Teacher Trainers’ Motivation in Transformation of Teaching and Learning: The Fun Way Approach

The purpose of the study is to investigate the level of intrinsic motivation of trainers after attending a Continuous Professional Development Course (CPD) organized by Institute of Teacher Training Malaysia titled, “Transformation of Teaching and Learning the Fun Way”. This study employed a survey whereby 96 teacher trainers were given Situational Intrinsic Motivational Scale (SIMS) Instruments. Confirmatory factor analysis was carried out to get the validity of this instrument in local setting. Data were analyzed with SPSS for descriptive statistic. Semi- structured interviews were also administrated to collect qualitative data on participants’ experiences after participating in the two-day fun-filled program. The findings showed that the participants’ level of intrinsic motivation showed higher mean than the amotivation. The results revealed that the intrinsic motivation mean is 19.0 followed by Identified regulation with a mean of 17.4, external regulation 9.7 and amotivation 6.9. The interview data also revealed that the participants were motivated after attending this training program. It can be concluded that this program, which was organized by Institute of Teacher Training Malaysia, was able to enhance participants’ level of motivation. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as a multidimensional approach to motivation was utilized. Therefore, teacher trainers may have more success using the “The fun way approach” in conducting training program in future.

Authors:

• Malathi Balakrishnan
• Gananthan M. Nadarajah
• Noraini Abd Rahim
• Amy Wong On Mei

Keywords:

• Teaching and Learning
• Motivation
• Teacher Trainer
• SDT.

References:

[1] Schon, D.A. (1996). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a
new design for teaching and learning in the professions, San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass. Inc
[2] Clift, R.T., Houston, W.R, & Pugach, M.C., eds (1990). Encouraging
reflective practice in education Analysis of issues and program. New
York: Teachers College Press.
[3] William, A. (1989). Issues in physical education for the primary years.
Contemporary analysis ineducation series. London, England: The
Falmer Press.
[4] Doolittle, S. A., & Girard, K. T. (1991). A dynamic approach to teaching
games in elementary physical education. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance, 62(4), 57-62.
[5] Jones, C., & Farrow, D. (1999). Transfer of strategic knowledge: A test
of games classification curriculum model. Bulletin of Physical
Education, 35(2), 103-124.
[6] Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1999a). An investigation of tactical
transfer in net games. European Journal of Physical Education, 4, 162-
172.
[7] Werner, P., & Almond, L. (1990). Model of games education. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 61(4), 23-27
[8] Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for
understanding: Evolution of a model. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 67(1), pp28-33.
[9] Brooker, R., Kirk, D., Braiuka, S., & Bransgrove, A. (2000).
Implementing a game sense approach to teaching year 8 basketballs.
European Education Review, 6 (1), 7-26.
[10] Chandler, T. J. L. (1996). Reflection and further question (teaching
games for understanding method). Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation, and Dance, 67(4), 49-53.
[11] Rink, J. E. (2010). TGfU: Celebrations and cautions. In J. Butler & L.
Griffin (Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding: Moving globally
(pp. 33-48). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
[12] Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Motor learning and control: A behavioral
emphasis (2nd ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
[13] Mitchell, S. A., & Chandler, T. J. L. (1992). Motivating students for
learning in gymnasium: The role of perception and meaning. The
Physical Educator, 50(3), 120-125.
[14] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
[15] Ishee, J. H. (2004). Are physical education classes encouraging students
to be physically active? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance, 78.
[16] Brustad, R. J. (1991). Children‘s perception on exercise and physical
activity: Measurement issues and concerns. Journal of School Health,
61, 228-230.
[17] Griffin, M. R., & Maina, M. P. (2002). Focus on interest diversity in
high school physical education. Strategies, 15(6), 11-12.
[18] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination
in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
[19] Piipari, S., Watt. A., Jaakkola, T., Liukkonen, J., & Nurmi, J. E. (2009).
Relationship between physical education students‘motivational profiles,
enjoyment, state anxiety, and self- reported physical activity. Journal of
Sport Science and Medicine, 8, 327-336.
[20] Holt, N., Strean, W., & Begoechea, E. G. (2002). Expanding the
teaching games for understanding model: New avenues for future
research and practice. Journal of Physical Education, 21(2), 162-177.
[21] Kohn, A. (2004). Feel-bad education. Education Week, 249(3), 44-45.
[22] Roberts, G. C., Spink, K. S., & Pemberton, C. L. (1999). Learning
experiences in sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
[23] Blanchard, C. M., Maska, L., Vallerand, R. J., Sablonnie, R., &
Provencher, P. (2007). Reciprocal relationships between contextual and
situational motivation in a sport setting. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 8, 854-873.
[24] Moreno, J. A., Gonzalez, D., Martin, J., & Cervello, E. (2010).
Motivation and performance in physical education: An experimental
test. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 9, 79-85.
[25] Balakrishnan, M. (2009). The effects of teaching games for
understanding on students learning outcome. Unpublished PhD thesis.
Kuala Lumpur University of Malaya.
[26] Balakrishnan, M., Rengasamy, S., Aman, M. (2011). 'Effect of Teaching
Games for Understanding Approach on Students- Cognitive Learning
Outcome'. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,
International Science Index 53, 5(5), 808 – 810.