Reform, Standards and Teacher Identity: Challenges of Sustaining Commitment

Teacher commitment has been found to be a critical predictor of teachers’ work performance, absenteeism, retention, burnout and turnover, as well as having an important influence on students’ motivation, achievement, attitudes towards learning and being at school (Firestone (1996). Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(2), 209–235; Graham (1996). Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 45–47; Louis (1998). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(1), 1–27; Tsui & Cheng (1999). Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(3), 249–268). It is also a necessary ingredient to the successful implementation, adaptation or resistance reform agendas. Surprisingly, however, the relationship between teachers’ motivation, efficacy, job satisfaction and commitment, and between commitment and the quality of their work has not been the subject of extensive research. Some literature presents commitment as a feature of being and behaving as a professional (Helsby, Knight, McCulloch, Saunders, & Warburton (1997). A report to participants on the professional cultures of Teachers Research Project, Lancaster University, January). Others suggest that it fluctuates according to personal, institutional and policy contexts (Louis (1998). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(1), 1–27) and identify different dimensions of commitment which interact and fluctuate (Tyree (1996). Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 295–304). Others claim that teachers’ commitment tends to decrease progressively over the course of the teaching career (Fraser, Draper, & Taylor (1998). Evaluation and Research in Education, 12 (2), 61–71; Huberman (1993). The lives of teachers. London: Cassell). In this research, experienced teachers in England and Australia were interviewed about their understandings of commitment. The data suggest that commitment may be better understood as a nested phenomena at the centre of which is a set of core, relatively permanent values based upon personal beliefs, images of self, role and identity which are subject to challenge by change which is socio-politically constructed.

Validity and Test –retest Reliability of the TIVRE-Basket® Test for the Determination of Aerobic Power in Elite Male Basketball Players

The aims of this study were to 1) determine the relationship between performance on the court-based TIVRE-Basket® test and peak aerobic power determined from a criterion lab-based incremental treadmill test and 2) to examine the test-retest reliability of the TIVRE-Basket® test in elite male basketball players. To address aim 1, 36 elite male basketball players (age 25.2 + 4.7 years, weight 94.1 + 11.4 kg, height 195.83 + 9.6 cm) completed a graded treadmill exercise test and the TIVRE-Basket® within 72 hours. Mean distance recorded during the TIVRE-Basket® test was 4001.8 + 176.4m, and mean VO2 peak was 54.7 + 2.8 ml.kg.min-1, and the correlation between the two parameters was r=0.824 (P= <0.001). Linear regression analysis identified TIVRE-Basket® distance (m) as the only unique predictor of VO2 peak in a single variable plus constant model: VO2 peak = 2.595 + ((0.13* TIVRE-Basket® distance (m)). Performance on the TIVRE-Basket® test accounted for 67.8% of the variance in VO2 peak (t=8.466, P=<.001, 95% CI 0.01 - 0.016, SEE 1.61). To address aim 2, 20 male basketball players (age 26.7±4.2; height 1.94±0.92; weight 94.0±9.1) performed the TIVRE-Basket® test on two occasions. There was no significant difference in total distance covered between Trial 1 (4138.8 + 677.3m) and Trial 2 (4188.0 + 648.8m; t = 0.5798, P = 0.5688). Mean difference between trials was 49.2 + 399.5m, with an ICC of 0.85 suggesting a moderate level of reliability. Standardised TEM was 0.88%, representing a moderate degree of trial to trial error, and the CV was 6.3%. The TIVRE-Basket® test therefore represents a valid and moderately reliable court-based sport-specific test of aerobic power for use with individuals and teams of elite level male basketball players. Future research is required to ascertain its validity and reliability in other basketball populations e.g. across age groups, at different levels of competition, in females and in different forms of the game e.g. wheelchair basketball.