Developmental Transitions across the Lifespan

Selected works of Leo B. Hendry

Leo B Hendry, Leo Hendry

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317536789
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Choice Recommended Read

Leo B. Hendry is one of the foremost developmental psychologists of his generation. His diverse range of interests have included studies on young people's involvement in competitive sports, investigations into teacher and pupil relations in school, adolescents' leisure pursuits and their family relations, parenting styles, youth workers and mentoring, youth unemployment, adolescent health behaviours, and transition to early adulthood. His research interests now include work on ageing and retirement.

Developmental Transitions across the Lifespan is the first collection of Hendry's works, and essentially joins the dots to provide an overarching perspective on lifespan development through a dynamic systems theory approach. Underpinned by empirical research, this collection of journal articles and book chapters is linked by a contemporary commentary which not only contextualises each piece within today's research climate, but builds to provides an unorthodox, comprehensive but above all compelling perspective on human development from childhood to old age.

Leo B. Hendry's research output has been significant and influential. This is an important book that will provide students and researchers in developmental psychology not only with an opportunity to view his contribution holistically, but in connecting his range of research interests, provides a new contribution to our understanding of lifespan development in its own right.

1
Aspects of the ‘hidden curriculum’

This paper outlines certain conflicts inherent in the Physical Education teacher’s role both for pupils and for teachers themselves and alerted me to giving consideration to the young person’s perspective of life-events rather than only taking an ‘adultist’ stance as in the case of many research studies. The article gives insights into what has come to be known as ‘the hidden curriculum’, by considering the advantages, disadvantages and conflicts established within physical education teacher-pupil relationships and how these ‘spill over’ to influence their school experiences and future life. Here, I was interested in discovering whether or not, within a non-examinable subject (as Physical Education was then), there existed a ‘hidden curriculum’ whereby the ways teachers and pupils perceived each other, and how well teachers ‘knew’ their pupils, created an unintentional climate of differential treatment and variations in pupil-achievement as pupils approached the end of their compulsory schooling. These educational interactions created perceptions that teachers treat pupils differently, revealed pupil-ratings of teachers’ ‘good’ and ‘bad’ qualities, and showed a wide range of pupils’ involvement (or non-involvement) with school’s activities.

When one looks into the school context, findings also beg the question of the influences of other developmental contexts on young people’s lives. This became an important strand in my research. I examined, from the viewpoint of adolescents themselves, several social contexts, both formal and informal, where young people interact with adult mentors – school, home, youth centres, other leisure settings. Since I have always been interested in young people’s own perceptions of life and growing up, I was able to show aspects of adolescent lifestyles in a somewhat different light from that usually portrayed in the research literature – a perspective that matched well with my own ‘critical scepticism’.

Aspects of the Hidden Curriculum

Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions in physical education

L. B. Hendry and Jennifer Welsh

Introduction

The “hidden curriculum” has been described as the unplanned and often unrecognised values taught and learned through the process of schooling (e.g. Apple, 1971; Bidwell, 1972; Dreeben, 1968; Henry, 1966; Jackson, 1968; Overly, 1970; Silberman, 1971; Snyder, 1971). Various writers (e.g. Dreeben, 1968; Hargreaves, 1967; Holt, 1964; Illich, 1970; Jackson, 1968) have offered somewhat different versions of the “hidden curriculum”, but all of them have indicated that it interpenetrates with, and is communicated alongside, the official curriculum in teacher-pupil interactions, and can be as highly structured and organized, detailed and complex as the formal curriculum.

It has been suggested that the “hidden curriculum” teaches the pupil norms and values necessary for transition to, and integration into, the adult world (e.g. Dreeben, 1968; Haller and Thorsen, 1970) and so an emphasis on socialisation — order, control, compliance and conformity — has been persistently reported (e.g. Adams and Biddle, 1970; Jackson, 1968; Leacook, 1969; Rist, 1970). On the other hand, some writers have criticised these implicit qualities as stressing consensus and cocial orientations not in the best interests of the individual (e.g. Apple, 1971; Friedenberg, 1963; Henry, 1963; Silberman, 1970). Further, the “hidden curriculum” has been described as a vehicle for a possibly unjustified differential treatment of pupils often on the basis of race, academic ability, social class or sex (e.g. Apple, 1971; Frazier and Sadker, 1973; Hargreaves et al., 1975; Illich, 1970; Rist, 1970; Willis, 1977).

Most research on the “hidden curriculum” has used intensive naturalistic observations in a small number of classrooms (e.g. Cowell, 1972; Jackson, 1968; Rist, 1970; Keddie, 1971). Because of this, and the lack of statistical analyses, findings are not easily generalised to other situations (of Hargreaves, 1967). Additionally, cause and effect can be hard to disentangle, and delayed effects in pupils difficult to trace. One way of avoiding some of these limitations is to examine the cumulative differential effects of the “hidden curriculum” by investigating pupils towards the end of their compulsory schooling and to consider how these possible influences are manifested in the way in which teachers and pupils view each other. This is the approach taken in the present study, although it is acknowledged in turn that a general examination of differential perceptions obviates value inferences at the level of daily classroom (or sports field) interactions.

Eggleston (1977) argued that the “hidden curriculum” and official curriculum are, in fact, two perspectives of the total curriculum, in that the official curriculum is predominantly a teacher perspective and the “hidden curriculum” is predominantly a pupil perspective. This interpenetration of curriculum-interactions between teachers and pupils, inferred from consistencies in class organization, teacher behaviours and procedures, have been assumed to have a powerful impact on the values, norms and behaviour of pupils.

Various elements of the school system can combine to differentiate pupils in terms of their attitudes toward teachers, their self images, and their scholastic success. Hargreaves (1972), for instance, has offered a theoretical framework for studying the social processes and school relationships linked to academic attainment. He suggested that the teacher’s conception of a pupil’s ability, the pupil’s own conception of his ability, and whether or not the pupil values the teacher’s approval, all have a part to play in bringing about an educational self-fulfilling prophecy. Empirical support for such social processes is available (e.g. Hallworth, 1966; Hargreaves, 1967; Keddie, 1971; Nash, 1973; Rich, 1975; Silberman, 1969). Hurn (1978) has also argued that the teacher’s expectations, which are shaped by ascribed characteristics of pupils, are translated into differential treatment of pupils, and these treatments in turn have powerful effects on subsequent student learning. In this connection it may be important to note that school sports participants tend to produce better academic results than non-participants, and have higher educational aspirations (e.g. Schaffer and Armer, 1966; Schaffer and Renberg, 1970; Spreitzer and Pugh, 1973). As Start (1966) has postulated, pupils who play for school sports teams also tend to accept the academic pupil role so that sport becomes another manifestation of school culture. Thus it can be hypothesised that a “hidden curriculum” within school sport may exist in British schools (of Jackson, 1968).

Hargreaves (1972) has pointed out that in evaluating pupils in the classroom, the teacher gives approval to those pupils who conform to his expectations. Further, Nash (1973) has written: “The most important point to understand about this evaluation is that it is not wholly (or even mainly) about academic matters . . . Teachers are concerned about their pupils’ liveliness, sociability, and simply how likeable they are.”

The labels which teachers may use in “Getting to know” their pupils have been outlined by Hargreaves et al. (1973): (1) Appearance; (2) Conformity (or its opposite) to discipline role aspects; (3) Conformity (or its opposite) to academic role aspects; (4) Likeability; and (5) Peer group relations.

Similarly, a number of researchers have demonstrated the effect of pupils’ physical attractiveness on teachers’ expectations and evaluations (e.g. Clifford and Walster, 1973; Dion, 1972; Dusek, 1975; Rich, 1975), even when teachers have been made aware of teaching bias (Foster et al., 1975). It can be hypothesised that conformity, attractiveness and skill could be major factors in the teacher’s expectancies of pupils’ performance especially (but not only) in practical subjects like physical education. Physical education teachers may use certain perceptual impressions of pupils to construct an overall evaluation of their physical ability and personal qualities, which is conveyed to pupils, setting up matching self estimations in these pupils as part of the differential effect of a “hidden curriculum” within school sports. Hence in the present study, by attempting to tease out possibly differing perspectives of teachers and pupils within a non-examinable subject, more general insights into the differential effects of the “hidden curriculum” may emerge. The present paper is, therefore, concerned with four issues:

1. How do physical education teachers perceive competitive, recreative and non-participant pupils?
2. How do pupils view physical education teachers?
3. How do pupils perceive their own abilities and enthusiasm for physical education?
4. What elements of pupils’ self-estimations and of physical education teachers’ perceptions best distinguish sports participants from non-participant pupils?

Procedure

The sample consisted of 2,619 (93%) fifteen-sixteen year old pupils attending 12 comprehensive schools in an area in Central Scotland, together with their physical education teachers (N = 75).

Pupils were classified on the basis of their involvement in extracurricular school sport as: (a) active competitively: (and voluntarily) in physical activities or sports at school, i.e. the pupil was actively involved and represented the school in games, sports, or physical activities (N = 310 boys, 227 girls); (b) active recreatively: i.e. the individual took part in physical activities or joined sports clubs extracurricularly for reasons such as enjoyment or health but not for representative competition (N = 215 boys, 211 girls); (both these groups have covered a wide range of overlapping sports and physical activities, and did not represent different forms of activity); or (c) non-participant: i.e. the individual had no voluntary extracurricular involvement in school sports or physical activities (N = 683 boys, 973 girls).

The present study attempted to gauge teachers’ perceptions of pupils, and pupils’ perceptions of teachers, and to assess the general framework on which their separate “definitions of the physical activities” situation may be based.

Teachers rated their own pupils on bipolar descriptive terms chosen from Hallworth’s (1966) study, and in the light of Nash’s (1973) comments about the use by teachers of constructs of pupils’ sociability and attractiveness. Items such as competitiveness and physical ability were added by the researchers (after piloting) as being relevant to physical education. The items used for teachers’ perceptions were as follows: General physical ability in sports; enthusiasm for physical education; sociability; friendliness; popularity; social anxiety; competitiveness; reliability; personal appearance (i.e. attractiveness) — all 5 point scales (1 — high; through 3 — average to 5 — low). Teachers’ assessments of pupils’ home background (good home — poor home) was rated on a 6 point scale.¹

Teachers (who learn something of somatotyping during their teacher training) were also asked to assess pupils on a seven point scale for muscularity (7 — high; 1 — low), similar to scales devised by Sheldon (1940). As a check on the validity of teachers’ ratings, in one randomly selected school, three skinfold measures of pupils were taken, namely triceps, subscapular, and suprailiac (see Tanner, 1964² for details) and compared with teachers’ estimates. Correlations were: (a) for boys. r = #0.79 (N = 60); (b) for girls, r = #0.70 (N = 70).

Pupils’ attitudes toward teachers were assessed by a number of statements which pupils perceived as being important to the physical education teachers’ role. These were taken from a previous study by Hendry (1975). Pupils were asked to respond to these items on an agree-disagree basis. In addition, pupils were asked to assess their own physical ability level, enthusiasm for physical education, the amount of attention they received from physical education teachers and their desire to improve their physical skills — all on 3 point scales. Further, pupils were asked to give their perceptions of the physical education programme by responding to a number of “open-ended” questions.

Because of the large number of pupils involved physical education teachers’ perceptions of pupils’ characteristics were analysed using ANOVA, while pupils’ views of teachers and of themselves in relation to physical education were analysed by Chi-Square. Data on teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions were also treated by a series of discriminant analyses. Essentially discriminant analysis is a technique carried out to examine trends in the combination of selected associated variables which best distinguish between criterion groups.

Results

1. Generally, physical education teachers’ perceptions of pupils revealed differential views of active and non-participant pupils, with teachers having more favourable attitudes towards extracurricular sports participants. Of the three groups, competitors were seen by teachers to be most enthusiastic, friendly, popular, reliable, and of attractive appearance, as well as being highly skilled physically and highly muscular. Additionally, women physical education teachers considered competitive schoolgirls to be the most socially poised group of girls and to be more likely than other groups to come from a “good” home background, although no differences were found among the three groups of boys in these characteristics.

2. In their turn, pupils who were participants in extracurricular school sports had more favourable opinions of physical education teachers than non-participants; yet the majority of pupils, regardless of participation category, perceived physical education teachers as even-tempered, friendly and approachable, able to get on well with pupils and to establi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Aspects of the ‘hidden curriculum’
• 2 Constructed case studies in a school context
• 3 Educational pathways and interactive factors
• 4 Differing perceptions
• 5 Young people’s views on people and places
• 6 Young people talking
• 7 Adolescents speaking out about health
• 8 Challenges, risks and coping in adolescence
• 9 Young people’s unemployment lifestyles
• 10 Young people in modern society
• 11 Challenging the orthodoxy: what is ‘emerging adulthood’?
• 12 Parental views of emerging adults
• 13 Pathways to retirement
• 14 Reflecting on theories
• 15 The lifespan challenge model re-visited
• Concluding remarks
• Index