Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

To make teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR) more effective, this study aimed to determine whether integrating moral disengagement (MD) minimization strategies into TPSR can enhance students’ positive behaviors and reduce their misbehaviors in PE. A pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design was conducted with an experimental group and two control groups. One hundred forty-five students from nine classes in three middle schools were assigned to experimental group (TPSR + MD minimization strategies; N = 50), control group A (TPSR; N = 46), and control group B (general PE instruction; N = 49) respectively. A pretest was performed in the first week, and a posttest was performed in the 18th week. The results showed that integrating MD minimization strategies into TPSR could significantly reduce students’ misbehaviors in PE classes. However, the effects of the strategy on students’ positive behaviors (e.g., following rules, helping others, and cooperation) showed no improvement. This study made a breakthrough by finding that integrating MD minimization strategies could make TPSR more effective at reducing students’ misbehaviors. By understanding the psychosocial mechanisms behind student behavior in PE, we suggest that MD minimization strategies could be applied in the TPSR model.

Keywords

classroom management instruction of physical education TPSR model

Because of the high level of interpersonal interaction during the learning process, physical education (PE) is regarded as an ideal educational field to cultivate students’ social-behavioral development (Coakley, 2011; Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005). Hence, the US Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE America, 2013) listed “exhibits responsible personal and social behavior that respects self and others” as one of the goals in PE. In line with this trend, the importance of understanding how to enhance students’ positive behaviors (i.e., behaviors lead to positive growth in social, emotional, and other domains; Feuerborn & Chinn, 2012), such as taking responsibility, respecting others and reducing their misbehaviors in PE, has long been recognized by researchers (Bailey, 2005; Selickaitė et al., 2019). In recent decades, model-based practices (e.g., cooperative learning, teaching games for understanding, TPSR) in PE have been regarded as tools to help students accomplish important outcomes, such as positive behaviors (Dyson et al., 2021). According to Richards and Shiver’s (2020) review report, model-based studies for cultivating student behavior are mainly based on the model of teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR).

The TPSR program was first developed by Hellison to help children become responsible through physical activities. It started as a community-based approach to assist school education. As the model further developed and gained recognition, it came to be used in much wider domains (Martinek & Hellison, 2016). The TPSR includes five primary goals/levels (i.e., respect for others, effort and cooperation, self-direction, helping others, and transfer) that have been linked to students’ positive behaviors (Hellison, 2003a, 2011). Five structured intervening sessions—relational time, awareness talks, physical activity plans, group meetings, and self-reflection time—are used in physical activities, sports, or PE to achieve the aforementioned goals of TPSR; Hellison, 2011). Past studies have provided evidence to support the effects of TPSR on all levels of responsibility through various methodological approaches involving qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods across PE settings in primary and secondary schools (see Pozo et al., 2018, for a review). The positive outcomes of TPSR have been supported; nonetheless, scholars continue to search for better strategies to advance the model since some impediments were mentioned in relevant studies, including cultural differences (Alcalá et al., 2019); the lack of evidence on the outcomes of transfer (to outside of the gym) (Pan, Chen et al., 2019); or inconsistent outcomes (Cryan & Martinek, 2017). Therefore, PE researchers began to consider how to combine other models, for instance, TGfU, cooperative learning, or Trauma-Informed Practices (Ellison et al., 2019; Fernandez-Rio, 2014; García-Castejón et al., 2021) or to integrate new strategies, for instance, Observational System of Teaching Oriented Responsibility, into the existing model to reinforce the effects of TPSR (Ellison et al., 2019; Fernandez-Rio, 2014; García-Castejón et al., 2021; Hayden, 2012).

Given the goal of making TPSR more effective, a potential approach is integrating new elements into the model to reduce students’ misbehavior. As previously noted (Gordon & Beaudoin, 2020), the TPSR model mainly focuses on teaching responsibilities in a positive way. TPSR assumes that students’ misbehaviors such as chatting, arguing, or bullying in class would decrease by increasing students’ positive behaviors such as effort and cooperation (Hellison, 2011). However, previous PE studies (e.g., Cothran et al., 2009; Kulinna et al., 2006) have shown that students’ misbehavior in PE classes not only disrupts the quality of instruction but also impedes the learning effects of peers. In the TPSR program, students’ misbehaviors also hamper the positive outcomes of learning (Hsu, 2017; Wahl-Alexander et al., 2019). Therefore, to make TPSR more effective, physical educators should not only enhance students’ positive behaviors but also reduce their misbehaviors.

In probing misbehaviors, the mechanisms of moral disengagement (MD) proposed by Bandura (1999) suggested that individuals tend to adopt psychosocial mechanisms to rationalize their behaviors when behaving negatively. A recent study (Hsu & Pan, 2018) found that students mainly use advantageous comparison (comparing one’s negative behaviors to behaviors that are more severe in nature to make the former behaviors seem less harmful) and nonresponsibility (diffusing or displacing one’s responsibility to others) in the mechanisms of MD to justify their misbehaviors. Thus, integrating strategies for minimizing students’ MD mechanisms of advantageous comparison and nonresponsibility may make TPSR more effective. To date, few studies (if any) have been conducted in integrating MD minimization strategies with TPSR programs. Providing empirical evidence of the better outcomes of TPSR program when including MD minimization strategies would enhance the contributions of the studies.

The Role of the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Model

The guidelines of the TPSR model are to teach students how to take responsibility for themselves and others (i.e., respect for others, effort and cooperation, self-direction, helping others, and transfer). To achieve this, a TPSR-based lesson generally follows the daily format that contains five components: relational time, awareness talk, physical activity plan, group meeting, and reflection time (Gordon et al., 2016; Richards et al., 2019). According to Hellison (2011), the first component—relational time—refers to educators seeking to understand and construct relationships with students in short conversations; the second component—awareness talk—refers to informing students of the importance of taking responsibility for themselves and others and encouraging students to initiate positive behavioral objectives for themselves; the third component—physical activity plan—means that educators guide students to show positive behaviors with properly designed activities; the fourth component—group meeting—refers to discussing the performance of students and providing feedback on the activities, designs and regulations; and the fifth component—self-reflection time—provides students an opportunity to assess and improve their performance. Moreover, four crucial principles for applying the model are suggested: a great teacher–student relationship, empowering students, teaching responsibility through physical activity, and promoting the transfer of the outcomes to daily life (Hellison, 2003a).

A considerable number of studies have found that the implementation of TPSR in PE can enhance students’ positive behaviors and reduce their misbehaviors (see Gordon & Beaudoin, 2020; Pozo et al., 2018). The effects of TPSR have been field tested for decades, and many researchers have reported its positive impacts on students’ behavior. These studies are mainly qualitative case studies (Hellion & Walsh, 2002; Richards & Shiver, 2020). As Pozo et al. (2018) proposed in their systematic literature review of the TPSR, researchers should consider designing quantitative or mixed methods due to the preponderance of qualitative investigations in TPSR research.

Moral Disengagement in Physical Education

Bandura (1991) suggested that individuals tend to behave in accordance with social norms and self-consciences with rational self-monitoring in social cognition theory. On the other hand, restrained or inhibited reactions occur when individuals consider their behaviors or actions to violate social norms and self-consciences. While engaging in inappropriate or immoral behaviors, individuals may seek justifications for themselves to break free from the self-regulations mentioned above. This psychosocial mechanism of such rationalization is called Moral Disengagement (MD). Bandura (1999) further categorized MD into eight mechanisms: euphemistic labeling, moral justification, advantageous comparison, diffusion of responsibility, displacement of responsibility, distortion of consequences, dehumanization, and attribution of blame.

By using qualitative interviews or quantitative questionnaires, numerous studies have reported medium to high levels of correlation among various misbehaviors and these eight mechanisms of MD (Aquino et al., 2007; Baker et al., 2006; Hyde et al., 2010; McAlister et al., 2006). Specifically, MD is seen as the main factor behind the misbehavior of students (from the mild behavior of laziness to the more severe behavior of bullying) in the education context (Baker et al., 2006; De Caroli & Sagone, 2014; Gini et al., 2014). The most prominent PE study was from Hsu and Pan (2018), who examined the predictability of the effect of MD on students’ misbehaviors through a two-phase questionnaire survey. A total of 282 and 336 middle school students participated in the respective phases of the study, and the results suggested that students in PE tended to use advantageous comparison (e.g., laziness in class is no big deal compared to skipping class) and nonresponsibility (e.g., no one is taking the class seriously, and I am just like everyone else) among all eight MD mechanisms to rationalize their misbehaviors.

The Present Study

In line with the crucial suggestion to integrate new elements into the existing TPSR model to reinforce its effects, this study aimed to determine whether integrating MD minimization strategies into TPSR can enhance students’ positive behavior and reduce their misbehavior in PE. Based on previous research assessing TPSR and MD in PE, the present study hypothesized that by integrating MD minimization strategies in TPSR, students would demonstrate better learning outcomes than students who merely participated in TPSR and general PE classes on positive behaviors and misbehaviors. The findings in the study will not only answer to the call for model combination of the TPSR but also serve as the reference for practitioners who wish to enhance students’ positive behaviors and eliminate misbehaviors in PE.

Methods

Research Setting

In Taiwan, attending two sessions of PE per week is mandatory for all students in middle schools. The PE class is mostly instruction oriented, followed by practice or game time for students. In the past, studies suggested that PE teachers were interested in using PE classes and sports to cultivate students’ responsibilities and other positive behaviors (Baptista et al., 2019; Pan & Keh, 2014). The research aimed to determine whether the students would exhibit a higher degree of positive behaviors (i.e., respect, effort, self-direction, following class rules, helping others, and cooperation) and a lower degree of misbehaviors (i.e., aggression, low engagement, failure to follow directions, poor self-management, and distracting behavior) after integrating MD minimization strategies into the TPSR model. A pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design was conducted with an experimental group and two control groups. There are three middle schools that participated in the research, and three PE teachers were invited to be the instructors. Each teacher taught a class of experimental groups and two control groups separately for a total of three teachers teaching nine classes. The above design is based on the recommendation of Cecchini et al. (2007), in which the number of teachers was increased so that deviations due to the school environment or teaching style would be minimized.

The research was administered in middle school PE classes in Taiwan. In Taiwan, all middle school students have to take two compulsory 45-minute PE classes every week. The 2019 new curricular guideline of 2-year compulsory education in Taiwan included cultivating the civil responsibilities of students as one of the objectives for health and PE. Hence, minimizing students’ misbehaviors and enhancing their positive behaviors is one of the crucial topics in this curricular area. In addition, the middle school phase is viewed as a crucial period for youths’ behavioral development and cultivation (Gordon, 2010; Hellison & Martinek, 2006); therefore, the authors chose to conduct the research in middle school PE classes.

Participants

Nine classes in three different middle schools were purposively sampled based on whether both teachers and students were willing to participate in this research. Three PE teachers from these schools were selected, and the students taught by each PE teacher were included. Each of the three teachers had one class as the experimental group (TPSR + MD minimization strategies), one class as control group A (TPSR), and one class as control group B (general PE instruction). The experimental group comprised 27 male and 23 female students (n = 50) with a mean age of 14.27 ± 0.51. Control group A comprised 24 male and 22 female students (n = 46) with a mean age of 14.32 ± 0.54. Control group B comprised 27 male and 20 female students (n = 49) with a mean age of 14.18 ± 0.44. The study was approved by the research ethics committee of National Taiwan University (201706ES027), and consent forms were obtained from the parents and students. After parental consent forms were obtained from all participants, one researcher collected the data. All the participants were informed that participation was optional and that their responses would be confidential.

Procedures

The expected course is 18 weeks, in which the pretest took place in the first week and the posttest was conducted in the 18th week. The actual intervention is 16 weeks. During the 16 weeks, badminton, table tennis, basketball, and volleyball were taught in every class in accordance with the present curricular design at school. Control group A fully executed the five formats of the TPSR model “relational time, awareness talk, physical activity plan, group meeting, and self-reflection time.” These five formats specifically followed chapter 4’s “Daily Program Format” in Hellison’s (2011) book on TPSR.

In relational time, educators find opportunities to chat with students individually, such as casual chats about students’ outfits or asking how they have been lately. The purpose of relational time was to establish relationships with the students and enhance their confidence in themselves and others. After each lesson, the educators would conduct relational time again. In awareness talks, educators directly taught the connotations of responsibility and guided the students to consider how to achieve the goals of responsibilities. Specifically, teachers encouraged and guided students to consider how to achieve their goals (e.g., “If people can get to you with their talk, they can control you” or “Can you share your ideas about helping others?”). In the physical activity plans, the educators integrated the TPSR concepts into class activities to allow the students to achieve their goals through physical activities. Specifically, the included elements required cooperation or might lead to conflicts in practice and group activities. To ensure that the students had enough successful experience, the educators gradually transferred class dominance to the students through empowerment and provided encouragement. In the group meetings, the educators divided the students into groups or directly assembled the students to discuss and express opinions from a positive perspective. In self-reflection time, educators guided the students to evaluate the relationship between their performance and achieving responsibilities. Ultimately, the educators guided the students to consider how to transfer the responsibilities to their daily lives. The lesson plan and time arrangement are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Lesson Plan for the TPSR Daily Program.

TPSR program elements	Purposes
Relational time	Establish relationships with the students and enhance their confidence in themselves and others.
Awareness talks	Encourage and guide students to consider how to achieve their goals of being responsible.
Physical activity plans	Integrate TPSR concepts into physical activities.
Group meeting	Discuss and express their opinions on their goal achieving.
Self-reflection time	Guide the students to evaluate the relationship between their performance and being responsible.
Relational time	Enhance students’ confidence.

The instructor of control group B taught according to the existing syllabus without any intervention or manipulation. The instructor of the experimental group adopted MD minimization strategies integrated into the TPSR model. For example, the strategies include teacher-led discussions regarding advantageous comparison and nonresponsibility during relational time to remind students not to compare their misbehaviors with more severe deviant behaviors to make the former seem less harmful (advantageous comparison) and not to view their misbehaviors as being forced by peer pressure or to attribute responsibility to others in the group (nonresponsibility).

In general, all three classes followed the original curricular design formulated by the school, and the only differences were the teaching approaches adopted by the educators. In control group A, five formats of TPSR were introduced by the educator to the class; in control group B, the educator simply followed the existing syllabus; and in the experimental group, the educator implemented the five formats of TPSR and guided students not to rationalize their behaviors with MD in class. The research design is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Research design.

Measures

Positive behaviors in PE

In this study, the scale used for measuring positive behaviors in PE is the Students’ Responsibility in PE Scale (SRIPES) developed by Hsu et al. (2014). This scale has a six-factor structure (i.e., respect, effort, self-direction, following class rules, helping others, and cooperation) and 26 items measured using a 6-point Likert-type scale. A previous study conducted in the middle school PE context (Hsu et al., 2014) demonstrated sufficient evidence for its reliability and validity.

Misbehaviors in PE

The measure of student misbehaviors in PE was based on the short version of the PE Classroom Instrument (PECI-S) developed by Krech et al. (2010). This scale has five factors (i.e., aggression, low engagement, failure to follow directions, poor self-management, and distracting behavior) and 20 items that were answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Wu et al. (2016) translated this scale into Chinese and examined its suitability for middle school students. In their study, sufficient evidence for reliability and validity was also reported.

Fidelity of Implementation

To ensure implementation fidelity in this study, we conducted the following four steps. First, all the participating educators in this study had 6 to 10 years of PE teaching experience. Before implementing the TPSR program, they participated in a 3-day TPSR and MD minimization training program (total of 24 hours) provided by the program designer (researcher). During this specific training program, participating educators were familiarized with TSPR guidelines, relevant literature, and case studies. Past TPSR implementation experiences were also shared with these participating educators by the program designer. Before the end of the training program, all participating educators were asked to demonstrate their teaching in accordance with the TPSR guideline and were given suggestions from the program designer. Second, all the participating educators were asked to answer a series of questions about TPSR and MD minimization implementation. Sample questions included the following: “The aim of relational time is…” (a) to put responsibility into practice, (b) to remind students of their goals, and (c) to offer a chance for one-on-one interactions to ensure their knowledge regarding the TPSR program. Third, every lesson plan were carefully examined to make sure that all five formats of TPSR and MD minimization strategies were included. Finally, the educators were asked to verbally explain what strategies were applied in this class to help students achieve responsibility goals and minimize their MD. In general, the fidelity in this study was supported through the above four steps. Through these four steps, we can confirm that the educators had a sufficient understanding of the TPSR model and MD minimization strategies.

Data Analysis

There were three classes each in the experimental group, control group A, and control group B respectively in the research; therefore, the average score of the three classes in each group was taken. Because the grouping was not randomly conducted, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 was conducted. To determine the effects among the MD experimental group, TPSR control group, and general PE control group, the pretest scores for the various aspects of student positive behavior were employed as covariates, and the posttest scores were employed as dependent variables. The test for homogeneity of within-group regression coefficients showed that the F values of the variables were not significant (p > .05). Then, a 2 × 2 (time × group) ANCOVA with repeated measures over time was performed. After excluding the effect of covariates, the univariate testing of the experimental group and the two control groups on the various aspects were compared. The significance level was set at 0.05.

Results

The Effects on Student Positive Behaviors

The test for the homogeneity of the within-group regression coefficients showed that the F values of the variables were not significant (p > .05). As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the results of the ANCOVA showed that there were significant differences among the three groups on students’ effort (F = 4.24, p = .02) and self-direction (F = 4.68, p = .02), with effect size η2 of these variables of 0.06 and 0.07, respectively. The experimental group showed significantly higher values of improvement than the other two groups.

Table 2.

The Results of Students’ Positive Behavior.

	TPSR		General PE instruction		TPSR + MD minimizing		F	η ²
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	F	η ²
Pretest (covariate)
Effort	4.92	1.05	5.07	0.88	4.90	1.10
Self-direction	4.67	1.30	4.83	1.14	4.63	1.21
Following rules	5.44	0.61	5.64	0.61	5.33	0.98
Respect	5.14	0.54	5.23	0.79	5.00	1.06
Helping others	4.79	1.13	4.86	1.04	4.94	0.99
Cooperation	5.15	0.89	4.92	0.89	5.00	1.09
Posttest
Effort	5.12	94	4.89	1.03	5.32	1.04
Self-direction	4.75	1.26	4.71	1.16	5.22	1.16
Following rules	5.64	0.57	5.59	0.69	5.64	0.69
Respect	5.37	0.70	5.25	0.85	5.46	0.85
Helping others	5.17	1.68	4.96	0.90	5.29	0.90
Cooperation	5.25	0.88	5.03	0.98	5.32	0.98
Posttest (adjusted)
Effort	5.15	0.12	4.84	0.13	5.36	0.13	4.24 (p = .02)	0.06
Self-direction	4.76	0.14	4.65	0.15	5.27	0.15	4.68 (p = .01)	0.07
Following rules	5.61	0.09	5.56	0.09	5.72	0.09	1.75 (p = .18)	0.01
Respect	5.29	0.11	5.26	0.11	5.57	0.11	2.37 (p = .09)	0.03
Helping others	5.20	0.17	4.97	0.18	5.27	0.18	1.25 (p = .17)	0.01
Cooperation	5.15	0.12	5.09	0.13	5.34	0.13	1.17 (p = .24)	0.02

However, there were no significant differences in the following behavior: respect, helping others, and cooperation. Therefore, it could be concluded that the intervention of MD minimization strategies could affect students’ effort and self-direction.

The Effects on Students’ Misbehavior

The test for the homogeneity of the within-group regression coefficients showed that the F values of the variables were not significant (p > .05). As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the results of the ANCOVA showed that there were significant differences among the three groups on students’ aggression (F = 20.23, p = .00), low engagement (F = 12.13, p = .00), failure to follow directions (F = 16.83, p = .00), poor self-management (F = 20.74, p = .00) and distracting behavior (F = 16.82, p = .02), with effect size η2 of these variables at “0.23, 0.15, 0.19, 23, and 0.19,” respectively. The experimental group showed significantly higher values of improvement than the other two groups. Therefore, we concluded that the intervention of MD minimization strategies could decrease the five types of student misbehaviors as shown in Table 5.

Table 3.

Group Comparison of Students’ Positive Behavior.

		Square	df	Mean squared	Comparison	p
Effort	Hypo	6.26	2	3.13	3 > 1	.02
Effort	Error	101.87	138	0.74	3 > 2	.00
Self-direction	Hypo	9.71	2	4.86	3 > 1	.02
Self-direction	Error	142.25	138	1.04	3 > 2	.01
Following rules	Hypo	0.57	2	0.29	3 = 1	.40
Following rules	Error	52.73	138	0.38	3 = 2	.23
Respect	Hypo	2.66	2	1.33	3 = 1	.07
Respect	Error	77.26	138	0.56	3 > 2	.04
Helping others	Hypo	2.25	2	1.13	3 = 1	.78
Helping others	Error	208.88	138	1.51	3 = 2	.25
Cooperation	Hypo	1.56	2	0.78	3 = 1	.15
Cooperation	Error	100.17	138	0.73	3 = 2	.10

Note. 1 = TPSR; 2 = general PE instruction; 3 = TPSR + MD minimizing.

Table 4.

The Results of Students’ Misbehavior.

	TPSR		General PE instruction		TPSR + MD minimizing		F	η ²
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	F	η ²
Pretest (Covariate)
Aggression	1.79	0.78	1.80	0.95	1.84	0.65
Low engagement	2.25	0.99	2.02	0.73	2.18	0.71
Failure to follow directions	1.96	0.74	1.88	0.61	1.78	0.68
Poor self-management	1.75	0.84	1.73	0.71	1.75	0.78
Distracting behavior	1.73	0.82	1.72	0.97	1.81	0.84
Posttest
Aggression	1.38	0.79	1.76	0.98	1.15	0.59
Low engagement	1.78	0.92	2.01	0.79	1.49	0.60
Failure to follow directions	1.61	0.70	1.82	0.90	1.19	0.39
Poor self-management	1.35	0.54	1.72	0.77	1.15	0.42
Distracting behavior	1.38	0.68	1.66	0.78	1.17	0.40
Posttest (adjusted)
Aggression	1.40	0.07	1.77	0.07	1.13	0.07	20.23 (p = .00)	0.23
Low engagement	1.73	0.09	2.10	0.09	1.47	0.09	12.13 (p = .00)	0.15
Failure to follow directions	1.56	0.07	1.82	0.07	1.24	0.07	16.83 (p = .00)	0.19
Poor self-management	1.35	0.07	1.73	0.07	1.23	0.07	20.74 (p = .00)	0.23
Distracting behavior	1.39	0.08	1.78	0.08	1.18	0.08	16.82 (p = .00)	0.19

Table 5.

Group Comparison of Students’ Misbehavior.

		Square	df	Mean squared	Comparison	p
Aggression	Hypo	9.63	2	4.82	3 > 1	.01
Aggression	Error	32.84	138	0.24	3 > 2	.00
Low engagement	Hypo	8.90	2	4.45	3 > 1	.04
Low engagement	Error	50.59	138	0.37	3 > 2	.00
Failure to follow directions	Hypo	7.64	2	3.81	3 > 1	.00
Failure to follow directions	Error	31.32	138	0.23	3 > 2	.00
Poor self-management	Hypo	9.00	2	4.50	3 > 1	.02
Poor self-management	Error	29.95	138	0.22	3 > 2	.00
Distracting behavior	Hypo	9.67	2	4.84	3 > 1	.02
Distracting behavior	Error	39.65	138	0.29	3 > 2	.00

Note. 1 = TPSR; 2 = general PE instruction; 3 = TPSR + MD minimizing.

Discussion

Students in the experimental group in which the MD minimization strategies integrated TPSR showed better improvement in effort and self-direction than students in both control groups A (TPSR) and B (general PE instruction). However, there were no significant differences in the following behaviors among the three groups: respect, helping others, and cooperation. On the other hand, the students in the experimental group demonstrated better outcomes on weakening aggression, low engagement, failure to follow directions, poor self-management, and distracting behavior than their counterparts in control groups A (TPSR) and B (general PE instruction).

Integrating MD minimization strategies into TPSR can only significantly enhance positive behaviors of effort and self-direction in PE, which may be explained by Hellison’s (2003a) ideas on responsibility development. Both effort and self-direction are responsibilities at the primary level (Hellison, 2003a); therefore, the improvements can be measured in a rather short time, while other positive behaviors, such as helping others and cooperation, are higher-level responsibilities (Hellison, 2003a), which may be more difficult or require a longer time to achieve. Pozo et al. (2018) also addressed a similar viewpoint in their review that the outcomes of TPSR would be better manifested with long-term interventions. However, limited by the school policies, this study only conducted the teaching intervention for 16 weeks. The shorter period of intervention may hinder the outcomes to a certain degree.

Furthermore, Bandura (1991) considered that MD is selectively activated by individuals to regulate the emotions of guilt resulting from their immoral behaviors. Self-regulation is inhibited, reactions of uneasiness and guilt are eliminated or lowered, and restraints on norm-breaking behaviors can be lifted when adopting this psychosocial mechanism (i.e., MD). Kavussanu (2008) also argued that MD is directly connected to the antisocial behaviors of individuals. Furthermore, the connections between MD and prosocial behaviors are indirect and have less supporting evidence in empirical studies. A recent study (Hsu et al., 2021) focused on students’ MD in the PE context can also help explain the results showing differences between positive behavior and misbehavior in the present study. In Hsu et al.’s (2021) study, advantageous comparison and nonresponsibility could highly predict students’ positive behaviors but had less but still significant predictability of misbehaviors. Therefore, the effects of MD minimization strategies integrated into TPSR on reducing students’ misbehaviors were fully supported. In contrast with misbehaviors, the effects on positive behaviors (e.g., effort and cooperation) were not fully supported.

Generally, our findings revealed that students from classes implemented with TPSR or MD minimization strategies integrated with TPSR had advanced improvement compared to their counterparts in general PE classes. These findings not only supported Hellison’s (2011) assumption of the TPSR model but also might be influenced by contextual factors, such as external obstacles to model implementation (Hellison, 2003b). Instead of applying the TPSR program initiated exclusively for unserved students (e.g., Gordon et al., 2016; Whitley & Gould, 2011), this study had fewer barriers to implementing TPSR in compulsory PE classes, as students were able to participate (or were required to participate) in the program from the beginning to the very end and, hence, suffered from fewer external obstacles. Furthermore, badminton, table tennis, basketball, and volleyball were rather popular sports disciplines taught at schools in Taiwan. In a previous study in which the TPSR model was conducted in Tai Chi (Wright & Burton, 2008), students needed more time to get used to the designed scenario because students tended to become bored by the slow movements and repetitive nature of Tai Chi. Comparatively, TPSR could be better applied when the students were familiar with and interested in the sports taught (Hellison, 2003b). As argued by Gordon and Beaudoin (2020), when they found cultural differences offered some challenges while implementing the TPSR program, it is necessary for program designers or implementers to make local adaptations to maximize the positive effects. Moreover, whether to add the elements of positive values in PE has been a popular topic of sports and physical activities on the social-behavioral development of students (Coakley, 2011; Turnnidge et al., 2014). There are already objectives on teaching right from wrong and behavioral modifications in PE. However, this study found that classes that received existing teaching programs showed very limited changes in positive behaviors and misbehaviors. Our findings echoed Hellison (2003b, 2011) idea on TPSR that students’ behavioral development could be further improved through properly designed interventions.

In general, the findings in this study contributed to “how to make TPSR more effective.” Moreover, the study also expands the existing literature compared to previous studies on MD in PE (e.g., Hsu & Pan, 2018; Pan, Huang et al., 2019). The research design has also been extended from the examination variable correlations to a quasi-experimental approach. Nevertheless, the exploration of the educational outcomes of PE is a continuous and sustained process (Bailey et al., 2009). Future studies should follow this path and further impact the social-behavioral development of students in PE.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the study contributes both theoretically and practically, several limitations must be addressed. First, the participants in this study engaging in PE classes based on their original classes rather than being randomly assigned to the experimental and two control groups might limit the inferences of the findings. Although it is indeed difficult to randomly assign nine classes of students to experimental and control groups, we still suggest that random assignment should be used in future studies. Second, the students in the three groups had the opportunity to only be involved in badminton, table tennis, basketball, and volleyball in the 16-week courses. The sports they participated in were all ball sports and are only a small portion of all sport in PE; therefore, we should be cautious when applying current results to other sports (e.g., gymnastics and track & field). It is suggested that the outcomes of MD minimization strategies should be examined in different or more types of sports. Third, the TPSR model was implemented following a flexible format that allows modification to meet the needs of the students and the teaching environment (Gordon et al., 2016). Although the best efforts were exhausted to ensure implementation fidelity, improvements can still be made. As mentioned in previous studies, teacher training and knowledge of TPSR are crucial for the implementation to be fruitful (e.g., Camerino et al., 2019). It is suggested that future researchers refer to the methods partook by Carreres-Ponsoda et al. (2021) to conduct teacher training, which is considered the most current and relatively extensive training for coaches or teachers to implement TPSR. Finally, the participants in the study were middle school students in Taiwan. Age and cultural differences should be considered when applying the implications. The examination of diverse samples in future studies will surely lead to more robust results.

Conclusion

This study made a breakthrough by finding that integrating MD minimization strategies could enhance TPSR’s effectiveness at reducing students’ misbehaviors. By understanding the psychosocial mechanisms behind students’ behaviors in PE, we believe that, in certain contexts, the combination of MD minimization strategies (instructing students not to rationalize their own behaviors with MD) or other model-based practices and the TPSR model may be beneficial for producing better outcomes in PE. Specifically, we recommend that physical educators adopt all five aspects of TPSR and introduce MD minimization teaching strategies at carefully selected moments (e.g., discuss the consequences of MD during awareness time). Moreover, we also recommend that subsequent researchers continue examining the effects of MD minimization strategies on misbehaviors in depth. In closing, this study represents a new attempt to examine the effects of integrating MD minimization strategies into TPSR in the PE context. Our findings contribute to the existing literature on how PE educators could reduce students’ misbehaviors.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan under Grant MOST 106-2410-H-431-020-MY2.

ORCID iD

Chia-Huei Hsiao

References

Alcalá

D. H.

Río

J. F.

Calvo

G. G.

Pueyo

Á. P.

(2019). Comparing effects of a TPSR training program on prospective physical education teachers’ social goals, discipline and autonomy strategies in Spain, Chile and Costa Rica. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1561837

Aquino

Reed

Thau

Freeman

(2007). A grotesque and dark beauty: How moral identity and mechanisms of moral disengagement influence cognitive and emotional reactions to war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.013

Bailey

(2005). Evaluating the relationship between physical education, sport and social inclusion. Educational Review, 57(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191042000274196

Bailey

Armour

Kirk

Jess

Pickup

Sandford

(2009). The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: An academic review. Research Papers in Education, 24(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701809817

Baker

V. L.

Detert

J. R.

Treviño

L. K.

(2006). Moral disengagement in business school students: Predictors and comparisons. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2006(1), H1–H6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2006.27182173

Bandura

(1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Kurtines

W. M.

Gewirtz

J. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 71–129). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bandura

(1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. A

Baptista

Dias

Corte-Real

Dias

Regueiras

Pereira

Fonseca

(2019). Constructing agents of change through the model of personal and social responsibility (TPSR): A study of physical education in East Timor. International Journal of Sports Science, 9(1), 8–16.

Camerino

Valero-Valenzuela

Prat

Manzano Sánchez

Castañer

(2019). Optimizing education: A mixed methods approach oriented to teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR). Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1439. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01439

10.

Carreres-Ponsoda

Escartí

Jimenez-Olmedo

J. M.

Cortell-Tormo

J. M.

(2021). Effects of a teaching personal and social responsibility model intervention in competitive youth sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 624018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624018

11.

Cecchini

J. A.

Montero

Alonso

Izquierdo

Contreras

(2007). Effects of personal and social responsibility on fair play in sports and self-control in school-aged youths. European Journal of Sport Science, 7(4), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390701718497

12.

Coakley

(2011). Youth sports: What counts as “positive development?”. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 35(3), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723511417311

13.

Cothran

D. J.

Kulinna

P. H.

Garrahy

D. A.

(2009). Attributions for and consequences of student misbehavior. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980701712148

14.

Cryan

Martinek

(2017). Youth sport development through soccer: An evaluation of an after-school program using the TPSR model. Physics Education, 74(1), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.18666/tpe-2017-v74-i1-6901

15.

De Caroli

M. E.

Sagone

. (2014). Mechanisms of moral disengagement: An analysis from early adolescence to youth. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 312–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.426

16.

Dyson

Howley

Wright

P. M.

(2021). A scoping review critically examining research connecting social and emotional learning with three model-based practices in physical education: Have we been doing this all along? European Physical Education Review, 27(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x20923710

17.

Ellison

D. W.

Walton-Fisette

J. L.

Eckert

(2019). Utilizing the teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR) model as a trauma-informed practice (TIP) tool in physical education. Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance, 90(9), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2019.1657531

18.

Fernandez-Rio

(2014). Another step in models-based practice: Hybridizing cooperative learning and teaching for personal and social responsibility. Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance, 85(7), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2014.937158

19.

Feuerborn

Chinn

(2012). Teacher perceptions of student needs and implications for positive behavior supports. Behavioral Disorders, 37(4), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203700403

20.

Fraser-Thomas

J. L.

Côté

Deakin

(2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898042000334890

21.

García-Castejón

Camerino

Castañer

Manzano-Sánchez

Jiménez-Parra

J. F.

Valero-Valenzuela

(2021). Implementation of a hybrid educational program between the model of personal and social responsibility (TPSR) and the teaching games for understanding (TGfU) in physical education and its effects on health: An approach based on mixed methods. Children, 8(7), 573. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8070573

22.

Gini

Pozzoli

Hymel

(2014). Moral disengagement among children and youth: A meta-analytic review of links to aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 40(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21502

23.

Gordon

(2010). An examination of the responsibility model in a New Zealand secondary school physical education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.29.1.21

24.

Gordon

Beaudoin

(2020). Expanding the boundaries of TPSR and empowering others to make their own contributions. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 39(3), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2019-0228

25.

Gordon

Jacobs

J. M.

Wright

P. M.

(2016). Social and emotional learning through a teaching personal and social responsibility based after-school program for disengaged middle-school boys. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35(4), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0106

26.

Hayden

L. A.

(2012). Developing responsibility using physical activity: A case study of team support. Agora Para la Educación Física y el Deporte, 14(2), 264–281.

27.

Hellion

Walsh

(2002). Responsibility-based youth programs evaluation: Investigating the investigations. Quest, 54(4), 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2002.10491780

28.

Hellison

(2003a). Teaching personal and social responsibility. In Silverman

Ennis

(Eds.), Student learning in physical education (pp. 269–286). Human Kinetics.

29.

Hellison

(2003b). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Human Kinetics.

30.

Hellison

(2011). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Human Kinetics.

31.

Hellison

Martinek

(2006). Social and individual responsibility programs. In Kirk

Macdonald

O’Sullivan

(Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 610–626). SAGE.

32.

Hsu

W. T.

(2017). The analysis of promoting positive youth development in physical education. Physical Education Journal, 50, 239–256. https://doi.org/10.3966/102472972017095003001

33.

Hsu

W. T.

Pan

Y. H.

(2018). Moral disengagement and student misbehavior in physical education. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 17(3), 437–444.

34.

Hsu

W. T.

Pan

Y. H.

Chou

H. S.

Lee

W. P.

F. J. H.

(2014). Measuring students’ responsibility in physical education instrument development and validation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 45(5), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/t40996-000

35.

Hsu

W.-T.

Shang

I. W.

Hsiao

C. H.

(2021). Perceived teachers’ autonomy support, positive behaviour, and misbehaviour in physical education: The roles of advantageous comparison and non-responsibility. European Physical Education Review, 27(3), 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x20971332

36.

Hyde

L. W.

Shaw

D. S.

Moilanen

K. L.

(2010). Developmental precursors of moral disengagement and the role of moral disengagement in the development of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9358-5

37.

Kavussanu

(2008). Moral behaviour in sport: A critical review of the literature. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(2), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509840802277417

38.

Krech

P. R.

Kulinna

P. H.

Cothran

(2010). Development of a short-form version of the physical education classroom instrument: Measuring secondary pupils’ disruptive behaviours. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(3), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980903150121

39.

Kulinna

P. H.

Cothran

D. J.

Regualos

(2006). Teachers’ reports of student misbehavior in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(1), 32–40. H

40.

Martinek

Hellison

(2016). Teaching personal and social responsibility: Past, present and future. Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance, 87(5), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2016.1157382

41.

McAlister

A. L.

Bandura

Owen

S. V.

(2006). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in support of military force: The impact of Sept. 11. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.2.141

42.

Pan

Chen

C. S.

Hsu

W. T.

(2019). Measuring students’ moral disengagement in physical education. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 50(3), 272–293.

43.

Pan

Y. H.

Huang

C. H.

Lee

I. S.

Hsu

W. T.

(2019). Comparison of learning effects of merging TPSR respectively with sport education and traditional teaching model in high school physical education classes. Sustainability, 11(7), 2057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072057

44.

Pan

Y. H.

Keh

N. C.

(2014). Teaching responsibility through physical education: Research and applications in Taiwan. Japanese Journal of Sport Education Studies, 34(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.7219/jjses.34.1_63

45.

Pozo

Grao-Cruces

Pérez-Ordás

(2018). Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 24(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x16664749

46.

Richards

K. A. R.

Ivy

V. N.

Wright

P. M.

Jerris

(2019). Combining the skill themes approach with teaching personal and social responsibility to teach social and emotional learning in elementary physical education. Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance, 90(3), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2018.1559665

47.

Richards

K. A. R.

Shiver

V. N.

(2020). “What’s worth doing?”: A qualitative historical analysis of the TPSR model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 39(3), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2019-0215

48.

Selickaitė

Hutzler

Pukėnas

Block

M. E.

Rėklaitienė

(2019). The analysis of the structure, validity, and reliability of an inclusive physical education self-efficacy instrument for lithuanian physical education teachers. Sage Open, 9(2), 215824401985247. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019852473

49.

SHAPE America. (2013). National standards for K-12 physical education. SHAPE America – Society of Health and Physical Educators.

50.

Turnnidge

Côté

Hancock

D. J.

(2014). Positive youth development from sport to life: Explicit or implicit transfer? Quest, 66(2), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.867275

51.

Wahl-Alexander

Jacobs

J. M.

Mack

(2019). Lessons learned from the field: Teaching in high-risk physical education environments. Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance, 90(5), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2019.1580638

52.

Whitley

M. A.

Gould

(2011). Psychosocial development in refugee children and youth through the personal–social responsibility model. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 1(3), 118–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2010.534546

53.

Wright

P. M.

Burton

(2008). Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility-based physical activity program integrated into an intact high school physical education class. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(2), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.27.2.138

54.

Hsu

Chen

Shang

(2016). Verification of reliability and validity of the Chinese version physical education classroom instrument in junior high schools. Journal of Taiwan Sport Pedagogy, 11(1), 1–14.

The Influence of Integrating Moral Disengagement Minimization Strategies into Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility on Student Positive and Misbehaviors in Physical Education

Abstract

Keywords

The Role of the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Model

Moral Disengagement in Physical Education

The Present Study

Methods

Research Setting

Participants

Procedures

Measures

Positive behaviors in PE

Misbehaviors in PE

Fidelity of Implementation

Data Analysis

Results

The Effects on Student Positive Behaviors

The Effects on Students’ Misbehavior

Discussion

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References