AN EXPLORATION OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY AND PERCEPTIONS OF SMOKEFREESPORTS (SFS)

1. AN EXPLORATION OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY AND PERCEPTIONS OF SMOKEFREESPORTS (SFS) K. Garnham-Lee, J. Trigwell, Z. Knowles, C. McGee and L. Foweather The Physical Activity Exchange at the Research Institute of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University.

2. INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND & RATIONALE The younger adolescents smoke, the more likely they become regular smokers and cause greater long term health risk (Tyas and Pederson, 1998; Leonardi-Bee, et al., 2011) Two-thirds (66%) of current and ex-smokers started smoking before the age of 18 (Office for National Statistics, 2013) Interventions to prevent smoking should be available before the age of 12 (Escobedo et al., 1993) • Almost all children can be reached via the school environment (Thomas et al., 2013) • Sport and PE act as the most suitable vehicle to embed health promotion (Almond et al., 2013; Donaldson and Finch, 2012; Kokkoet al., 2006; Kokkoet al., 2009; Skille, 2010) • Exercise can reduce tobacco withdrawal and cravings (Escobedo et al., 1993; Peretti-Watelet al., 2003; Rodriguez et al., 2004; Rodriguez et al., 2008, Ussher et al. 2008) Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

3. INTRODUCTION: SmokeFree Sports (SFS) • Successful in securing a tender from the Liverpool PCT, in September 2012, SFS was launched • Multi-dimensional intervention that utilised sport to prevent smoking among 9-10 year olds across 34 schools in Liverpool One PE attend brief-intervention training and fed back information to other staff • An assembly was delivered by the SFS team and a local SFS sports star. • Teachers incentivised to deliver five of their own SFS sessions • Schools received five coached sessions run by external coaches Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

4. INTRODUCTION: Self-Efficacy & Training Strong beliefs in their own efficacy will be resilient, able to solve problems and learn from their experiences (Humphries et al., 2012; Bangs and Frost, 2012). Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy can thus influence the learning and motivation of their students (Guskeyand Passaro, 1994). • NICE guidelines (2010) propose to provide training for all staff who will be involved. • http://publications.nice.org.uk/school-based-interventions-to-prevent-smoking-ph23/recommendations#recommendation-4-training-and-development Boman (2013) promotes evidence for the effectiveness of information and skills programs in increasing Teaching Assistants (TAs’) self-efficacy. Classroom teachers, who receive training and support, can improve their teaching of physical education Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

5. INTRODUCTION: RESEARCHAIMS • Investigate and explore teachers perceptions and experiences of SmokeFree Sports • Determine the influence of the brief-intervention training on those teachers. • To govern and positively ensure the sustainability of the SFS program Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

6. METHOD • Quantitative Questionnaire based and adapted from Lane et al.’s (2002) measure of self-efficacy. 15 items. Phase one – Non-Parametric = A Friedman Test. Parametric = A One Way Repeated Measures Phase two – Non-Parametric = Mann-Whitney U Test. Parametric = Independent-Samples T-Test • . • Qualitative • Content analysis. • Pen profiles with the use of verbatim quotes. • Interview Schedule - • Semi-chronological path based on the intervention with questions grouped into nine themes.

7. RESULTS – QUANTITATIVE PHASE ONE: Self-efficacy Score • The Mean and SD of the summed totals responses.

8. RESULTS – QUANTITATIVE PHASE TWO: Self-efficacy Score • The Mean and SD of the summed totals responses.

9. RESULTS – QUALITATIVE • General Views of SFS, • Using Sport and PA to Deliver SF Messages within a School Environment & • SFS Impact and Influence • Brief-intervention training Coaches and the Coached sessions • Issues Raised after SFS by the Children • General Programme Recommendations • Teacher Delivery, • The SFS Manual & The • Perceived Difference between Teachers and Coaches to Deliver SFS Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

10. Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

11. DISCUSSION • Highlighted the importance and value of providing a quality training manual. Teachers were generally very positive about SFS as a whole. • Both teachers and children enjoyed participating in SFS. • Teachers felt they brought qualities to the delivery in addition to the coaches. • Participants struggled to respond when asked what didn’t work well about aspects of the intervention. • Training increased teachers’ self-efficacy to deliver smoke free messages. Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

12. DISCUSSION Teachers were generally very positive about SFS as a whole. “Smoke free has been a big success, it’s enabled the children to learn in the classroom about the effects of smoking and with the facts and the data and then do sports and change the sports that they know quite well, change the games, into smoke-related tasks… they really enjoyed it” [Male, Teacher 16] Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

13. DISCUSSION • Highlighted the importance and value of providing a quality training manual. • Training increased teachers’ self-efficacy to deliver smoke free messages. “I think the manual was really good, it’s a really simple breakdown of the courses and again the training day having the coaches there to help see how you can adapt the games or modify them slightly that was really useful” [Female, Teacher 6] Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

14. DISCUSSION • Teachers felt they brought qualities to the delivery in addition to the coaches. “I know the kids so I can look ahead and see which activities they might struggle with” [Female, Teacher 8] Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

15. CONCLUSION, FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS & LIMITATIONS • Increased both their knowledge, awareness and dangers of smoking • Training increased self efficacy When conducting interviews, teachers’ regularly had time restrictions • Alarger sample of teachers who did not attend the training would provide more insight • Including parents and guardians could be considered Help govern, inform and tailor SFS and other smoking prevention interventions in the future Katy Garnham-Lee: PhD Researcher Twitter: @KGL_ Email: K.Garnham-Lee@Lboro.ac.uk

16. REFERENCES & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • Bangs, J. and Frost, D. (2012), “Teacher self-efficacy, voice and leadership: towards a policy framework for education international”, available at: http://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/teacher_self-efficacy_voice_leadership.pdf (assessed 15January 2013). • Boman, J. S. (2013), “Graduate Student Teaching Development: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Training in Relation to Graduate Student Characteristics”, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 100-114. • Guskey, T. R. and Passaro, P.D. (1994), “Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 627-643. • Humphries, C. A., Hebert, E., Daigle, K. and Martin, J. (2012), “Development of a Physical Education Teaching Efficacy Scale”, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, Vol.16 No. 4, pp. 284–299. • Lane, A. M., Hall, R. and Lane, J. (2002), “Development of a measure of self-efficacy specific to statistics courses in sport”, Journal of Hospitality Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 47-56. • McKenzie, T. L., Marshall, S. J., Sallis, J. F. and Conway, T. L. (2000), “Student activity levels, lesson context, and teacher behaviour during middle school physical education”, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 249 –259. • National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). (2010), “School-based interventions to prevent smoking”, available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12827/47582/47582.pdf (accessed 24 July 2013). • Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Alcaraz J., Kolodx, B., Eaucette, N. and Novell, M. E. (1997), “The effects of a 2-year physical education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87 No. 8, pp. 1328 –34. • A BIG THANK YOU TO: • The SmokeFree Team • Liverpool Primary Care Trust • Liverpool City Council & • All the schools and teachers involved All photos used with permission

17. www.facebook.com/SmokeFreeSports @SmokeFreeSports REGISTER: ljmu.ac.uk/paexchange/events Email: SmokeFreeSports@ljmu.ac.uk to be added to the event information list THANK YOU FOR LISTENING… ANY QUESTIONS?