Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and ... - CiteSeerX

119 downloads 456 Views 41KB Size Report
on dual roles in the particular context of school teaching .... as experts in their trade (expert power) and most likely to be admired ...... Kansas City, MO: National.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

June 1999 v70 i2 p179(1)

Page 1

Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and preferences for teaching and coaching. by Packianathan Chelladurai, Donna J. Kuga and Camille P. O’Bryant Research was conducted to understand the perceptions of physical education preservice trainees and their preferences for teaching and coaching roles. Results indicate that men preferred to coach while teaching is preferred by women. The factors that influenced the preferences of the participants were gender and their perceptions of task attributes such as the perceived job variety and the motivation of students and athletes. © COPYRIGHT 1999 American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) A common issue faced by employees in work organizations is their involvement in more than one work role. Sometimes dual and multiple roles result in interrole conflict where different and conflicting expectations for two or more roles are imposed on the worker. At other times, a worker’s preference for one role over another may result in overemphasis of one at the expense of the other. The present study deals with the issue of differential emphasis on dual roles in the particular context of school teaching and coaching. The research literature suggests that teaching and coaching are distinctly different professions (e.g., Cote, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, & Russell, 1995; Figone, 1994; Rose, 1986; Rupert & Buschner, 1989; Sage, 1989; Staffo, 1992). However, the two occupations are often linked because of the dual roles performed by many teacher-coaches. When given the opportunity to focus on one role over the other, evidence clearly indicates that teacher-coaches tend to focus more on the coaching role as opposed to the teaching role (e.g., Dodds et al, 1991; Figone, 1994; Sage, 1989). An individual’s emphasis on either teaching or coaching is acceptable, as both are legitimate endeavors in educational settings. However, the problem arises when individuals place these differential emphases while being entrusted with both teaching and coaching. Given the reality of teachers having to coach, it is important to understand the factors and processes that influence the preference for teaching or coaching. The present study was an attempt to investigate the issue from the perspective of individual and task characteristics.

coaching (e.g., Figone, 1994; Sage, 1987; Sisley, Capel, & Descertrain, 1987; Staffo, 1992; Street, Collier, O’Sullivan, & England, 1994). Another view holds that the preference for coaching over teaching is a function of individual differences in needs, personality, and socialization (e.g., Sage, 1987; Templin, Sparkes, Grant, & Schempp, 1994). In other words, coaching is the primary motivation for becoming a teacher-coach, and that role provides the social support and rewards to satisfy important personal needs. Further, it is also suggested that occupational socialization born of prior experience as athletes leaves the teacher-coach more familiar with the coaching situation than the teaching situation. Such exposure yields greater understanding of and appreciation for coaching than teaching and a concomitant preference for coaching (e.g., Coakley, 1986; Dodds et al., 1991; Templin, Woodford, & Mulling, 1982).

From yet another perspective, Chelladurai and Kuga (1996) suggested that differences between the inherent characteristics of teaching and coaching might explain why some prefer teaching and others coaching. based on the task-group characteristics literature (e.g., Fiedler, 1967; Hackman & Oldham, 1980), power in social relations (French & Raven, 1959), and career choices (Holland, 1959, Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994), Chelladurai and Kuga developed a model to predict role preference [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]. In brief, congruence between group and task factors on the one hand and individual difference variables on the other is predictive of person-task fit which, in turn, influences preference for a specific role (i.e., teaching or coaching). In the second stage of the model, the linkage between the preferred and enacted role is influenced by external pressures (organizational decisions and environmental Numerous explanations have been advanced for the overt emphasis on one role over the other). Finally, they preference for coaching over teaching. One argument predicted that congruence between preferred and enacted suggests that because athletic teams garner more publicity roles influenced an individual’s performance, satisfaction, and prestige for the school and contribute to the solidarity and stress. The present study, which tests the first stage of of various school constituents (students, staff, parents, the model, hypothesizes that the preference for teaching community), the reward systems within the schools favor or coaching is a function of perceived task differences and coaching over teaching in terms of better job evaluations, individual personality differences. This view is consistent job security, salary, and promotion opportunities. with the notion that group and job characteristics must be Therefore, teacher-coaches place more emphasis on considered in conjunction with other personal

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP Information Integrity

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

June 1999 v70 i2 p179(1)

Page 2

Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and preferences for teaching and coaching. characteristics to understand the dynamics of job choice, motivation, and performance (e.g., Holland, 1959; Lent et al., 1994). The specific task attributes and personality variables included in the study are explicated below.

to be higher on the above-mentioned task characteristics. Another was to examine the relationships between perceived task characteristics and preference for coaching or teaching.

Task Characteristics

Personality Differences

Some job characteristics are motivational when they facilitate the employee focus on one of three psychological states: (a) meaningfulness of the task, (b) responsibility for outcomes, and (c) knowledge of results (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). More specifically, the attributes of skill variety (i.e., the task involves various activities, skills, talents, or tools), task identity (i.e., the task involves an identifiable outcome), and task significance (i.e., the extent to which the task has an impact on others) are said to lead to an experience of task meaningfulness (i.e., something that counts in one’s system of values). Autonomy in a job (i.e., freedom in scheduling work and procedures) enhances the experience of responsibility for work outcomes, and feedback from the job itself (i.e., direct and clear information on one’s performance) provides knowledge of the actual results of the work. These experienced psychological states, in turn, result in higher motivation levels,job satisfaction, and work effectiveness.

Noting that choice of a job is an expression of personality, Holland (1959) suggested that "the personality types for both teachers and athletic coaches, although related, involve different orientations and behaviors" (p. 17). Consistent with this view, we included two personality traits in the present study. The first was managerial motivation as measured by Gough’s (1984) Managerial Potential Scale. This trait correlates highly with managerial effectiveness. Because coaching, like management, is concerned with bottom-line results and deadlines, it resembles management in function and process (Chelladurai, 1985; Sage, 1973) and is likely to differentiate between those who prefer to coach and those who prefer to teach.

Chelladurai and Kuga (1996) also argued that coaching compared to teaching allows for greater influence by the leader because of: (a) the smaller size of the group (team), (b) member homogeneity and higher ability level, (c) higher intensity of motivation to participate, (d) goal acceptance by the total group (leader and members), and (e) the extended duration of contact between the leader and group members. In addition, the coach enjoys better leader-member relations (e.g., respect), operates in a better defined task situation, and holds greater power and exerts more control over operations. These leadership attributes make it easier for the coach to influence athletes (Fiedler, 1973). In terms of French and Raven’s (1959) power typology, the coach, in comparison to the teacher, has greater control over the rewards athletes seek (reward power) as well as meting out punishment (coercive power). Both reward and coercive power translate into greater legitimate power. In addition, coaches are often perceived as experts in their trade (expert power) and most likely to be admired and liked by athletes (referent power). Chelladurai and Kuga (1996) advanced the idea that individuals would be attracted to coaching if they perceived it to be higher in the above-mentioned attributes than teaching. Conversely, those who perceived higher levels of these attributes in teaching would prefer teaching to coaching. One purpose of the present study was to assess the extent to which coaching (or teaching) was perceived

Another important trait that distinguishes teachers from coaches is interpersonal orientation toward students and athletes. Task or instrumental orientation and expressive orientation are said to set individuals apart (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975), and contribute significantly to leadership dynamics (Fiedler, 1973). Those who prefer to coach are expected to be more self-assertive and instrumentally oriented, while teachers are expected to be more interpersonally oriented and expressive. Thus, another purpose of the study was to assess which personality variables most influence preferences for coaching or teaching. Gender Differences Within the framework noted above, we also explored gender differences in perceptions of and preferences for teaching and coaching. The study of gender differences is significant because of concerns over the severe underrepresentation of women in coaching ranks. Despite increasing opportunities for women’s participation in sports and the concomitant increase in the number of women’s teams, the proportion of women coaches has steadily declined over the past 2 decades (e.g., Acosta & Carpenter, 1992; Fink, 1995). The reasons for the decline of women coaches have focused on factors both external and internal to the individual. External factors include the strength of the "old boys" network, lack of support systems for women (Acosta & Carpenter, 1988), the tendency to reproduce the gender composition in coaching favoring males (Lovett & Lowry,

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP Information Integrity

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

June 1999 v70 i2 p179(1)

Page 3

Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and preferences for teaching and coaching. 1994), athletes’ preferences for a male coach (Parkhouse & Williams, 1986), and men’s increasing desire to coach women’s teams (True, 1983). Internal factors include failure of women to apply for coaching jobs (Acosta & Carpenter, 1988), burnout experienced by women (Caccese & Mayerberg, 1984), and the long hours demanded of coaching which interfere with family obligations (Acosta & Carpenter, 1988). It has also been suggested that the genders may differ in: (a) their coaching philosophy (Eitzen & Pratt, 1989), (b) their perceptions of the culture of sport organizations (Coakley, 1998), and (c) their socialization into teaching or coaching (Griffin, 1992; Knoppers, 1992; O’Bryant, 1996). The emphasis on the individual factors suggests that the coaching occupation does not have the same attraction for women as it has for men; therefore, more men than women seek and, thus, secure coaching jobs, while women do not prefer to be coaches (e.g., Acosta & Carpenter, 1988; True, 1983; Weiss & Stevens, 1993). Knoppers (1992) identified two distinct theories that may explain women’s rejection of coaching as a viable occupation. According to sex role socialization theory, women learn sex-appropriate behavior and, not seeing many women in the coaching ranks, do not perceive it as a desirable occupation. From the perspective of the human capital theory, "sex segregation in waged work is, therefore, seen a result of choice in the context of a free market. On the basis of this perspective, it would be assumed that women do not choose jobs such as coaching or refereeing because of the excessive demands these jobs make on time and travel" (Knoppers, 1992; p. 211). Although Knoppers disregarded both of these perspectives as the bases for the present level of female representation in coaching, she did highlight the notion of individual choice. The view that women exercise their choice in entering (or not entering) the coaching occupation has been the thrust of some studies (e.g., Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998; Lirgg, Dibrezzo, & Smith, 1994; Weiss & Stevens, 1993). For instance, Weiss and Stevens (1993) found that both current and former coaches perceived alternative activities to be more satisfying. Lirgg et al. (1994) found that the desire of female players to be a head coach was a function of whether their coach was a male or female. Everhart and Chelladurai’s study was focused on basketball players’ coaching self-efficacy, their perceived valence of coaching, and their preferences to coach at various levels. An underlying assumption in these studies is that the individual makes judgments about himself or herself and the coaching job. That is, attraction of other activities imply a covert evaluation of the coaching job, and estimates of self-efficacy are based on subjective assessment of the

coaching job and its demands. based on these judgments, women may or may not choose coaching as their occupation. Everhart and Chelladurai found that women’s preferences for coaching was lower than men’s although the difference was not significant. Earlier, Bain and Wendt (1983) found that men, relative to women, indicated significantly greater preference for the coaching role. Chu (1984) also reported that men, compared to women, expressed a greater preference for coaching. Cumulatively, these studies seem to suggest that women may not be as likely as men to choose to enter coaching. We recognize that the contrast we have made between teaching and coaching in the dual role of teacher-coaches is not strictly parallel to the contrast between coaching and other nonteaching occupations implied in the above-mentioned studies. However, we have argued that teaching and coaching are sufficiently different from each other. Thus, gender differences in the perceptions of and reactions to coaching may also be operative in the teaching-coaching context. That is, men and women may differ in their perceptions of the two roles and the extent to which they favor one over the other. In summary, the purposes of the study were to determine whether there are: 1. Gender differences in managerial potential and instrumental-expressive traits, 2. Gender differences in the perceptions of selected task characteristics in teaching and coaching, 3. Gender differences in preferences for teaching and coaching, and 4. Systematic relationships between preferences for teaching or coaching and perceptions of task attributes. Method Participants The participants in this study were 192 undergraduate students enrolled in physical education teacher preparation programs at six universities in three states. The gender distribution of the sample was 122 men (63.5%), 67 women (34.9%), and 3 (1.6%) who failed to indicate their gender. The age of the participants ranged from 19 to 57 years, with a median age of 22 years. One hundred twenty-one respondents (63%) were seniors, 47 (24.5%) were juniors, 17 (8.9%) were sophomores, 2 (1%) were freshman, and 5 (2.6%) did not indicate their year of study.

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP Information Integrity

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

June 1999 v70 i2 p179(1)

Page 4

Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and preferences for teaching and coaching. Regarding athletic experience, 185 (96%) students had participated at the high school level, 88 (46%) at the college-university level, and 132 (69%) at the club level. Further, the majority of the students (137, or 71%) had previous coaching experience other than that required in the teacher preparation curriculum. Instruments The following instruments were used in the study: (a) Gough’s (1984) Managerial Potential Scale, (b) Spence and Helmreich’s (1986) Personal Attributes Questionnaire, (c) a specially constructed scale to measure attributes of teaching and coaching, and (d) a single-item scale to assess each participant’s preference to teach or coach. Additional items were included to determine the participant’s gender, age, year in university, athletic experience, and coaching experience. Each scale is described below. Managerial Potential Scale. The Managerial Potential Scale is a special-purpose scale of the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1984), which assesses managerial competence and interests. The scale contains 34 true or false items about the respondent’s personal experiences and feelings and is purported to assess individuals’ managerial potential. The reported internal consistency estimate for the scale is .75 (Gough, 1984). It was .73 in the present study. Personal Attributes Questionnaire. The short form of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence & Helmreich, 1986) was used to assess self-assertive instrumental traits and interpersonally oriented expressive traits. This scale consists of 24 bipolar items (e.g., very passive vs. very active) on which respondents rated themselves on a 5-point Likert scale. The points are listed as A, B, C, D, and E and were scored 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The scale is divided into three subscales of eight items each: (a) the M scale, (b) the F scale, and (c) the M-F scale. The M scale measures "socially desirable instrumental traits more characteristic of men than women," (e.g., very independent and feels very superior); the F scale measures "socially desirable expressive traits more characteristic of women than men" (e.g., very emotional and able to devote self completely to others); and the M-F scale contains items which "measure social desirability differences between the two sexes" (e.g., very aggressive and indifferent to others’ approval). Spence and Helmreich stated that their scale does not measure "sex-role" or "sex-role orientation." Further, they observed that the M and F scales do not measures "masculinity" and "femininity." On the contrary, these subscales illustrate "self-assertive-instrumental traits or agentic traits (M) or

interpersonally oriented expressive traits (F)" (p. 2). The internal consistency estimates derived from college students for the three scales are .85, .82, and .78 for the M, F, and M-F scales, respectively. The estimates for the present study were .73, .78, and .56, respectively. While these estimates are lower than those reported by Spence & Helmreich (1986), they are acceptable for the purposes of this exploratory study. However, because the value for the M-F scale was relatively low, the results must be viewed with caution. Perceived Characteristics of Teaching and Coaching Scale. As noted earlier, we developed this scale especially for the study, generating 36 items to reflect various group and job characteristics suggested by the literature which distinguish teaching from coaching (Chelladurai & Kuga, 1996). The response format for these items was a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (Much more so in teaching) to 9 (Much more so in coaching). Participants indicated their perception of whether a given characteristic was more present in coaching or teaching. To derive the dimensions underlying these 36 items, a principal component analysis with varimax rotation was carried out. The results showed 12 components with an eigenvalue of I or more. However, Cattel’s (1966) scree plot (i.e., plotting of the eigenvalues on the vertical axis) indicated that the eigenvalues leveled off after the seventh component. Therefore, we decided to extract only seven factors. The fact that these components explained only 46.6% of the variance indicates that the scale needs to be refined. The criteria for selecting items to represent a factor were .45 or higher loading on that factor with at least. 1 lower loadings on other factors. The estimates of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) showed that one estimate (-.11) was unacceptable, and, therefore, was eliminated. The remaining six factors, the selected items, and their internal consistency are shown in Table 1. The [Alpha] values ranged from .52 to .71, for a mean of .61. Although these values are somewhat low, Nunnally (1967) suggested that "in the early stages of research on predictor tests or hypothesized measures of a construct, one saves time and energy by working with instruments that have only modest reliability for which purpose reliabilities of.60 or .50 will suffice" (p. 226). The loadings for 14 of the 21 items exceeded .6; 5 items were above .5; and 2 were above .45. These values indicate that the six factors are strong and robust. Further, all six subscales were significantly correlated with "desire to coach or teach." Corrections for attenuation resulted in moderate increases in the magnitude of these already significant

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP Information Integrity

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

June 1999 v70 i2 p179(1)

Page 5

Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and preferences for teaching and coaching. correlations. Interpretations for each of the six factors follow. The first component consisted of three items reflecting prestige, status, and public recognition associated with a task. Therefore, it was labeled Job Status. Because the four items in the second factor related to quality and significance of the work and its effect on others, we named it Job Significance. The four items in the third factor referred to performing a variety of tasks utilizing different skills and control over one’s operations including the control over rewards. It was labeled Job Variety and Control. The fourth factor was represented by three items which referred to doing the whole job and getting feedback from the job directly. It was labeled Job Identity. The fifth factor, with three items, reflected the ease of disciplining students and athletes and the control over punishments; it was labeled Ease of Discipline. The sixth and final factor had four high loading items. They reflected the ease of motivating the students and athletes, autonomy at work, and getting to know the students and athletes. It was named Ease of Motivation. Preference to Teach or Coach Scale. This single-item scale measures each respondent’s preference for teaching or coaching on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (Prefer to Teach) to 9 (Prefer to Coach). The scoring scheme was such that lower scores (i.e., lower than 5, the midpoint of the scale) favored teaching, and higher scores implied greater preference to coach. Analysis The analyses were concerned with: (a) gender differences in managerial potential, instrumental or expressive orientation, perceived characteristics of teaching and coaching, and preferences for teaching or coaching; and (b) relationships of individual and task differences with preferences for teaching or coaching. Gender differences were assessed through use of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), when there were subscales within a measure, and univariate t tests, when there was only one scale. We employed bivariate correlations to verify the significance of the relationships [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] between antecedent variables (gender, managerial potential, instrumental and expressive orientations, and perceived job characteristics) and preference for coaching. To assess the cumulative and unique variance in the preference to teach or coach attributable to the antecedent variables, we carried out three stepwise multiple regression analyses. In the first regression analysis, the individual difference factors were the predictors. In the

second, the perceived differences between teaching and coaching were the predictors. Those variables contributing significantly to the explained variance in the preference to teach or coach in the two regression analyses were entered into the third and final regression analysis. For these analyses, gender was dummy coded as +1 (men) and-1 (women). Results Gender Differences The means and standard deviations for all variables for each gender and the total sample are presented in Table 2. The significance of a gender difference in a variable is shown on the right hand side of Table 2. Preference to Teach or Coach. Male participants (M = 6.08) scored significantly higher in coaching than female participants (M = 4.51). Conversely, women scored significantly higher in teaching than men. The scoring scheme was such that lower scores (i.e., lower than 5, the midpoint of the scale) favored teaching, and higher scores implied greater preference to coach. Instrumental and Expressive Orientations. The MANOVA showed a significant multivariate effect for gender on the [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] M, F, and M-F scales, multivariate F(3, 171) = 8.28, p [less than] .001. The univariate analyses showed significant differences for the F and M-F scales. That is, women (M = 3.23) scored significantly higher than men (M = 2.95) on expressive orientation. Men (M = 2.19) scored significantly higher on the masculine pole of the M-F scale, while women (M = 1.93) scored higher at the feminine pole. Managerial Potential. There was no significant gender effect for managerial potential. Perceived Job Characteristics. The MANOVA showed a significant multivariate effect for gender on perceived job characteristics, multivariate F(6, 170) = 2.77, p [less than] .05. The univariate effect of gender was significant only in Job Variety and Control. Men (M = 5.42) perceived significantly greater Job Variety and Control in coaching than in teaching, while women (M = 4.66) perceived significantly more Job Variety and Control in teaching than in coaching. Relationships Among Variables of the Study The correlations among the variables are shown in Table 3. Although several variables correlated significantly with each other, these correlations were modest; only four

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP Information Integrity

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

June 1999 v70 i2 p179(1)

Page 6

Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and preferences for teaching and coaching. correlations exceeded .3. Only the correlation between masculinity and masculinity-femininity exceeded .40 (r = .49). Of special interest in the present study was that all the perceived job characteristics were significantly and positively correlated with preferences to teach or coach. In interpreting these results, the scoring schemes should be kept in mind. That is, higher scores on the Preferences factor indicated a greater preference to coach than teach, and higher scores on the Job Characteristic factor indicated that the respondents perceived higher amounts of that characteristic in coaching than teaching. Thus, those who perceived higher [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 3 OMITTED] levels of the job characteristics in coaching also expressed a greater desire to coach than teach. Conversely, those who perceived higher levels of these characteristics in teaching (i.e., low scores on the scale), also preferred teaching over coaching. Regression Analysis As noted earlier, we undertook three stepwise multiple regression analyses to assess the cumulative and unique effects of: (a) the individual difference factors, (b) the job characteristics, and (c) the variables selected from the two previous analyses on preferences for coaching or teaching. The results are presented in Table 4. Individual Difference Factors. Gender was the first factor to enter the equation to explain the variance in preferences for coaching or teaching; it explained 8.1% of the variance. Managerial Potential entered next into the equation, and it explained an additional 3.55% of the variance. In the third step, Masculinity-Femininity explained an additional 2.5%. The contributions of Masculinity and Femininity were not significant. In sum, the individual difference factors of Gender, Managerial Potential, and Masculinity-Femininity accounted for 14.1% of the variance in Preferences. Job Characteristics. Ease of Motivation was entered first and explained 12.4% of the variance in Preferences. Job Variety and Control entered in the second step and added 9.4% to the explained variance. In the third step, the addition of Job Identity explained another 3.5%. The remaining three job characteristics (Job Status, Job Significance, and Ease of Discipline) did not contribute significantly to the explained variance. Combined Model. As noted earlier, those variables found to be significant in the previous two regression analyses were entered into a third to assess the combined effects of individual difference factors and job characteristics on preferences to teach or coach. Ease of Motivation entered first, explaining 12.5% of the variance, followed by Job Variety and Control, which explained an additional 9.5%.

The third variable to enter the equation was Gender, which accounted for 5.8% of the variance. The fourth variable was Managerial Potential, which explained another 2.6% of the variance. The final significant contribution came from Job Identity (2.7%). The M-F variable did not enter the equation. Thus, the total variance in preference to teach or coach explained by task and individual difference factors was 33.1%. Discussion We set out to identify and explain the factors that influence the differential preferences for teaching and coaching. According to Chelladurai and Kuga (1996), group and task differences between teaching and coaching may make coaching more desirable than teaching. In this study, we examined the influence of individual difference factors (managerial potential and instrumental or expressive orientation) in conjunction with group and task differences to explain preferences for either role. In addition, we were also interested in determining gender differences in the above variables. [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 4 OMITTED] As expected, men and women differed on the femininity scale (women scored higher) and masculinity-femininity scale (men scored higher). Further, men scored higher than women on the masculinity scale, although the difference was not significant. What is important to note is that there were no gender differences in managerial potential, which is consistent with earlier findings that showed no gender differences in managerial aspiration or managerial potential among physical education students (e.g., Steel, Chelladurai, & Brown, 1987). Although the between-gender differences in perceptions of task attributes and preferences were limited to a few variables, they are illuminating. For instance, the fact that men were more inclined toward coaching is consistent with earlier reports of similar differences in teaching and coaching preferences (Bain & Wendt, 1983; Chu, 1984; Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998; Segrave, 1981; Staffo, 1992). Chu (1984) found that among preservice students, 75% of the men preferred coaching, while women were almost evenly split between teaching and coaching. Our results indicate that the trend continues 13 years later. Clearly, men are more likely than women to seek coaching jobs in educational institutions. This would partly explain why men outnumber women in the coaching ranks (Acosta & Carpenter, 1996; Hasbrook, Hart, Mathes, & True, 1990; Knoppers, 1987,1992; Lirgg, DiBrezzo, & Smith, 1994; Weiss & Stevens, 1993; Wilkerson, 1996).

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP Information Integrity

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

June 1999 v70 i2 p179(1)

Page 7

Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and preferences for teaching and coaching. As for group and task differences, the genders differed only with regard to perceived job variety and control. Men perceived greater variety and control in coaching, while women perceived greater variety and control in teaching. It is not immediately clear why men and women differed in their perceptions of variety and control. One possible explanation is that "variety" (i.e., using various tasks and performing different tasks) might have been interpreted differently by men and women. Men might have focused on the skills and tasks associated with coaching per se. That is, they might have considered advanced skills, teaching tactics, and strategies as evidence of the variety in the coaching job. In contrast, women might have focused on the variety among students and the need to use different skills and tasks to motivate the students with different needs and abilities. Similarly, men and women might have attached different connotations to "control." For example, men might have focused on the control coaches have on their team’s membership. Given the intense desire of athletes to be on the team, this control over membership could have been rated high by men. On the other hand, women might have thought of coaching being highly constrained or influenced by external agents and pressures, while teaching is free from such external controlling elements. Therefore, they might have rated teaching as higher in control. Another possible explanation is that as men and women differed in their preferences for coaching or teaching, they might have attributed greater variety and control to the role of their choice. These explanations need to be verified in future research using more explicit items to tap into these elements of "control." It is noteworthy that both genders had similar perceptions of the other attributes of the teaching and coaching roles. Both genders perceived higher job status in coaching than in teaching and greater ease of motivation in coaching than in teaching. On the other hand, both genders perceived greater job significance and greater job identity in teaching than in coaching. While these results are generally consistent with Chelladurai and Kuga’s model (1996), the job identity finding is contrary to their perception that the coaching role would score higher on this dimension. They argued that "high task identity would be available to high school coaches. They develop the athletic potential of the few students who report for the team. This development is easily identified and easily attributed to the coach, who is usually the sole individual responsible for that task" (p. 476). Our respondents, however, perceived greater task identity in teaching. The above finding illustrates the importance of one’s perception rather than the objective nature of a job in

influencing one’s reactions to that job. Although the teaching and coaching roles can be analyzed from a theoretical perspective as Chelladurai and Kuga (1996) attempted to do, an individual’s perceptions of a job and its attributes determine how personally attractive it is. Thus, any researcher interested in assessing preferences for teaching or coaching must consider the respondents’ perceptions of the two roles. As such, it would be appropriate to conduct more field-based, qualitative studies to determine the meanings and values shared by teacher-coaches as well as the perceptions of prospective teachers and coaches interested in multiple-role careers. An intriguing finding of the study was that although women perceived coaching to be higher on job status (M = 6.62) and ease of motivation (M = 5.74), they still preferred teaching to coaching. The implication is that women placed greater importance on other job factors beside status or ease of motivation. For instance,job significance and job identity were perceived to be higher in teaching than in coaching. Apparently, female respondents were willing to forego the status and ease of motivation available in coaching in favor of the significance and identity of the job in teaching. This differential preference for teaching or coaching may be a function of: (a) gender differences in coaching philosophy (Eitzen & Pratt, 1989), (b) how women see the world from vantage points different from those of the sport organization culture, which has been shaped by white men (Coakley, 1998), and (c) how men and women are socialized differently with respect to teaching and coaching (Knoppers, 1992). Our results are similar to the findings reported by Everhart and Chelladurai (1998). In their study of self-efficacy and career orientation of Division I basketball players, they found that female players rated the valence (or attraction) of coaching as an occupation higher than male players. However, women’s preferences for coaching as an occupation were lower than for the men. Taken together, the results of these two studies suggest that women are still disinclined to take on the coaching role. If these attitudes and preferences translate into actual behavioral decisions, women are less likely to pursue coaching as an occupation. Such a prospect would partly explain the underrepresentation of women in coaching. Future research must also assess the relative attraction of specific job characteristics. Such an approach would help us to understand the main and interaction effects of perceived job characteristics. The expectation that individual difference factors and perceived group and task differences between teaching and coaching influence preferences for teaching and coaching was confirmed. Although the bivariate

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP Information Integrity

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

June 1999 v70 i2 p179(1)

Page 8

Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and preferences for teaching and coaching. correlations between individual difference factors and preference to teach or coach were moderate, the cumulative effects of individual difference factors (gender, managerial potential, and masculinity-femininity) on preference to teach or coach ([R.sup.2] = 14.1%) were sufficiently large to be taken seriously. Of the individual difference factors, gender was the most powerful variable influencing the choice of teaching or coaching [R.sup.2] = 8.1%). The influences of masculinity, femininity, and masculinity-femininity were muted by the effects of other factors. The effects of perceived group and task differences were even stronger on preferences ([R.sup.2] = 25.3%). Those who perceived greater ease of motivating students and athletes, job variety and control, and job identity in either teaching or coaching were strongly attracted to that occupation. The combined effects of both individual difference factors and job factors were pronounced ([R.sup.2] = 33%). The job factors of ease of motivation, job variety and control, and gender contributed to more than three-fourths of the explained variance in preference to teach or coach. The task factors had relatively greater influence on the preference to teach or coach than individual difference factors. While it might be tempting to conclude that task factors matter most, we note that there may be other individual difference factors not included in the study that better predict preference for teaching or coaching. For instance, one’s personal value system may have a bearing on the preference to teach or coach. Similarly, perceived conflicts between coaching demands and family commitments may influence preference to teach or coach. For instance, Everhart and Chelladurai’s (1998) participants perceived the many working hours associated with coaching as a significant barrier to that profession. Similarly, perceived discrimination against and lack of support for women in coaching could also contribute to preference for teaching or coaching.

should result in additional dimensions of task attributes unique to the teaching-coaching context. By the same token, it is also important to assess the incumbent teacher-coaches’ perceptions of the attributes of teaching and coaching. Their experiences and reactions are likely to be different from those of the participants in this study - teacher trainees in physical education programs. Further, there was the implicit understanding that the "teaching" was confined to teaching physical education. In fact, Chelladurai & Kuga (1996) based their discussion on the distinction between teaching physical education and coaching sports. However, it is also important to assess the reactions of teachers other than physical education teachers who also coach various sports. Sage (1987) found that even teachers who don’t teach physical education would favor coaching over teaching, provided the income level was the same. In summary, this study was concerned with the perceptions of and preferences for teaching and coaching roles among preservice trainees in physical education teacher preparation programs. Men preferred more to coach, whereas women preferred more to teach. In addition to the influence of gender, preferences for teaching and coaching were influenced by the participants’ perceptions of task attributes, especially the ease of motivating students or athletes, and perceived job variety. Authors’ Note Please address all correspondence concerning this article to P. Chelladurai, School of PAES, The Ohio State University, 337 West 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1284. E-mail: [email protected] References

While the study highlighted the importance of individual as well as task characteristics in teaching and coaching dynamics, it also suffers from some limitations. First, as noted earlier, the alpha values for the specially developed scales were not high enough. Thus, it is important that these scales be refined for future use. Also, the specific task characteristics employed in the study were distilled from earlier work (e.g., Chelladurai & Kuga, 1996; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Future efforts in this regard must include one important source of information on task differences between teaching and coaching - the incumbent teacher-coaches themselves. Their first-hand experiences of and reactions to the contrasting elements of the two roles should be tapped in future research through techniques such as focus groups. Such efforts

Acosta, V. A., & Carpenter, J. L. (1988). Perceived causes of the declining representation of women leaders in intercollegiate sports - 1988 update. Unpublished manuscript. Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, New York. Acosta, V. A., & Carpenter, J. L. (1992). Women in intercollegiate sport. A longitudinal study - fifteen-year update. Unpublished manuscript, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, New York. Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (1996). Women in intercollegiate sport - a longitudinal study: Nineteen-year update, 1977-1996. Unpublished manuscript, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, NY..

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP Information Integrity

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

June 1999 v70 i2 p179(1)

Page 9

Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and preferences for teaching and coaching. Bain, L. L., & Wendt, J. C. (1983). Undergraduate physical education majors’ perceptions of the roles of teacher and coach. Research Quarterly, 54, 112-118. Caccese, T. W., & Mayerberg, C. K. (1984). Gender differences in perceived burnout of college coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology., 6, 279-288. Cattel, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1,245-276. Chelladurai, P. (1985). Sport management: Macro perspectives. London, Ontario: Sports Dynamics. Chelladurai, P., & Kuga, D. (1996). Teaching and coaching: Group and task differences, Quest, 48, 470-485. Chu, D. (1984). Teacher-coach orientation and role socialization: A description and explanation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3, 3-8. Coakley, J. J. (1986). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (3rd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby. Coakley, J. J. (1998). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (6th ed.). Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill. Cote, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1995). The coaching model: A grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches’ knowledge. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 1-17. Dodds, P., Placek, J., Doolittle, S., Pinkham, K., Ratliffe, T., & Portman, P. (1991). Teacher-coach recruits: Background profiles, occupational decision factors, comparisons with recruits into other physical education occupations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 161-176.

determinants of leader behavior, In E. A. Fleishman and J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership (pp. 41-60). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Figone, A., (1994). Teacher-coach role conflict: Its impact on students and student-athletes. Physical Educator, 51(1), 29-34. Fink, J. S. (1995). Female leadership in sport: Dueling debates surrounding existing inequities. Future Focus, 16(2), 37-43. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Institute of Social Research. Gough, H. G. (1984). A managerial potential scale for the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 233-240. Griffin, P. S. (1992). Changing the game: Homophobia, sexism, and lesbians in sport. Quest, 44, 251-265. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. Hasbrook, C. A., Hart, B. A., Mathes, S. A., & True, S. (1990). Sex bias and the validity of believed differences between male and female interscholastic athletic coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61, 259-267. Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35-45. Knoppers, A. (1987). Gender and the coaching profession. Quest, 39, 9-22.

Eitzen, D. S., & Pratt, S. R. (1989). Gender differences in coaching philosophy: The case of female basketball teams. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 152-158.

Knoppers, A. (1992). Explaining male dominance and sex segregation in coaching: Three approaches. Quest, 44, 210-227.

Everhart, C. B., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Gender differences in preferences for coaching as an occupation: The role of self-efficacy, valence, and perceived barriers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 188-200.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lirgg, C. D., DiBrezzo R., & Smith, A. N. (1994). Influence of gender of coach onperceptions of basketball and coaching self-efficacy and aspirations of high school female basketball players. Women in Sport and Physical

Fiedler, F. E. (1973). Personality and situational

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP Information Integrity

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

June 1999 v70 i2 p179(1)

Page 10

Individual differences, perceived task characteristics, and preferences for teaching and coaching. Activity Journal, 3, 1-14. Lovett, D. J., & Lowry, C. D. (1994). "Good old boys" and "good old girls" clubs: Myth or reality? Journal of Sport Management, 8, 27-35. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. O’Bryant, C. P. (1996). Choosing physical education as a profession: Stories of three African American women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University. Parkhouse, B. L., & Williams,J. M. (1986). Differential effects of sex and status on evaluation of coaching ability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 53-59. Rose, D. A. (1986). Is there a discipline of physical education? Quest, 30, 1-21. Rupert, T. A., & Buschner, C. (1989). Teaching and coaching: A comparison of instructional behaviors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 49-57. Sage, G. H. (1973). The coach as management: Organizational leadership in American sport. Quest, 19, 35-40. Sage, G. H. (1987). The social world of high school athletic coaches: Multiple role demands and their consequences. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, 213-228. Sage, G. H. (1989). Becoming a high school coach: From playing sports to coaching. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 81-92. Segrave, J. O. (1981). Role preference among prospective physical education teacher-coaches. In V. Crafts (Ed.), Proceedings of the annual conference of the National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education (Vol. II, pp. 5361). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 29-39. Slaffo, D. F. (1992). Clarifying physical education teacher-coach responsibilities: A self-analysis guide for those in dual roles. Physical Educator, 49(4), 52-56. Steel, B., Chelladurai, P., & Brown, B. A. (1987). Gender differences in managerial aspirations and potential among physical education and non-physical education students. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 118-129. Stroot, S., Collier, C., O’Sullivan, M., & England, K. (1994). Contextual hoops and hurdles: Workplace conditions in secondary physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 342-360. Templin, T., Sparkes, A., Grant, B., & Schempp, P. (1994). Matching the self: The paradoxical case and life history of a late career teacher-coach. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 274-294. Templin, T., Woodford, R., & Mulling, C. (1982). On becoming a physical educator: Occupational choice and the anticipatory socialization process. Quest, 34, 119-133. True, S. (1983). Percentages of girls ’high school athletic teams coached by women. Kansas City, MO: National Federation of State High School Associations. Weiss, M. R., & Stevens, C. (1993). Motivation and attrition of female coaches: An application of social exchange theory. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 244-261. Wilkerson, M. (1996). Explaining the presence of men coaches in women’s sports: The uncertainty hypothesis. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 4, 411-426. Packianathan Chelladurai is with the School of PAES at The Ohio State University. Donna J. Kuga is with the Department of Kinesiology at Pennsylvania State University. Camille R O’Bryant is with the School of PAES at The Ohio State University.

Sisley, B., Capel, S., & Descertrain, G. (1987). Preventing burnout in teacher-coaches. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 58(9), 71-79. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1986). Personal attributes questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP Information Integrity