may be contributed to the nature of the sample. GrashaÂ’s reliability estimates were obtained from an original sample that was a national sample across 10 different disciplines. In addition, Grasha had a much larger samp le (n = 381) (Gohagan, 2000). The smaller sample size and the relative homogeneity of th e sample in this particular study may have contributed to the lower reliability estimates.
88 Lastly, another limitation to this study is the manner in which the sampling was conducted. A smaller than an ticipated sample size was co llected. Program directors were identified and contacted by e-mail asking fo r participation in the study. In addition, program directors were asked to forward the email to individuals within their program that would also qualify to participate in th e study. It is unknown whether some program directors forwarded the e-mail to others in th eir program. If the program director did not complete the survey and then in turn, did not forward the e-mail to eligible participants, eliminating an entire program from the samp le was possible. However, the researcher attempted to lessen these effects by posting the e-mail asking for participation on the athletic training educ atorÂ’s listserv. Recommendation for Future Research Several areas of future research are wa rranted upon completion of this study. The first area that merits further examination is in regards to the reliability and the construct validity of the Teaching Styles Inventory. W ith this particular sample, the inventory yielded less than desirable reliability estim ates (CronbachÂ’s alpha). In addition, the confirmatory factor analysis did not indicate th at the proposed model was a good fit with the data collected. Upon further analysis, th ere were problems with the estimation of the model and specific items were not functioni ng properly within the model. Further evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Teaching Styles Inventory would be worth examining in later research. Another area of future interest lies in examining the educational backgrounds of athletic training educators in the future. Athletic training is a relatively young profession and has undergone several changes that have re shaped the educational system. From this
89 study, results indicated that e ducational backgrounds were extremely diverse. This was reflective of the dual pathways that existed for one to become a certified athletic trainer. Now that one must graduate from an accr edited athletic training education program (either at the graduate or unde rgraduate level), it would be of interest to see how this changes the educational bac kgrounds of future athletic training educators. The connection between teaching styles and learning styles is another area that warrants further exploration. Predominant styl es were identified among athletic training educators and these styles are supposed to equate to the applic ation of specific pedagogical strategies used in the classroom. The natural next step in the research process would be to determine what specifi c pedagogical strategies are employed in the athletic training education cl assroom and what factors infl uence the selection of these strategies. In addition, it would be appropria te to determine if in fact these pedagogical strategies actually reflect the indi vidualÂ’s predominant teaching style. A second component to explore within the classroom includes examining the connection between teaching st yles and learning styles. Harrelson, et al. (2000) recommended that educators make a conscious effort to use a variety of instructional methods in order to appeal to a variety of learning styles. Further examination of the importance of matching or mismatching learni ng styles to teaching styles may provide a clearer picture of classroom dynamics. Unde rstanding what teaching styles are valued by adult learners may also provide valuable insight to student-te acher interactions. The last area that warrants future resear ch is coming to a better understanding of the variables or characteristics that predict t eaching style. In this particular study, a host of variables that reflected areas of study, amount of teachi ng experience, and exposure to
90 pedagogical courses and workshops were used as predictors of teaching style. However, it was found that these variables were in fact not good predictors. Future research in this area may glean insight as to what particular variables could be poten tial predictors of teaching style. Quality or type of educational experiences, types of mentors or instructors that individuals were exposed to, or even personality traits are areas to consider. In addition, examining employerÂ’s ex pectations of the educator and current practices at the educatorÂ’s institution should also be considered. Summary With the ever-changing dynamics of the athletic training profession, it is imperative to have a better understanding of those that are responsible for educating future professionals in the field. Most of the previous athletic training education literature has focused on the learning styles of athletic training st udents and the use of appropriate instructional strate gies in the athletic training classroom without considering the experiences or background of the athle tic training educator. Athletic training educators have extremely dive rse experiences in relation to educational background and exposure to pedagogical content. To the re searcherÂ’s knowledge, th ere had not been any published research examining the teaching styles of athletic tr aining educators. From this study, the preferred teaching styles of athlet ic training educators, personal model and formal authority, tend to reflect the nature of athletic training education as it is currently designed. With the recent reform in athle tic training education, students are taught skills and knowledge in a formal classroom setting, a nd then allowed to observe, practice, and apply those skills in a clinical education setting under close supervision. Determining the effectiveness of this educational model will be of interest as more time passes. Although
91 this study has provided valuable insight on the background and styles of athletic training educators, it has only scratched the surf ace in regards to fully understanding the complexities of the dynamic interactions that take place in the classroom environment and how that affects the overall development of the athletic training student. It is hoped that future research in this ar ea will provide additional insight into these complexities.
92 References Baumgartner, L. M., Lee, M., Birden, S., & Flowers, D. (2003). Adult learning theory: A primer no.392. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, the Ohio State Un iversity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED-99-CO-0013. Bligh, J. (2001). Learning from unc ertainty: A change of culture. Medical Education 35 2-3. Board of Certification. (2005). The AT Profession Retrieved October 10, 2005, from www.bocatc.org/athtrainer/DEFINE/ Brower, K. A., Stemmans, C. L., Ingersoll, C. D., & Langley, D. J. (2001). An investigation of undergraduate athletic training studentsÂ’ le arning styles and program admission success. Journal of Athletic Training 36 130-135. Brown, B. L. (2003). Teaching style vs. learning st yle. Myths and Realities no. 26. Columbus: Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, the Ohio State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED-99-CO-0013. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2005). Category Definitions Retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.o rg/Classification/CIHE2000/ defNotes/Definitions.htm
93 Clark, R., & Harrelson, G. L. (2002). Designi ng instruction that supports cognitive learning processes. Journal of Athletic Training 37, S-152S159. Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education 44, 263272. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or worse? Educational Researcher, 34, 3-17. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 155-159. Collins, J. B., Selinger, S. J., & Pratt, D. D. (n.d.). How do perspectives on teaching vary across disciplinary majors for students enro lled in teacher preparation? Retrieved October 14, 2005, from www.teachingperspe ctives.com/PDF/ howdoteachers.pdf Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs. (2005). Athletic Training Programs Retrieved October 10, 2005, from www.caahep.org/programs.aspx Commission on Accreditation of Athle tic Training Education. (2005). Standards for the accreditation of entry-level athl etic training education programs. Conti, G. J. (1979). Principles of adult learning scale. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 179 713 Conti, G. J. (1983). Analysis of scores on pr inciples of adult learning scale for part-time faculty and recommendations for staff development activities. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 235 355
94 Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., Banville, D., C hoi, E., Amade-Escot, C., et al. (2005). A cross-cultural investigation of the use of teaching styles. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 193-201. Crews, T. B., Stitt-Gohdes, W. L., & McCannon, M. (2000, April). A comparison of secondary business education studentsÂ’ le arning styles with their teachersÂ’ instructional styles Paper presented at the A nnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Asso ciation, New Orleans, LA. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group. Delforge, G. D., & Behnke, R. S. (1999). The history and evolution of athletic training education in the United States. Journal of Athletic Training 34, 53-61. Ebel, R. G. (1999). Far beyond the shoe box: Fifty years of the National Athletic TrainersÂ’ Association Chicago: Forbes. Entwistle, N., & Walker, P. (2000). Strate gic alertness and expanded awareness within sophisticated conceptions of teaching. Instructional Science 28 335-361. Feinman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. ( 1990). Making subject matter part of the conversation in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education 41, 32-43. Gohagan, D. (2000). An examination of pe dagogical issues and computer-facilitated instruction in social work education. Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Carolina, United StatesÂ—South Carolina. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from ProQuest Digital Dissertation da tabase. (Publication No. AAT 3040753).
95 Grasha, A. F. (1983). Learning styles: The journey from Greenwich Observatory (1796) to the college classroom (1983). Improving College and University Teaching, 32, 46-53. Grasha, A. F. (1994). A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching 42, 142-149. Grasha, A. F. (2002). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching & learning styles San Bernadina, CA: Alliance. Grasha, A. F. (2003). The dyna mics of one-on-one teaching. The Social Studies, 94 (4) 179-187. Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. College Teaching 48, 2-10. Harrelson, G. L., Leaver-Dunn, D., & Martin, M. (2000). Learning st yles of athletic training educators. Journal of Athletic Training 35, S-56. Hativa, N., & Birenbaum, M. (2000). Who prefers what? Disciplinary differences in studentsÂ’ preferred approaches to teaching and learning styles. Research in Higher Education, 41 209-236. Heimlich, J.E., & Norland, E. (1994). Developing teaching styles in adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: Where are we now? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 93 17-25. Heinrichs, K. I. (2002). Problem-based learning in entry-leve l athletic training professional-education programs: A mode l for developing critical-thinking and decision-making skills. Journal of Athletic Training 37, S-189S198.
96 Hertel, J. West, T. F., Buckley, W. E., & De negar, C. R. (2001). Educational history, employment characteristics, and desire d competencies of doctoral-educated athletic trainers. Journal of Athletic Training 36, 49-57. Hunt, V. (2004). Reflecting the wide, wide world. NATA News, February, retrieved April 23, 2005, from www.nata.org Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Joint Review Committee on Athle tic Training Education. (2005). JRC-AT 2005 Update Retrieved October 17, 2005, from www.jr c-at.org/newslette r/september2005b.pdf Kerka, S. (2002). Teaching adults: Is it different? Myths and Realities no. 21. Columbus: Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, the Ohio State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED-99-CO-0013. Knowles, M. S. (1969). Higher adult education in the Unite d States: The current picture, trends, and issues. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Kreber, C. (2001). The scholarship of t eaching and its implementation in faculty development and graduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 86, 79-88. Leith, K.P. (1997, March). Adult learning styles, critic al thinking, and psychology. Paper presented at the Annual Conf erence on Undergraduate Teaching of Psychology, Ellenville, NY.
97 Livecchi, N. M., Merrick, M. A., Ingersoll, C. D., & Stemmans, C. L. (2004). Preathletic training students perform better on written tests with teacher-centered instruction. Journal of Allied Health 33, 200-204. McLeod, P. F., Steinert, Y., Meagher, T., & McLeod, A. (2003). The ABCs of pedagogy for clinical teachers. Medical Education 37 638-644. Mensch, J. M., & Ennis, C. D. (2002). Pedagog ic strategies perceived to enhance student learning in athletic training education. Journal of Athletic Training 37 S-199S207. Mosston, M., & Ashworth,S. (1990). The spectrum of teaching styles: From command to discovery. New York: Longman. Murray, H. G. (1985, September). Classroom teaching behaviors related to college teaching effectiveness. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 23, 21-34. National Athletic Trainers Â’ Association. (2005). About NATA Past. Retrieved October 9, 2005, from www.nata.org/about/past.htm National Athletic Trainers Â’ Association. (2005). About NATA Future. Retrieved October 9, 2005, from www.nata.org/about/future.htm National Athletic TrainersÂ’ Association. (2005). Certified Athletic Trainer Definition Retrieved April 21, 2005, from www .nata.org/about/atcdefinition.htm National Athletic TrainersÂ’ Association. (2005). Membership Statistics Retrieved October 9, 2005, from www.nata.org/membership/MembStats.htm National Athletic TrainersÂ’ Associ ation Education Council. (2005). Overview. Retrieved April 23, 2005, from www.nataec.org
98 National Athletic TrainersÂ’ Association Ne ws. (2005). New salary survey shows increased pay in most settings. NATA News 6, 22-23. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Expanding the framew ork of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools 10, 71-89. Ormrod, J. E., & Cole, D. B. (1996). T eaching content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: A model fr om geographic education. Journal of Teacher Education 47, 37-42. Pasquale, S. J., & Pugnaire, M. P. (2002) Preparing medical students to teach. Academic Medicine 77, 1175-1176. Paulsen, M. B. (2001). The relation between re search and the scholarship of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 86, 19-29. Peer, K. S., & McClendon, R. C. (2002). So ciocultural learning th eory in practice: Implications for athletic training educators. Journal of Athletic Training 37, S136-S-140. Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93, 5-15. Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (2000). The teaching perspectives inventory. In Proceedings of the Forty-First Adult Education Research Conference Vancouver, B.C. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
99 Quitadamo, I. J., & Brown, A. (2001, July). Effective teaching styles and instructional design for online learning environments. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Â“Bu ilding on the Future,Â” Chicago, IL. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in struct ural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reinsmith, W. A. (1994). Archetypal forms in teaching. College Teaching 42, 131-136. Richlin, L., & Cox, M. D. (1994). Impr oving the teaching>
100 Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Theall, M. (1999). New directions for theory and research on teaching: A review of the past twenty years. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 29-52. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachersÂ’ approaches to teaching and stude ntsÂ’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37 57-70. Turocy, P. (2002). Overview of athletic training education research publications. Journal of Athletic Training 37, S-162-S-167. Walker, S. E. (2003). Active learning stra tegies to promote cr itical thinking. Journal of Athletic Training 38, 263-267.
101 Appendix A: Informed Consent (Please note that this consent was the first part of the online survey)
102 Appendix A: (Continued) Informed Consent for an Adult Social and Behavioral Sciences University of South Florida Information for People Who Take Part in Research Studies Researchers at the University of South Florida (USF) study many topics. For this particular study, we are interested in learni ng about the teaching styles and educational backgrounds of athletic training educators. To do this, we need the help of people who agree to take part in a research study. Title of research study: Â“Educational Backgrounds and T eaching Styles of Athletic Training Educators in Entry-Level CAAHEP A ccredited Athletic Training ProgramsÂ” Person in charge of study: Valerie Rich MA, ATC/L, CSCS Study staff who can act on behalf of the person in charge: Micki Cuppett EdD, ATC/L Where the study will be done: This study will be conducte d via an electronic survey that is being sent out across the country. Should you take part in this study? This form tells you about this research study. You can decide if you want to take part in it. You do not have to take part. Reading this form can help you decide. Before you decide: Read this form. Talk about this study with the person in charge of the study or the person explaining the study. You can have so meone with you when you talk about the study. Find out what the study is about. You can ask questions: You may have questions this form does not answer. If you do, ask the person in charge of the study or study staff as you go along. You donÂ’t have to guess at things you donÂ’t understand. Ask the people doing the study to explain things in a way you can understand. After you read this form, you can: Take your time to think about it. Have a friend or family member read it. Talk it over with someone you trust. ItÂ’s up to you. If you choose to be in the study, then you can sign the form. If you do not want to take part in this study, do not sign the form.
103 Appendix A: (Continued) Why is this research being done? The purpose of this study is to better understand the educational backgrounds and teaching styles of athletic training educators. There is a significant gap in the literature examining these two areas in athletic training educators. Why are you being asked to take part? We are asking you to take part in this study because you teach two or more core athletic training course throughout the year in an accr edited undergraduate or graduate athletic training education program. Athletic training educators across the country are being asked to participate in this study. How long will you be asked to stay in the study? You will be asked to spend about 20-30 minut es completing an electronic survey to participate in and complete this study. How do you get started? If you decide to take part in this study, you will need to complete the electronic survey. The link to the survey is included in the ema il sent to you. If you decide to participate, then you should click the hyperlink to the elect ronic survey to get st arted. Completion of the survey will be considered permission a nd you should print a copy of this consent for your records. What will happen during this study? Once you read through the informed consent and deci de to participate in this study, you will click on the link to the electronic survey. There are tw o parts to the survey for you to complete. The first part of the survey will ask you to r espond to questions rega rding demographic and educational history information. The second part of the survey is the Teaching Styles Inventory, which is a 40-item questionnaire. It is estimat ed that completion of this survey will take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. Will you be paid for taki ng part in this study? While you will not be paid for participating in th is study, taking part in this research study may contribute to our overall knowledge of the educati onal backgrounds and teaching styles of athletic training educators. What are the potential benefits if you take part in this study? The potential benefits to you are to gain a better understanding of what your teaching style is. Participants will be able to scor e their inventory and obt ain their teaching style with the key that will be posted on the re searcherÂ’s website upon completion of the project.
104 Appendix A: (Continued) What are the risks if you t ake part in this study? There are no known risks to those who take part in this study. What will we do to keep y our study records private? Federal law requires us to keep your study records private. On ly the primary investigator will have access to the data. However, certain people may need to see your study records. By law, anyone who looks at your records must keep them confidential. The only people who will be allowed to see these records are: The study staff. People who make sure that we are doing the study in the right way. They also make sure that we protect your rights and safety: o The USF Institutional Review Board (IRB) o The United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) We may publish what we find out from this study. If we do, we will not use your name or anything else that woul d let people know who you are. What happens if you decide not to take part in this study? You should only take part in this st udy if you want to take part. You can get the answers to your questions. If you have any questions about this study, ca ll Valerie Rich MA, ATC/L, CSCS at 813974-1189 or contact Valerie Rich vi a email at: firstname.lastname@example.org If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking pa rt in a study, call USF Research Compliance at (813) 974-5638. Consent to Take Part in this Research Study ItÂ’s up to you. You can decide if you want to take part in this study. I freely give my consent to take part in this study. I understand that this is research. I have received a copy of this consent form. Please print a copy of this consent for your records.
105 Appendix B: Cover Letters (Initial e-mail, second follow-up e-mail, and third follow-up e-mail)
106 Appendix B: (Continued) Cover Email (Please note that this letter was distributed via email January 4, 2006) Dear Athletic Training Educator, My name is Valerie Rich and I am a docto ral candidate at the University of South Florida. I am in the process of collecti ng data for my disserta tion titled, Â“Educational Backgrounds and Teaching Styles of Athlet ic Training Educators in Entry-Level CAAHEP Accredited Athletic Training Programs.Â” The purpose of this letter is to invite you to pa rticipate in this surv ey, which is designed to describe the educational backgrounds and teac hing styles of athletic training educators. For the purposes of this study, an athletic trai ning educator is defi ned as an individual who is a Certified Athletic Trainer who teaches 2 or more core athletic training courses in a year in an undergraduate or graduate athletic training e ducation program. If you meet this requirement, then you are e ligible to participate. In addition, I am requesting that you would forward this email to other athlet ic training educators within your academic program that would be eligible to participate in this study. The first part of the survey requests inform ation regarding your educational history and demographic information. The second part of the survey to be completed is the Teaching Styles Inventory, which was designed to determ ine your predominant teaching style. It is estimated that it will take 10-15 minutes for you to complete the survey. Upon completion of the survey, you will be provided w ith the opportunity to request the results of your Teaching Styles Profile. Directions will be provided to you as to how to obtain these results. Your responses will be anonymous and you will not be asked to supply your name or any other contact information. The following link ( http://www.surveymonke y.com/s.asp?u=771721519073 ) will direct you to the informed consent page that will desc ribe the study in full detail. After reading the consent form, simply click Â“nextÂ” to c ontinue with the survey. If you have any questions, comments, or technical difficulties, please contact me, Valerie Rich, at (813) 974-1189 or email@example.com or my major professor, Micki Cuppett at (813) 9743498. Thank you in advance for your time and effort in completing this survey! Sincerely, Valerie Rich MA, ATC, CSCS Doctoral Candidate Department of Physical Educati on, Wellness, and Sports Studies University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave PED 214 Tampa, FL 33620 (813) 974-1189 firstname.lastname@example.org
107 Appendix B: (Continued) Second Follow-Up Email (Please note that this letter wa s distributed via email January 18, 2006) Dear Athletic Training Educator, If you have already completed the Teaching Styles Inventory, I would like to thank you for your time and effort! I greatly appreciate it! If you provided a code at the completion of the survey and wish to view your t eaching style profile, you may click on the following link to retrieve your scores: http://pe.usf.edu/surveyV.html If you havenÂ’t had time to complete it yet, th ereÂ’s still time left. HereÂ’s the website: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=771721519073 In case you deleted my first email and would like the details of my research, I have included my original email below. Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to assist me with my research! Sincerely, Valerie Rich MA, ATC, CSCS Doctoral Candidate Department of Physical Educati on, Wellness, and Sports Studies University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave PED 214 Tampa, FL 33620 (813) 974-1189 email@example.com
108 Appendix B: (Continued) Third Follow-up Email (Please note that this letter was distributed via email January 30, 2006) Dear Athletic Training Educator, If you have already taken the time to comple te the Teaching Styles Inventory, thank you so much for your time and input! It is greatly appreciated! If you pr ovided a code at the completion of the survey and wish to view your teaching style profile, you may click on the following link to retrieve your scores: http://pe.usf.edu/surveyV.html If you havenÂ’t had time to complete it yet, th ereÂ’s still time left. HereÂ’s the website: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=771721519073 The deadline for completing the survey is quickly approaching. It is February 1st at 5pm. Following is the original email I sent, in case you need more information. Thank you for your assistance with this! Sincerely, Valerie Rich MA, ATC, CSCS Doctoral Candidate Department of Physical Educati on, Wellness, and Sports Studies University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave PED 214 Tampa, FL 33620 (813) 974-1189 firstname.lastname@example.org
109 Appendix C: Educational and Demographic Questionnaire and Teaching Styles Inventory (Please note that this survey was posted on Survey Monkey)
110 Appendix C: (Continued) Demographic/Educational Questionnaire The following demographic and educational history questions are a part of the data analysis for this particul ar research study. Please answer the following questions completely and as accurately as possible. Once you complete the initial demographic and educational history questionnaire, you will be di rected to the Teaching Styles Inventory. 1. Gender: Male Female 2. Age: _____ 3. What is your Race/Ethnicity: African-American Asian Hispanic White Other ____________ 4. What is your cu rrent job title: ________________ 5. What is your current academic rank? Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Instructor Adjunct Other______________ 6. What department do you teach in? _________________ 7. What college do you teach in? __________________ 8. What type of instit ution are you employed at? Baccalaureate/AssociateÂ’s college Baccalaureate CollegeGeneral Baccalaureate CollegeLiberal Arts MasterÂ’s College and UniversityType I MasterÂ’s College and UniversityType II Doctoral/Research UniversityIntensive Doctoral/Research UniversityExtensive
111 9. How many years of teaching experience do yo u have at the college /university level? ______Full-time ______Part-time Appendix C: (Continued) 10. How many years have you been certif ied as an Athletic Trainer? ______ 11. Undergraduate degree: BA BS BGS Other____________ Major: ______________________ Minor: ______________________ 12. Graduate degree: MA MS MEd Other__________ Area of study: _____________________________ 13. Post-Graduate degree: PhD EdD Other ___________ Area of Study:_____________________________ 14. How many college-level courses have you taken in education/pedagogy: __________ (Please include undergraduate, grad uate, and post-graduate work) 15. How many workshops or educational se ssions have you attended throughout your career that focused on pedagogical practices, improving teaching prac tices, or addressed other pedagogical issues? __________________________
112 Appendix C: (Continued) Teaching Styles Inventory Anthony Grasha (2002) Instruction Sheet This questionnaire is designed to assess aspect s of your beliefs and behaviors in courses that you teach. In answering ea ch part of the questionnaire, please try to be as honest and objective as you can when responding. There are no correct answers to any of the items. To complete the attached instrument, you will need to select one of the core athletic training courses you teach and/or that you have taught in the past year as a frame of reference. Course Information: Course Title: _________________________________________________________ Primary level of course: _____F reshman_____Sophomore _____Junior_____Senior _____ Graduate course On a seven point rating scale where a 1 indicates Â“I do not enjoy teaching this courseÂ” and a 7 indicates Â“I really like teaching this course,Â” how would you rate the extent to which you like teaching this course? _____
113 Appendix C: (Continued) Teaching Styles Inventory Respond to each of the items below in terms of how they apply to the course you selected. Try to answer as honestly and as objectively as you can. Resist the temptation to respond to each item in terms of what you think you Â“should or ought to think or behaveÂ” or in terms of what you believe is the Â“expected or proper thing to do.Â” Use the following rating scale when responding to each item: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ________________________ ___________________ Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree very important aspect Very unimportant Or of my approach to Aspect of my approach Disagree teaching this course To teaching this course 01.) Facts, concepts, and principles are the most important things _____ that students should acquire. 02.) In this course, high standards exist for the grades I give _____ 03.) What I say and do models appr opriate ways for students to _____ think about content issues. 04.) My teaching goals and methods address a variety of student _____ learning styles. 05.) Students typically work on course projects alone with little _____ supervision from me. 06.) I want students to respect my knowledge and expertise. _____ 07.) Students receive a large am ount of positive and negative _____ feedback. 08.) Students are encouraged to emulate the example I provide. _____ 09.) I spend a lot of time consul ting with students on how to _____ improve the work they are doing on individual and/or group projects. 10.) I seldom comment on the outco mes of discussions students _____ working in small groups have on content issues. 11.) Students cannot obtain an adeq uate perspective on the topics _____ covered without he aring what I have to say. 12.) Students might describe my standards and expectations as _____ somewhat strict and rigid. 13.) I often give students examples of how and what to do in _____ order to master course content.
114 Appendix C: (Continued) Use the following rating scale when responding to each item: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ________________________ ___________________ Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree very important aspect Very unimportant Or of my approach to Aspect of my approach Disagree teaching this course To teaching this course 14.) Small group discussions are em ployed in order to help _____ students develop their abili ty to analyze issues and/or think critically. 15.) Students engage in self-initi ated, self-directed learning _____ experiences. 16.) My primary classroom role is as a transmitter of facts, _____ concepts, and principles. 17.) I am in the best position to determine what content students _____ need to learn. 18.) Examples from my personal ex periences often are used to _____ illustrate points about the material. 19.) I guide studentsÂ’ work on cour se projects by asking questions _____ exploring options, and suggesting alternative ways to do things. 20.) Developing studentsÂ’ abilities to work autonomously is _____ an important goal. 21.) Lecturing is an important part of how I teach each of _____ the class sessions. 22.) Grades are employed as a tool to motivate students to learn. _____ 23.) Demonstrations of various pr inciples and concepts often _____ are used in class sessions. 24.) Course activities encourage st udents to take initiative and _____ responsibility for their learning. 25.) Students take responsibility fo r teaching all and/or part of _____ some of the class sessions. 26.) My expertise is typically used to resolve disagreements _____ about content issues. 27.) Very clear and specific goals and objectives were developed _____ for this course.
115 Appendix C: (Continued) Use the following rating scale when responding to each item: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ________________________ ___________________ Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree very important aspect Very unimportant Or of my approach to Aspect of my approach Disagree teaching this course To teaching this course 28.) Students are frequently given specific verbal instructions _____ and/or written comments that illustrate how to improve their work. 29.) I actively solicit stud ent input about how a nd what to teach _____ in this course. 30.) Students set their own pace for completing course _____ assignments during the term. 31.) Students might describe me as a Â“storehouse of knowledgeÂ” _____ who gives them facts, principles, and concepts they need. 32.) Tests are used to keep students accountable and _____ responsible for learning course material. 33.) By the end of the term, ma ny students begin to approach _____ content issues in ways th at are similar to the way that I do. 34.) Students can make choices amo ng activities to complete in _____ order to meet course requirements. 35.) My approach to teaching is similar to a manager of a work _____ group who delegates tasks and responsibilities to subordinates. 36.) There is not enough time in the te rm for me to present all of _____ the content that should be covered. 37.) My standards and expectations help students develop the _____ discipline they need to learn. 38.) Students might describe me as a Â“coachÂ” who works closely _____ with someone by providing information and feedback to correct problems in how they think and behave. 39.) Students would probably agree that I provide the personal _____ support and encouragement they need in order to do well in this course. 40.) When a disagreement over a cont ent issue occurs, I typically _____ ask students to work alone and/or in small groups to resolve the issue.
116 Appendix D: Permission to us e Teaching Styles Inventory
117 Appendix D: (Continued) -----Original Message----From: ValTrainer@aol.com [mailto:ValTrainer@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:54 PM To: Laurie Richlin Subject: Teaching Styles Inventory Dr. RichlinHello again, Dr. Richlin. I hope all is well with you. This is Valerie Rich again from the University of South Florida. I had spoke with you in early October requesting permission to use the Teachi ng Styles Inventory for my disseration research. Upon your request, I have atta ched my dissertation proposal and agree to submit a copy of my final research proj ect to share the resu lts with you. I am anticipating completion of this project by May of 2006. Please email me to let me know if I do have permission to use the T eaching Styles Inventory at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Valerie Rich Doctoral Candidate, University of South Florida -----Original Message----From: Laurie Richlin To: ValTrainer@aol.com Sent: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:43:01 -0800 Subject: RE: Teaching Styles Inventory You have my permission. I'm l ooking forward to your results. Laurie Richlin, PhD Director Preparing Future Faculty & Learning Communities Program Claremont Graduate University 1263 N. Dartmouth Avenue Claremont, CA 91711 909.607.8978 fax 909.621.8270 email@example.com
About the Author Valerie Rich received her BachelorÂ’s degree in Kinesi ology with an emphasis in Athletic Training from the University of Northern Colorado in 1997. She attended the University of Nebraska at Omaha receiving her MasterÂ’s degree in Exercise Science in 1999. Valerie completed an Athletic Trai ning Fellowship program at the Steadman Hawkins Clinic in Vail, CO in 1999-2000. Sh e became the Director of the Athletic Training Fellowship at the Steadman Ha wkins Clinic immediately following her fellowship from 2000-2003. She returned to graduate sc hool in the fall of 2003 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the University of South Florida. Her doctorate is in Interdisciplinary Studies, Curriculum and Instruction. Her specialization areas were Higher Education and Research and Measurement. Valerie was awarded educat ional scholarships at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate level from the Na tional Athletic Traine rsÂ’ Association. She has coauthored several publications and ha s presented several papers at regional and national conferences.