This article was downloaded by:[Nicaise, Virginie][Nicaise, Virginie]

On: 2 May 2007Access Details: [subscription number 778081104]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports SciencesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721847

Girls' and boys' perceptions of physical educationteachers' feedback: Effects on performance andpsychological responses

To cite this Article: , 'Girls' and boys' perceptions of physical education teachers'feedback: Effects on performance and psychological responses', Journal of SportsSciences, 25:8, 915 - 926To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/02640410600898095URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410600898095

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

© Taylor and Francis 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

Girls’ and boys’ perceptions of physical education teachers’ feedback:Effects on performance and psychological responses

VIRGINIE NICAISE1, JULIEN E. BOIS2, STUART J. FAIRCLOUGH3,

ANTHONY J. AMOROSE4, & GENEVIEVE COGERINO1

1University of Lyon, France, 2University of Pau, France, 3Liverpool John Moores University, UK and 4Illinois State

University, USA

(Accepted 6 July 2006)

AbstractIn this study, we examined the perceptions of physical education (PE) teachers’ feedback patterns with female and male highschool students (n¼ 325). Eight physical education teachers (4 females and 4 males) were involved. We examined(a) whether teachers’ feedback was perceived differently by boys and girls, and how the sex of the teacher influenced theseperceptions, and (b) the effects of types of feedback (praise, no response-successful, encouragement, technical information,criticism, no response-unsuccessful, and teacher’s invested time) on students’ perceived competence, effort, enjoyment, andtheir PE performance. A multivariate analysis revealed an interaction between teacher and student gender on perceptions ofteacher feedback. Hierarchical regression analyses highlighted that the perceived feedback significantly predicted students’perceptions of competence (DR2¼ 0.088), effort (DR2¼ 0.119), enjoyment (DR2¼ 0.085), and their PE performance(DR2¼ 0.039) after accounting for the gender of the students and teachers and the students’ initial PE performance. Theperceptions of praise and teachers’ invested time were positively linked with the dependent variables, whereasencouragement and technical information and criticism were negatively linked. The findings are discussed in terms ofteaching effectiveness and gender equity.

Keywords: Perceived feedback, competence, effort, enjoyment, gender

Introduction

Students are more likely to engage in physical activity

both in and out of school if they adopt positive

attitudes towards physical education (PE) lessons.

Luke and Sinclair (1991) identified teachers’ beha-

viours as the most important determinant of stu-

dents’ attitudes towards PE. Teachers play many

important roles in facilitating students’ learning, one

of which is to observe student progress and provide

appropriate feedback, which should lead to improved

motor performance and enhanced cognitive learning.

However, it has been suggested that the quality and

type of feedback often differ depending on the

students’ gender, with boys typically involved in

more teacher interactions than girls (Sadker &

Sadker, 1994). Drudy and Ui Chathain (2002),

who analysed 136 classes in modern languages,

maths/science, and humanities, found that boys

experienced more interactions, praise, and criticism

than girls. Furthermore, it has been claimed that PE

is the second most gender-biased subject in K-12

schools (after mathematics; Sadker & Sadker, 1994),

as PE teachers tend to interact verbally and non-

verbally more frequently with boys than girls (for

reviews, see Dunbar & O’Sullivan, 1986; Griffin,

1981; MacDonald, 1990; Mitchell, Bunker, Kluka, &

Sullivan, 1995; Napper-Owen, Kovar, Ermler, &

Mehrhof, 1999; see also Davis, 2003).

Although some researchers have found little evi-

dence that the gender of students affects teacher

feedback during PE (e.g. McBride, 1990), the

majority have reported that most teachers favour

boys in their feedback interactions. Spender (1982)

found that schoolboys received a greater proportion

of the teacher’s time and attention than did girls in

the same class. Recently, researchers have continued

to support these conclusions (Francis, 2000;

Warrington & Younger, 2000). Teachers’ observa-

tion and presence during students’ practice in PE

Correspondence: V. Nicaise, Centre of Research and Innovation in Sport, EA 647 UCBL Lyon 1, Batiment R. Dubois, 8 rue R. Dubois, 69622 Villeurbanne,

France. E-mail: virginienicaise@yahoo.fr

Journal of Sports Sciences, June 2007; 25(8): 915 – 926

ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online � 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02640410600898095

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

lessons is an important part of the communication

process. Little is known about the time teachers

devote to girls and boys and its effect on student

motivation in PE settings.

Some researchers also maintain that teachers’

gender is a significant variable within the hidden

curriculum, which gives rise to differential teaching

behaviours and interaction patterns (Bain, 1985;

Brophy, 1985; Good, Sikes, & Brophy, 1973; Hopf &

Hatzichristou, 1999). These factors affect the man-

ner in which teaching and learning processes are

socially constructed and beliefs and attitudes towards

boys and girls are perpetuated through the trans-

mission of the formed curriculum. For example,

American female high school teachers were found to

direct significantly more praise, acceptance, reme-

diation, and criticism towards boys than girls

(Omvig, 1989). Moreover, in elementary (Weiller

& Doyle, 2000) and high school PE contexts (Davis,

2000), male teachers were observed to pay more

attention to girls while female teachers consistently

paid more attention to boys. In essence, though the

available evidence appears to corroborate gender

differences in teachers’ behaviours, the direction of

these differences is uncertain.

Most of the evidence suggesting that teachers treat

boys and girls differently comes from observational

research. Less is known about how students perceive

teacher feedback, and whether boys and girls think

their teachers provide different types and quantity of

feedback. Most social cognitive models describing

the influence of significant others argue that the

effects of feedback are dependent on how the person

receiving the information perceives it, rather than

what is said from an objective standpoint (Eccles,

Freedman-Doan, Frome, Jacobs, & Yoon, 2000;

Harter, 1998; Roberts, 2001; Shrauger &

Schoeneman, 1979). For example, Smoll and

Smith’s (1989) cognitive-mediational model pro-

poses that the effects of coaches’ behaviours on their

athletes are mediated by the meaning that the

athletes attribute to those coaching behaviours.

Students’ perceptions of instruction serve as mediat-

ing links between teachers’ behaviour and student

learning and performance in PE contexts (Doyle,

1977; Lee, Keh, & Magill, 1993).

Furthermore, there is not always congruence

between what a teacher actually says and how

different students perceive and interpret the informa-

tion. Martinek (1988), for example, conducted

student interviews to determine whether their per-

ceptions of teachers’ feedback were consistent with

coded dyadic interaction. Results showed differences

between observed and perceived teacher praise,

corrective skill feedback, and corrective behaviour

feedback. Although there are clearly cases in which

students and teachers have similar perceptions

(Tjeerdsma, 1997), focusing on the students’

thoughts and feelings may enhance our understand-

ing of the teaching – learning process and how

various instructional behaviours, such as feedback,

affect students’ achievement-related outcomes

(Lee & Solmon, 1992).

Thus, examining how students perceive their

teachers’ behaviour is of critical importance and is

therefore one of the primary aims of this study.

However, assessing students’ perceptions represents

a methodological challenge as no specific instrument

has been developed to handle this task. Nevertheless,

Nicaise, Cogerino, Bois and Amorose (2006) re-

cently proposed an instrument to examine French-

speaking students’ perceptions of teacher’s feedback

based on the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire

(CFQ; Amorose & Horn, 2000). The Perceived

Teacher Feedback Questionnaire (PTFQ) assesses

students’ perceptions of the type of feedback their PE

teachers give in response to their performance

successes (praise and no-response) and failures

(encouragement, technical information, criticism,

and no-response). The PTFQ provides a very

specific measure of teaching behaviours with regard

to feedback patterns, and can test for gender effects

on perceived teacher feedback.

In classroom and PE settings, significant associa-

tions between perceived feedback (positive general

and specific feedback, as well as knowledge of

performance) and perceived competence, effort,

enjoyment, and performance have been reported

(Koka & Hein, 2003; Schunk, 1982, 1989).

Silverman, Tyson and Krampitz (1992) reported a

significant and positive relationship between feed-

back and skill performance, though the variance

predicted was very small. Considerable evidence for

these links is found in the sport domain where

coaches’ feedback patterns are associated with

athletes’ psychological responses (see Horn, 2002).

For instance, Smith and colleagues (Smith, Smoll, &

Curtis, 1979; Smith, Smoll, & Hunt, 1977) found

that high frequencies of technical information,

praise, and mistake-contingent encouraging beha-

viours were effective in facilitating positive athlete

attitudes and self-esteem in male Little League

athletes. Similar results have been reported else-

where (e.g. Allen & Howe, 1998; Amorose & Horn,

2000; Black & Weiss, 1992), although the key is not

just the frequency of the feedback but also whether

the feedback is appropriate to the athletes’ perfor-

mance (see Horn, 1985).

The type of feedback teachers provide can also have

a significant impact on students’ intrinsic motivation

(Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985). Amorose and Horn

(2000) explained that high frequencies of training and

instruction, positive and informational feedback, and

low frequencies of punishment-oriented feedback

916 V. Nicaise et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

and ignoring behaviours would lead to more positive

perceptions of competence, which, in turn, would

facilitate intrinsic motivation.

In PE, boys scored higher than girls on perceived

competence and enjoyment (Carroll & Loumidis,

2001). Research and theory indicate that enjoyment

and perceived competence are related to the amount

of effort exhibited (Williams & Gill, 1995). For

example, McKiddie and Maynard (1997) reported

that children’s (years 7 and 10) physical competence

was ascertained through teachers’ evaluations.

However, throughout the adolescent years there is

an increase in the extent to which individuals’

evaluations of themselves across the different social

contexts (e.g. with friends, parents, close friends,

peers, as a student, as an athlete) show differentia-

tion. Therefore, children who enjoy PE and perceive

themselves to be competent are more likely to show a

preference for participating at a level which demands

a certain amount of physical exertion and so exhibit

effort.

The first purpose of this study was to assess the

effects of student and teacher gender on physical

education students’ perceptions of their teachers’

feedback and invested time. We hypothesized that

boys would perceive that they received more feed-

back and were ignored less than girls, and that boys

would perceive that PE teachers spend more time

interacting with them. Regarding the second hypoth-

esis on the existence of gender differences in

teachers’ behaviour, no a priori hypothesis was

proposed because of the inconsistency of previous

findings.

The second purpose was to determine whether PE

students’ perceptions of their teachers’ feedback and

time were related to students’ performance and

psychosocial growth. We hypothesized that praise,

encouragement, technical information, and invested

time would be positively related to students’ per-

ceived competence, effort, enjoyment, and perfor-

mance. Otherwise, we expected that criticism and

no-response on the part of the teacher would be

negatively associated with these self-perceptions.

Methods

Participants and setting

Three-hundred and twenty-five tenth-grade students

(122 boys and 203 girls) with a mean age of 16 years

(s¼ 0.55) who were taught PE in mixed-gender

classes participated in the study. In France, physical

education classes are compulsory and typically co-

educational. The students were recruited from two

different high schools from two French cities, each

with a population of 20,000 to 40,000 inhabitants.

The sample consisted primarily of Caucasian French

middle- to upper-class families. Permission to con-

duct the study was obtained from the university’s

institutional review board, the school director, and

teachers. The students and parents were asked to

provide written informed consent before participat-

ing in the study. The procedures followed were in

accordance with the ethical standards of the com-

mittee and all necessary consent was obtained.

Procedures

Questionnaires were administered in 14 classes

taught by a total of eight PE teachers (4 men and

4 women). The questionnaires took approximately

10 – 15 min to complete. At the beginning of a PE

lesson in the gymnasium, the teacher was asked to

leave the area while the students answered the

questions. Students were assured that their answers

would remain confidential and their teacher would

not see their answers. The researcher answered any

questions from the students and collected the surveys

once they had been completed. Questionnaire data

were collected on one occasion during February

2005, though two separate measures of PE perfor-

mance were obtained in November 2004 and June

2005.

Measures

Demographic information. Participants were asked to

indicate their age, gender, and PE class.

Perceived Teaching Feedback Questionnaire. The stu-

dents’ perceptions regarding the type of teacher

feedback received during PE lessons were measured

by the PTFQ (Nicaise et al., 2006), which is a

modified version of the Coaching Feedback

Questionnaire (Amorose & Horn, 2000) based on

the original Coaching Behaviour Assessment System

(CBAS) (Smith et al., 1977). The CFQ includes

eight different types of feedback responses. These

eight categories included three that are given by

coaches in response to players’ performance suc-

cesses (praise/reinforcement, non-reinforcement, re-

inforcement combined with technical instruction)

and five that are given in response to players’ per-

formance errors (mistake-contingent encourage-

ment, ignoring mistakes, corrective instruction,

punishment, and corrective instruction combined

with punishment). The PTFQ asked respondents

to indicate how frequently their high school PE

teacher reacts to their performance attempts with one

of 12 specific types of feedback. Five of the categories

represent behavioural responses to students’ good

performances or efforts (praise only, praise com-

bined with technical information, non-verbal

praise, no response-successful, and student-initiated

Students’ perceptions of classroom interactions 917

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

communication-success). The other seven categories

represent behavioural responses to poor perfor-

mances or errors (encouragement only, technical

information only, criticism only, criticism combined

with corrective information, non-verbal criticism, no

response-unsuccessful, and student-initiated com-

munication-unsuccessful). For each item, students

were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale

(ranging from ‘‘not at all typical’’ to ‘‘very typical’’)

how typical it was for their teacher to give them that

particular type of feedback during PE lessons.

In all, 12 perceived teacher feedback categories are

included in the PTFQ, each of which is represented

by three items. The response to each of the 36 items

was rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from

(1) ‘‘never’’ to (7) ‘‘always’’, reflecting the perceived

frequency of teacher feedback. The PTFQ demon-

strated acceptable reliability and validity (except no-

response unsuccessful, a¼ 0.60) in a previous study

with French students (Nicaise et al., 2006). We chose

not to take into account whether students often

initiate communication with their PE teachers, so

that we could focus specifically on students’ percep-

tions of teachers’ invested time.

Students’ perception of teachers’ invested time. To assess

students’ perceptions of how much time PE teachers

spent with them during lessons, the students com-

pleted four items. Two items represented the fre-

quency with which teachers came to see the students:

(1) Does your teacher come to see you during PE

lessons? (2) Does your teacher move to talk with you

during PE lessons? Two further items assessed

teachers’ invested time during interactions: (1) Does

your teacher take his or her time when he or she comes

to see you? (2) Does your teacher spend time when he

or she moves to talk with you? Respondents were

asked to rate these items on a 7-point Likert scale

ranging from ‘‘never’’ to ‘‘always’’.

Perceived competence, effort-importance, and interest-

enjoyment. A nine-item questionnaire consisting of

the perceived competence, effort-importance,

and interest-enjoyment subscales of the Intrinsic

Motivation Inventory (IMI; McAuley, Duncan, &

Tammen, 1989) was adapted for use in the school

setting. Three items from each subscale were

reworded to reflect students’ general level of

PE perceived competence, effort-importance, and

interest-enjoyment without reference to any particu-

lar PE activity. Items were then translated into

French. The students were told that the question-

naire was designed to measure ‘‘how they felt’’ about

the PE lessons [e.g. ‘‘I think I am pretty good in

physical education’’ (physical competence); ‘‘I put a

lot of effort into physical education lessons’’ (effort);

‘‘I enjoy physical education lessons very much’’

(enjoyment)]. Responses on the 7-point Likert scale

ranged from 1 (‘‘strongly disagree’’) to 7 (‘‘strongly

agree’’). Negatively worded items were rescaled

before data analysis. Internal consistency estimates

from the present study showed these three subscales

had good reliability (physical competence, a¼ 0.86;

effort, a¼ 0.78; enjoyment, a¼ 0.84).

Physical education performance. An estimate of each

student’s physical education performance was

necessary to control statistically for the influence

that initial ability might have on that student’s

self-perceptions of competence, effort, enjoyment,

and thus final PE performance. Students’ PE abilities

were rated by their PE teachers on a scale of 0 to

20 points. Teachers based their evaluations on the

students’ physical abilities and cognitive engagement

during lessons. Specifically, the teacher’s evaluation

consisted of both test performances and their

judgement of each student’s participation (e.g.

physical investment and improvement) during PE

classes. Although we acknowledge the potential

biases involved in teacher ratings of performance,

Trouilloud, Sarrazin, Martinek and Guillet

(2002) reported a correlation of 0.65 between

students’ performances during physical tests and

the final evaluation of their PE teachers. These

data were collected in November 2004 (initial

PE performance) and June 2005 (final PE

performance).

Data analysis

Before testing, a principal components analysis was

conducted to test for the construct validity of the

PTFQ variables. Descriptive statistics among all

study variables were then examined. Once the factor

structure was supported, the second step involved

testing the two main aims of the study. Potential

differences in student’s and teacher’s gender were

explored using multivariate analysis of covariance

(MANCOVA). A 26 2 (student’s gender6 tea-

cher’s gender) MANCOVA was conducted to

explore gender differences of students’ perceptions

of teacher feedback, and how teacher gender

moderated these differences. Furthermore, gender

differences in IMI variables were explored using a

separate MANCOVA. All analyses were performed

with initial PE performance as a covariate to inves-

tigate gender differences independently of children’s

physical ability. We also tested for gender differences

in initial PE performance using an analysis of

variance (ANOVA). Finally, four hierarchical regres-

sion analyses were conducted to test the hypothe-

sized relationship between the PTFQ variables and

students’ perceived competence, effort and enjoy-

ment, and performance.

918 V. Nicaise et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

Results

Preliminary analyses

Factor analysis of the Perceived Teacher Feedback

Questionnaire. A varimax principal-components ex-

ploratory factor analysis extracted eight factors,

explaining 64% of the variance and indicating that

the 40 items (36 measuring PTFQ and 4 measuring

students’ perceptions of teachers’ invested time)

could be reduced to a more parsimonious

number of categories (see Table I): (1) praise

(a¼ 0.83), (2) no response-successful (a¼ 0.71),

and (3) student-initiated communication-success

(a¼ 0.84) in response to their good performances;

(4) criticism (a¼ 0.81), (5) mistake-contingent en-

couragement and technical information (a¼ 0.83),

(6) no response-unsuccessful (a¼ 0.67), and (7)

student-initiated unsuccessful (a¼ 0.89) in response

to their poor performances. The no response-

unsuccessful category (‘‘Your teacher ignores your

good performance or play’’) was slightly below the

acceptable level of internal consistency (a4 0.70;

Cronbach, 1951); however, it was retained given the

potential importance of this type of feedback and that

Table I. Factor structure of the Perceived Teacher Feedback Questionnaire (PTFQ).

Factor loading

Feedback categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Praise 1 0.74

Praise 2 0.75

Praise 3 0.78

Praise combined with technical information 1 0.57

Praise combined with technical information 2 0.65

Praise combined with technical information 3 0.70

Non-verbal praise 1 0.56

Non-verbal praise 2 0.45 0.42

Non-verbal praise 3 0.42

No response-successful 1 70.53

No response-successful 2 70.60

No response-successful 3 70.65

Student-initiated communication 1 0.70

Student-initiated communication 2 0.68

Student-initiated communication 3 0.65

Technical information 1 0.67

Technical information 2 0.70

Technical information 3 0.74

Encouragement 1 0.42 0.40

Encouragement 2 0.53

Encouragement 3 0.55

Criticism 1 0.74

Criticism 2 0.75

Criticism 3 0.65

Non-verbal criticism 1 0.73

Non-verbal criticism 2 0.73

Non-verbal criticism 3 0.69

Criticism combined with corrective information 1 0.54

Criticism combined with corrective information 2 0.43 0.41

Criticism combined with corrective information 3 0.67

No response-unsuccessful 1 70.66

No response-unsuccessful 2 70.69

No response-unsuccessful 3 70.65

Student-initiated communication 1 0.85

Student-initiated communication 2 0.88

Student-initiated communication 3 0.83

Teacher’s invested time 1 0.70

Teacher’s invested time 2 0.74

Teacher’s invested time 3 0.76

Teacher’s invested time 4 0.77

Cronbach’s a 0.83 0.71 0.84 0.83 0.81 0.67 0.89 0.81

Eigenvalue 5.52 2.06 1.56 3.62 4.1 1.46 2.91 3.31

Percent variance explained 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.105 0.05 0.07 0.085

Note: Factor loadings below 0.40 were eliminated for simplicity.

Students’ perceptions of classroom interactions 919

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

other studies have retained measures with internal

consistency estimates above 0.60 (Amorose &

Horn, 2000). A part of the PTFQ was used.

Student-initiated communications in both contexts

(successful and unsuccessful) were not considered.

The four items relating to (8) students’ perceptions

of teachers’ invested time were combined with other

feedback categories, and constituted one unique

factor, which had an acceptable internal consistency

(a¼ 0.81).

The factor structure of the PTFQ in this study can

be questioned and compared with the factor struc-

ture found in Nicaise et al. (2006). The factor

structure in the study of Nicaise et al. (2006) was

slightly different to that reported here on two

accounts. Encouragement and technical information

categories following failures constituted two distinct

factors, whereas in the present study they loaded on a

unique factor. However, in PE lessons, these two

feedback categories could be formulated together by

the PE teacher. Moreover, this result is consistent

with Allen and Howe’s (1998) proposal to include a

category labelled ‘‘encouragement followed by cor-

rective information’’, in addition to the separate

encouragement and technical information feedback

categories. Secondly, the no-response unsuccessful

category almost demonstrated better internal con-

sistency (a¼ 0.67) than in the original study

(a¼ 0.60; Nicaise et al., 2006). These are the only

differences between the PTFQ in this study and the

original one.

Effects of student and teacher gender on the IMI variables

and PE initial performance. A MANCOVA revealed a

significant student gender effect on the IMI variables

(Wilks’ l¼ 0.95, F3,323¼ 5.81, P5 0.001). Com-

pared with girls, boys reported significantly higher

perceived competence (Mboys¼ 4.74 vs. Mgirls¼ 3.56;

effect size¼ 0.98; F1,324¼ 57.82, P5 0.001), effort

(Mboys¼ 4.71 vs. Mgirls¼ 4.11; effect size¼ 0.49;

F1,324¼ 15.19, P5 0.001), and enjoyment

(Mboys¼ 5.33 vs. Mgirls¼ 4.51; effect size¼ 0.58;

F1,324¼ 21.94, P5 0.001). The effect of teacher’s

gender and the interaction between the student’s

and teacher’s gender were both non-significant

(P4 0.05).

Finally, regarding initial PE performance, a 26 2

(student’s6 teacher’s gender) ANOVA revealed sig-

nificant student gender differences (F1,325¼ 55.39,

P5 0.001; Mboys¼ 14.08 vs. Mgirls¼ 12.20; effect

size¼ 0.58). However, the interaction effect between

student’s and teacher’s gender was also significant

(F1,325¼ 10.60, P5 0.001; Mboys¼ 15.29 vs. Mgirls¼11.95; female teachers vs. male teachers;

Mboys¼ 12.88 vs. Mgirls¼ 12.45). Gender differences

in student initial PE performance were significant for

both male and female teachers; however, the gap was

less important for male PE teachers. Regarding PE

performance, a 26 2 (student’s6 teacher’s gender)

ANOVA revealed a significant difference for student’s

gender differences only (F1,325¼ 37.2, P5 0.001;

Mboys¼ 13.73 vs. Mgirls¼ 12.35; effect size¼ 0.37).

The interaction effect between student’s and

teacher’s gender was not significant (F1,325¼ 0.150,

P4 0.05).

Main analyses

Effects of student’s and teacher’s gender on teachers’

perceived feedback. A MANCOVA revealed a signi-

ficant student gender effect on the PTFQ variables

(Wilks’ l¼ 0.83, F6,320¼ 5.76, P5 0.001). Univari-

ate F values (see Table II) indicated that girls

perceived a higher frequency of encouragement

and technical information following errors (effect

size¼ 0.25), while boys reported a higher frequency

of criticism (effect size¼ 0.17) and that their teachers

were more likely to ignore their errors (effect

size¼ 0.30) (see Table III). No significant difference

was found between teacher gender and any of the

PTFQ variables (Wilks’ l¼ 0.99, F6,320¼ 0.35,

P4 0.05). Superseding the student gender main

effect was a significant student6 teacher gender inter-

action (Wilks’ l¼ 0.97, F6,320¼ 2.51, P5 0.05). The

interaction related to praise feedback (Mboys¼ 3.60 vs.

Mgirls¼ 2.70; female teachers vs. male teachers;

Mboys¼ 3.49 vs. Mgirls¼ 3.45) and teachers’ invested

time (Mboys¼ 3.54 vs. Mgirls¼ 3.05; female teachers

vs. male teachers; Mboys¼ 3.40 vs. Mgirls¼ 3.35).

Specifically, when girls demonstrated good play or

effort, they felt that they received less praise than

boys from female PE teachers. Moreover, boys

perceived that female PE teachers invested more

time with them than male teachers did, though we

observed no student gender difference with male

teachers.

Table II. Follow-up univariate analysis of covariance for perceived

teacher feedback differences (F-statistics).

Principal effectsInteraction effect

Teacher’s

feedback

Student’s

gender

Teacher’s

gender

Student’s6 teacher’s

gender

Praise 0.87 0.39 7.12**

No response-

successful

0.23 0.18 2.02

Encouragement

and technical

information

3.09* 0.22 2.47 (P50.10)

Criticism 10.13** 0.04 0.01

No response-

unsuccessful

8.64** 0.24 1.63

Invested time 0.31 0.83 3.40*

*P5 0.05; **P5 0.01; ***P50.001.

920 V. Nicaise et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

Regression analyses predicting perceived competence,

effort, enjoyment, and PE final performance. The

second aim was to examine whether students’

perceptions of feedback and teachers’ invested time

were predictive of students’ perceived competence,

effort, enjoyment, and subsequent PE performance

(Table IV). Students’ gender, PE final performance,

and teacher gender were entered in the first step of

the hierarchical regression. Students’ perceptions of

feedback and invested time were added in step 2.

Perceived competence, effort, enjoyment, and PE

final performance were all examined in separate

hierarchical regression analyses.

Students’ initial PE performance explained some

of the variance in each of four regression analyses:

perceived physical competence (DR2¼ 0.22), effort

(DR2¼ 0.06), enjoyment (DR2¼ 0.10), and final PE

performance (DR2¼ 0.19). Concerning perceived

competence, the step 1 variables predicted 28.2%

of the variance. The amount of variance explained by

students’ perceptions of teacher feedback (step 2

variables) was 8.8%. Teacher’s invested time

(b¼ 0.26), praise (b¼ 0.19), and encouragement

and technical information (b¼70.18) were each

significant predictors of perceived competence.

Concerning effort, 6.5% of the variance was

Table IV. Summary of results from the regression analysis for the standardized variables predicting self-perceptions of competence, effort,

enjoyment, and performance (n¼325).

Physical competence

(F9,316¼ 20.46,

R2¼ 0.37,

P50.001)

Effort

(F9,316¼7.87,

R2¼0.185,

P5 0.001)

Enjoyment

(F9,316¼ 8.29,

R2¼ 0.195,

P50.001)

PE final performance

(F9,316¼ 12.41,

R2¼ 0.27,

P5 0.001)

Independent variable b P 5 R2 b P 5 R2 b P 5 R2 b P 5 R2

Step 1

Student’s gender 70.25 0.01 0.06 70.08 0.13 0.005 70.12 0.03 0.008 70.22 0.001 0.04

Teacher’s gender 70.01 0.70 0.002 0.01 0.81 0.000 0.007 0.88 0.001 70.03 0.45 0.001

PE initial performance 0.31 0.01 0.22 0.20 0.01 0.06 0.22 0.01 0.101 0.14 0.02 0.19

Step 2

Invested time 0.24 0.01 0.04 0.26 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.005 0.34 0.00 0.01

Praise 0.19 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.05 0.011 0.195 0.01 0.056 0.00 0.99 0.001

No response-successful 0.05 0.51 0.001 70.03 0.60 0.001 70.05 0.41 0.004 0.00 0.93 0.000

Encouragement and technical information 70.18 0.01 0.015 70.08 0.24 0.005 70.05 0.41 0.004 70.06 0.32 0.002

Criticism 70.06 0.15 0.007 70.02 0.59 0.002 70.12 0.02 0.013 0.10 0.04 0.019

No response-unsuccessful 0.00 0.98 0.005 0.00 0.96 0.000 70.07 0.16 0.003 0.07 0.16 0.007

Note: Student’s and teacher’s gender (male¼1, female¼2).

Table III. Means (standard deviations) for study variables by student’s and teacher’s gender.

Male students Female students

Male

teachers

(n¼109)

Female

teachers

(n¼78)

Combined

(n¼187)

Male

teachers

(n¼ 178)

Female

teachers

(n¼63)

Combined

(n¼ 241)

Teacher feedback

Praise 3.49 (1.31) 3.60 (1.60) 3.54 (1.45) 3.45 (1.49) 2.70 (1.35) 3.08 (1.42)

No response-successful 3.40 (1.34) 3.32 (1.69) 3.36 (1.51) 3.29 (1.48) 3.75 (1.74) 3.52 (1.62)

Encouragement and technical information 3.91 (1.25) 3.77 (1.44) 3.84 (1.34) 4.31 (1.35) 3.72 (1.50) 4.01 (1.42)

Criticism 3 (1.25) 2.88 (1.17) 2.94 (1.21) 2.74 (1.21) 2.79 (1.30) 2.60 (1.25)

No response-unsuccessful 2.93 (1.26) 3.17 (1.40) 3.05 (1.33) 2.51 (1.20) 3.11 (1.47) 2.81 (1.33)

Invested time 3.40 (1.34) 3.54 (1.35) 3.47 (1.34) 3.35 (1.12) 3.05 (1.34) 3.20 (1.23)

Self-perceptions

Perceived competence 4.76 (1.14) 4.72 (1.25) 4.73 (1.19) 3.78 (1.26) 3.35 (1.36) 3.56 (1.31)

Effort 4.58 (1.23) 4.84 (1.19) 4.71 (1.21) 4.34 (1.23) 3.88 (1.23) 4.11 (1.23)

Enjoyment 5.21 (1.27) 5.46 (1.31) 5.33 (1.29) 4.72 (1.56) 4.30 (1.55) 4.51 (1.55)

PE performance

Initial 12.88 (2.70) 15.29 (2.23) 14.08 (2.46) 12.45 (7.90) 11.95 (2.39) 12.20 (5.14)

Final 13.90 (2.30) 13.57 (2.27) 13.73 (2.28) 12.46 (7.33) 12.24 (2.18) 12.35 (4.75)

Students’ perceptions of classroom interactions 921

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

explained by step 1 variables, but feedback and

invested time variables accounted for 11.9%. Tea-

cher’s invested time (b¼ 0.20) and praise (b¼ 0.13)

were positively linked with self-perceptions of effort.

Concerning students’ enjoyment in PE classes, step

1 variables explained 11% of variance, compared to

only 8.5% predicted by step 2 factors. Praise

(b¼ 0.20) and criticism (b¼70.12) were the two

significant predictors of students’ enjoyment. Almost

a quarter of the variance in students’ final PE per-

formance was predicted by step 1 variables (23.1%),

while feedback and invested time only accounted for

3.9% of the variance. Finally, time invested

(b¼ 0.34) and criticism (b¼70.10) were linked

with final PE performance.

A canonical correlation analysis was also per-

formed and showed a moderate relationship between

predictor (perceived teacher feedback and invested

time) and criterion variables (perceived competence,

effort, enjoyment, and final PE performance):

Rcan¼ 0.42, w2¼ 109.92, P5 0.001. Detailed

results of the analysis can be obtained from the first

author.

Discussion

In this study, we aimed to: (a) investigate if gender

differences existed between students’ perceptions of

teachers’ feedback, and whether teachers’ gender

affected these perceptions; and (b) examine the

effects of perceptions of teachers’ feedback on

students’ perceived competence, effort, enjoyment,

and final PE performance. The results will be

discussed with regard to these two aims.

Effects of gender on perceived feedback

Based on previous observational research (Dunbar &

O’Sullivan, 1986; MacDonald, 1990), we expected

that boys would feel they received a higher frequency

of all forms of feedback and more of the teachers’

invested time than girls. This hypothesis was not fully

supported. The results demonstrated that girls

perceived a higher frequency of encouragement and

technical information and boys reported that their

teacher (male and female) criticized them more and

were more likely to ignore their errors. These results

concurred with previous findings using the PTFQ

(Nicaise et al., 2006). Data did not confirm that

teachers praised boys more for good performance

than girls (MacDonald, 1990). In relation to

the teachers’ perceived invested time, as boys recei-

ved more interactions and attention (Dunbar &

O’Sullivan, 1986; Sadker & Sadker, 1994) it was

expected that they would feel that their teachers spent

more time with them than with the girls. However,

the data did not confirm this hypothesis, supporting

McBride (1990) who reported little evidence of

gender typing of PE teachers’ feedback. Similarly,

in science classes Rickards (1998) found that girls

perceived greater helping behaviours and boys

perceived their teachers as being more uncertain

and dissatisfied.

Although our study cannot provide insight into the

relationship between students’ perceptions of teacher

feedback and teacher – student interactions in the

classroom, the results do provide interesting infor-

mation about how the various feedback forms are

used. One question that warrants further exploration

is why do girls believe that they receive more encour-

agement and technical information than boys in PE?

An explanation could be that female students may

require more help than male students. As a con-

sequence, teachers and students of both sexes might

view boys as being more capable in physical activity

contexts (Hutchinson, 1995). Support for this pers-

pective is provided by McBride (1990), who found

that physical educators expected better physical

performance from boys than from girls.

The findings suggest that boys felt they received

more criticism than girls, and that they were ignored

more often. First, the higher frequency of criticism-

related feedback could indicate that teachers were

also more likely to criticize the conduct of boys.

Second, it could signal to boys that their behaviour is

incorrect, without indicating what they should be

doing to correct it. Boys receive more precise

attention, both positive and negative. As a result,

girls are prone to become the invisible and losing

members of the classroom (Sadker, 2002). Although

disapproval contacts and/or criticism are perceived to

be negative, they are still a form of attention for boys

(Jones, 1989). Boys were usually dominant in their

verbal interactions with the teacher during PE, and

some of them became actively involved in class

discussions to get the teacher’s attention, which often

resulted in a negative response from the teacher. The

tendency for boys to create more noise and to

monopolize the teacher’s attention is well established

(Warrington & Younger, 2000). Moreover, the

teachers were less likely to direct negative responses

towards girls.

Boys also felt they were ignored following poor

performance. A possible explanation could be that as

boys are more interested in sport (Fairclough, 2003),

they expect more of the teacher’s attention than girls.

Alternatively, it could be that boys are not doing

enough to satisfy their teacher’s attention during PE.

Finally, it has been suggested that boys create con-

ditions (both positive and negative) to attract their

teacher’s attention. In doing so, they can experience

important learning experiences and gain confidence

from being listened to, thus stimulating them to

continue to participate (Howe, 1997).

922 V. Nicaise et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

Although a number of researchers have focused on

student gender, few have explored the impact of

teacher gender on students (Hopf & Hatzichristou,

1999). No simple effect between teacher gender on

students’ perceptions of teacher feedback was noted.

Nevertheless, female PE teachers were reported to

give more praise and spend more time with boys than

girls, while male teachers showed a tendency to treat

male and female students similarly. The greater

frequency of praise given to boys supports the find-

ings that boys are more congratulated than girls (for a

review, see Davis, 2003). Specific positive feedback

items included: ‘‘Good play!’’, ‘‘Excellent work

today!’’, and ‘‘That’s OK! Keep working at it’’.

These items reflect that the teacher valued their

work.

The fact that boys believed they received more

invested time from female teachers than girls

supports the theory that boys receive more attention

than girls during PE. One possible explanation for

this result is that most girls are less competent and

enjoy PE less than boys (Fairclough, 2003). Conse-

quently, female teachers may have greater difficulty

relating to girls during lessons, and as a result their

attention is directed more to boys, who are often

more active (Fairclough & Stratton, 2005) and

interested in PE. Similarly, boys’ initial PE perfor-

mance is significantly better than girls’ initial PE

performance with female teachers than with male

teachers. It may also be that boys’ contribution to PE

is more valued than that of girls and so female PE

teachers marginalize girls.

In summary, our results show that both the gender

of the student and of the teacher play an important

role in the communication process. It is important to

note, however, that these effects do not demonstrate

actual gender differences in teacher feedback.

Rather, the effects are limited to students’ percep-

tions of the feedback provided to them. Nevertheless,

these differences are significant, as ultimately the

students’ perceptions of the feedback should have the

greatest influence on their subsequent behaviour,

cognitions, and affective responses (Eccles et al.,

2000; Harter, 1998; Roberts, 2001; Smoll & Smith,

1989).

Predicting perceived competence, effort, enjoyment, and

performance

Students’ perceived competence, effort, enjoyment,

and PE final performance were higher when they

perceived that their teacher praised them more

following a good performance and also spent more

time with them. The students’ perceptions of teacher

feedback contributed modestly yet significantly to

the variance in perceived competence (8.8%),

effort (11.9%), enjoyment (8.5%), and PE final

performance (3.9%). Furthermore, students’ PE

initial performance explained 22%, 6%, 10%, and

19% of perceived physical competence, effort,

enjoyment, and PE final performance respectively.

In line with Allen and Howe’s (1998) results,

students’ skill and teachers’ feedback are the two

important predictors of athletes’ and students’ self-

perceptions.

Many sport researchers have consistently demon-

strated that coach feedback is an important source of

competence information (Allen & Howe, 1998;

Amorose & Horn, 2000). Specifically, these resear-

chers argued that positive information-based feed-

back given in response to students’ performances

resulted in increased perceptions of competence and

a corresponding increase in intrinsic motivation.

Similar to previous research (see Horn, 2002), praise

is positively linked with students’ self-perceptions

and performance, while criticism is negatively linked

with enjoyment and performance. In a physical

education setting, of the three perceived feedback

variables, positive general feedback was a significant

predictor for all observed dimensions of the IMI,

particularly perceived competence (Koka & Hein,

2003). The positive relationships between students’

perceptions of praise and teachers’ invested time with

perceived competence and effort are logical and

congruent with the hypotheses. Black and Weiss

(1992) found positive relationships between praise,

encouragement, and technical information versus

competence, effort, and enjoyment, although we

found a negative relationship between encourage-

ment and technical information versus physical

competence.

The inverse relationship between encouragement

and technical information versus perceived compe-

tence was contrary to the hypotheses and at first

glance appears counterintuitive. However, Allen and

Howe (1998) concluded that more frequent encour-

agement and technical information feedback beha-

viours for skill errors were related to lower

perceptions of competence. Teachers’ encourage-

ment and technical information in response to errors

is a form of helping behaviour, and so students who

receive a high frequency of help may feel they are

less able than others who require less help. In our

study, girls reported that they received a higher

perception of this feedback category than boys. By

providing frequent encouragement and technical

information to girls, teachers may transmit an

implicit message to the class about who is less

capable in PE.

However, the saliency of these particular coaching

behaviours can be explained with regard to their

contingency to athletes’ performance. The indices

of teaching behaviour used in this study only

measured the students’ perceptions of type of

Students’ perceptions of classroom interactions 923

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

exhibited feedback and did not assess its appropri-

ateness relative to the students’ quality of per-

formance. However, to adequately assess teaching

effectiveness, this dimension of instructional beha-

viour needs to be examined.

The study’s findings provide support for the conti-

nued inclusion of students’ perceptions of teacher

feedback in research examining gender differences

and the effects of teacher feedback on motivation and

performance. She and Fisher (2002) indicated that

between 8% and 17% of the variance in students’

attitudes towards science could be attributed to their

perceptions of their teachers’ communicating beha-

viour. However, the small amount of variance

explained by the feedback categories in the present

study suggest that other sources of information

should also be examined. For example, Horn and

Hasbrook (1986) observed that adolescents used

self-referenced sources or friends as the basis for

competence information. Including these other

important influences might help better explain

students’ psychological and behavioural responses.

Continued work on the measurement of perceived

teacher feedback is also necessary for this line of

research to move forward. The results of this study

provide validity support for the PTFQ in that the

relationships between the various feedback dimen-

sions and the students’ psychological responses were

generally in the expected direction. The factor

structure in this study, however, was slightly different

than that reported in Nicaise et al. (2006). Thus we

recommend that additional research be devoted to

testing the psychometric properties of this measure,

with particular emphasis on confirming the factor

structure across samples and across various groups of

students (e.g. males vs. females).

Although special attention was devoted to meth-

odological concerns in this study, the results remain

correlational in nature and causality cannot be

inferred. Only experimental studies can provide a

strong inference of causality because situational

variables are controlled for by such designs. While

efforts were made to control for additional influential

variables, particularly the students’ initial PE perfor-

mance and teacher gender, it is possible that other

relevant variables were omitted (Judd & McClelland,

1989).

Implications for practitioners and conclusions

These results demonstrate the value of students’

perceptions. However, there is insufficient evidence

to conclude that interacting more frequently or

differently with girls and boys significantly contri-

butes to their psychological responses to PE.

Cultural differences in how teachers interact with

students according to their gender and how those

interactions influence the students’ psychological

responses could exist. This might be an important

avenue for future research. Nevertheless, some

implications for PE programmes can be proposed.

If teachers wish to develop better attitudes among

girls towards PE, they should provide increased

praise for good play or effort, provide non-verbal

support, spend more time with the girls when pro-

viding feedback, and be empathetic to their needs.

The use of encouragement and technical information

may be problematic because it can have a negative

effect on competence perceptions. As the amount

of explained variance was weak, we suggest that

teachers should pay attention to how they phrase

their encouragement and technical information feed-

back to avoid reducing perceived competence.

References

Allen, J. B., & Howe, B. L. (1998). Player ability, coach feedback,

and female adolescent athletes’ perceived competence

and satisfaction. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20,

280 – 299.

Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation:

Relationships with collegiate athletes’ gender, scholarship

status, and perceptions of their coaches’ behaviour. Journal of

Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22, 63 – 84.

Bain, L. L. (1985). The hidden curriculum re-examined. Quest,

37, 145 – 153.

Black, S. J., & Weiss, M. R. (1992). The relationships among

perceived coaching behaviours, perceptions of ability, and

motivation in competitive age-group swimmers. Journal of Sport

and Exercise Psychology, 14, 309 – 325.

Brophy, J. (1985). Interactions of male and female students with

male and female teachers. In L. C. Wilkinson & C. B. Marrett

(Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 115 – 142).

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Carroll, B., & Loumidis, J. (2001). Children’s perceived com-

petence and enjoyment in physical education and physical

activity outside school. European Physical Education Review, 7,

24 – 43.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal struc-

ture of tests. Psychometrica, 16, 297 – 334.

Davis, K. L. (2000). Qualitative study of gender interactions

between teachers and students in selected high school physical

education classes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (04),

1338. (UMI #9969878).

Davis, K. L. (2003). Teaching for gender equity in physical

education: A review of literature. Women in Sport and Physical

Activity Journal, 12, 55 – 82.

Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigm for research on teacher effectiveness.

Review of Research on Teaching, 5, 163 – 198.

Drudy, S., & Ui Chathain, M. (2002). Gender effects in class-

room interaction: Data collection, self-analysis, and reflection.

Evaluation and Research in Education, 16, 34 – 50.

Dunbar, R., & O’Sullivan, M. (1986). Effects of intervention on

differential treatment of boys and girls in elementary physical

education lessons. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5,

166 – 175.

Eccles, J. S., Freedman-Doan, C., Frome, P., Jacobs, J., &

Yoon, K. S. (2000). Gender role socialization in the family:

A longitudinal approach. In T. Eckes & H. Trautner (Eds.),

The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 333 – 360).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

924 V. Nicaise et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

Fairclough, S. J. (2003). Physical activity, perceived competence

and enjoyment during high school physical education. European

Journal of Physical Education, 8, 5 – 18.

Fairclough, S. J., & Stratton, G. (2005). Physical activity levels in

middle and high school physical education: A review. Pediatric

Exercise Science, 17, 217 – 236.

Francis, B. (2000). Boys, girls and achievement: Addressing the

classroom issues. London: Routledge.

Good, T., Sikes, J. N., & Brophy, J. E. (1973). Effects of teacher

sex and student sex on classroom interaction. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 65, 74 – 87.

Griffin, P. (1981). One small step for personkind: Observations

and suggestions for sex equality in coeducational physical

education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1,

7 – 12.

Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations.

In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.

Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 553 – 618).

New York: Wiley.

Hopf, D., & Hatzichristou, C. (1999). Teacher gender-related

influences in Greek schools. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 69, 1 – 18.

Horn, T. S. (1985). Coaches’ feedback and changes in children’s

perceptions of their physical competence. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 77, I74 – 186.

Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain.

In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology

(pp. 309 – 354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Horn, T. S., & Hasbrook, C. A. (1986). Informational compo-

nents influencing children’s perceptions of their physical

competence. In M. R. Weiss & D. Gould (Eds.), Proceedings

of the 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress: Sport for children and

youths (pp. 81 – 88). Champaign. IL: Human Kinetics.

Howe, C. (1997). Gender and classroom interaction. Edinburgh: The

Scottish Council for Research in Education.

Hutchinson, G. E. (1995). Gender-fair teaching in physical

education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,

66, 42 – 47.

Jones, M. G. (1989). Gender issues in teacher education. Journal

of Teacher Education, 40, 33 – 38.

Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis model

comparison approach. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Koka, A., & Hein, V. (2003). Perceptions of teachers’ feedback

and learning environment as predictors of intrinsic motivation

in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4,

333 – 346.

Lee, A. M., & Solmon, M. A. (1992). Cognitive con-

ceptions of teaching and learning motor skills. Quest, 44,

57 – 71.

Lee, A. M., Keh, N. C., & Magill, R. A. (1993). Instructional

effects of teacher feedback in physical education. Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 228 – 243.

Luke, M. D., & Sinclair, G. D. (1991). Gender differences in

adolescents’ attitudes toward physical education. Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 31 – 46.

MacDonald, D. (1990). The relationship between the sex

composition of physical education classes and teacher – pupil

verbal interaction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9,

152 – 163.

Martinek, T. J. (1988). Confirmation of a teacher expectancy

model: Student perceptions and causal attributions of teaching

behaviours. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59,

118 – 126.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989).

Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory

in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis.

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48 – 58.

McBride, R. E. (1990). Sex-role stereotyping behaviours among

elementary, junior, and senior high school physical education

specialists. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9,

249 – 261.

McKiddie, B., & Maynard, I. W. (1997). Perceived competence of

schoolchildren in physical education. Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, 16, 324 – 339.

Mitchell, C. B., Bunker, L. K., Kluka, D. A., & Sullivan, P. A.

(1995). Gender equity through physical education and sport.

Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,

Recreation, and Dance.

Napper-Owen, G. E., Kovar, S. K., Ermler, K. L., &

Mehrhof, J. H. (1999). Curricula equity in required ninth-

grade physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 19, 2 – 21.

Nicaise, V., Cogerino, G., Bois, J., & Amorose, A. J.

(2006). Students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback and

physical competence in physical education classes:

Gender effects. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25,

36 – 57.

Omvig, C. P. (1989). Teacher/student classroom interaction in

vocational education. Kentucky: Department of Vocational

Education, College of Education, University of Kentucky

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service #ED342943).

Rickards, A. W. (1998). The relationship of teacher – student

interpersonal behaviour with student sex, cultural background

and student outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International,

Curtin University of Technology.

Roberts, G. C. (2001). Understanding the dynamics of motivation

in physical activity: The influence of achievement goals and

motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in

motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 1 – 50). Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational

analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education.

In C. Ames & R. E. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in

education: The classroom milieu (pp. 13 – 51). New York:

Academic Press.

Sadker, D. (2002). An educator’s primer of the gender war. Phi

Delta Kappa, 84, 235 – 241.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s

schools cheat girls. New York: Macmillan.

Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort-attributional feedback on

children’s achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,

548 – 556.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviours.

Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173 – 207.

She, H. C., & Fisher, D. (2002). Teacher communication

behaviour and its association with students’ cognitive and

attitudinal outcomes in science in Taiwan. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 39, 63 – 78.

Shrauger, S. J., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interac-

tionist view of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly.

Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549 – 573.

Silverman, S., Tyson, L. A., & Krampitz, J. (1992). Teacher

feedback and achievement in physical education: Interaction

with student practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8,

333 – 344.

Smith, R., Smoll, F., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness

training: A cognitive-behavioural approach to enhancing

relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport

Psychology, 1, 59 – 75.

Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the

behavioural assessment of athletic coaches. Research Quarterly,

48, 401 – 407.

Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behaviours in

sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522 – 1551.

Students’ perceptions of classroom interactions 925

Dow

nloa

ded

By: [

Nic

aise

, Virg

inie

] At:

11:5

5 2

May

200

7

Spender, D. (1982). Invisible women: The schooling scandal.

London: Writers & Readers.

Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1997). A comparison of teacher and student

perspectives of tasks and feedback. Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, 16, 388 – 400.

Trouilloud, D. O., Sarrazin, P. G., Martinek, T. J., & Guillet, E.

(2002). The influence of teacher expectations on student

achievement in physical education classes: Pygmalion revisited.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 591 – 607.

Warrington, M., & Younger, M. (2000). The other side of the

gender gap. Gender and Education, 12, 493 – 507.

Weiller, K. H., & Doyle, E. J. (2000). Teacher – student inter-

action: An exploration of gender differences in elementary

physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and

Dance, 71, 43 – 45.

Williams, L., & Gill, D. L. (1995). The role of perceived com-

petence in the motivation of physical activity. Journal of Sport

and Exercise Psychology, 17, 363 – 378.

926 V. Nicaise et al.