Issues related to the values and value orientations that dominate the education of future teachers have become topical in the global education policy in the 21st century. A teacher’s professional identity is a set of views that teachers consider about themselves as professionals (Beijaards et al., 2004). Researchers have conceptualized three aspects of a teacher’s professional identity: the personal (i.e., teachers as individuals with personal skills and epistemological beliefs); the situational (i.e., teachers as members of the school community); and the contextual aspect (i.e., teachers as members of the socio-cultural communities in which the person lives) (Chere-Masopha, 2018). This research will focus on the personal aspect of teachers’ professional identity, studying the beliefs of future physical education teachers. Value orientations are based on a sustainable system of teachers’ values and beliefs, which determines the direction, content, and decision-making of the goals of the learning tasks implemented by physical education teachers in the selection of organisation forms of the implemented content, as well as in forming feedback (Jewett et al., 1995). Meta-analysis of the conducted research in the context of the study of physical education teachers’ values highlighted five directions of physical education teachers’ value orientations (Jewett et al., 1995): Disciplinary mastery (DM) – acquisition of specific motor skills. Learning process (LP), where the teacher acquires processes and specific skills required for good performance. Self-actualization (SA), where physical education (PE) teacher realizes their personal goals, values, and confidence for self-growth. Social responsibility (SR) – perceives the class as a micro-society that pursues such goals as cooperation and group work while respecting each another. Ecological integration (EI) – PE teachers respect the balance between the social dimension, the student, and the knowledge of the subject, focuses on the formation of a balanced critical thinking of society and the individual (Drouet et al., 2021; Ennis & Chen,1993). Based on these five directions of physical education teachers’ value orientations, work on the development and improvement of a measurement tool took place in several countries from 1988 to 2008, where the number of statements in questionnaires varied from 50 to 90 (Drouet et al., 2021). The validation confirmation procedure of the original version of the questionnaire on physical education teachers’ value orientations took place in three stages: 1) the orientation of 15 directions was analysed, where the analysis of the weakest representative statements took place (75 statements) (Ennis &Hooper, 1988); 2) the newly acquired data were statistically processed and analysed, developing 18 direction orientations consisting of 90 statements; 3) new research criteria were defined, the contingency table approach was used in analysis, y (Gamma criterion) and K (Kappa coefficient) were calculated to assess the compliance of the clauses (Ennis & Chen, 1993).  The validation process was repeated, using the same contingency table approach, calculating the y criterion and K coefficient. Studying the compliance of the obtained indicators with the normal distribution, a relatively low influence of the asymmetry coefficient on the K coefficient indicator was found (Chen et al., 1997). The latest version of the questionnaire on value orientations developed by French scientists is based on three value scales, which also integrate the previous two scales (Drouet et al, 2021).

The aim of this research is to assess the psychometric indicators of the Latvian version of the Questionnaire on Teachers’ Value Orientations in Physical Education (VOI- Short Form).

The research question:

Will the psychometric indicators of the Latvian version of the short 50-statement 10-value orientations, statements characterizing the directions of physical education teachers’ value orientations, be in accordance with the psychometric indicators of the original version of the 50-statement Questionnaire on Teachers’ Value Orientations in Physical Education (Chen et al., 1997)?

The pilot research involved 82 respondents – future physical education teachers, including 39 women and 43 men. The following methods were used in the research: the Latvian version of the Questionnaire on Physical Education Teachers’ Value Orientations (Chen et al., 1997); expert opinion methods; mathematical statistics (descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha). The adaptation of the questionnaire took place in several stages (Zhu & Chen, 2018; ITC, 2017). The forward-backward translation of the questionnaire was provided by professional English and Latvian philology specialists specializing in sport science. The apparent and content validity was determined. Four experts were invited to determine the content validity. The expert group consisted of 2 scholars, 1 practitioner, and 1 end user. The questionnaire process and collection of respondents’ data took place anonymously, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Human Rights. Respondents rated their responses to 50 questionnaire statements, which were summarised in 10 value orientation directions of forced-choice scales and 5 dimensions: disciplinary mastery (DM), characterized by one of the statements – I plan so that students would practice skills, abilities or fitness tasks; Learning process (LP) – For example, statement – I teach students how to divide the tasks of movement, skills, and physical fitness so as to emphasize the most important components of their learning; Self-actualization (SA), characterised by one of the statements – I teach students to take responsibility for their actions. Social responsibility (SR) – for example, statement – I teach students to work together to solve class/group issues. Ecological integration (EI), where one the characterising statements is – I teach students to try new activities to find the ones they like. Respondents rank the five statements in each direction using a different number on a 5-point scale (in which 1 = least important and 5 = most important) to indicate their value priority. Respondents consistently rank the statements representing one particular value orientation higher than others throughout the 10 sets. The collected data were analyzed to determine the validity (with a focus on the item rating means) and reliability evidence (with a focus on internal consistency by computing Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951).

Indicators of internal coherence of the questionnaire on future physical education teachers’ value orientations show a corresponding reliability of the translated Latvian version of the questionnaire, as evidenced by the total Cronbach’s coefficient alpha .925 with variation in dimensions from .723 to .888. The highest indicators in terms of arithmetic mean and standard deviation were: DM (35.40±1; α=.744). This trend shows the extent to which the traditional approach to the learning programme is being implemented as a priority, where knowledge of the content is extremely important. For teachers who prioritize this value orientation, the learning programme focuses on skills and performance-related knowledge. LP (34.2±7; α=.766) this value dimension highlights the acquisition of skills and the understanding of learning related to it. The learning experience emphasizes learning progress so that students would understand the relationship between content, as well as add new knowledge to what they have previously learned. SA (34.07±7; α=.888) PE teachers, for whom this dimension dominates, are student-centred in their activity, their aim is to build self-esteem, self-knowledge, and the joy of learning in students. EI (32.35±7; α=.723) in this research, we see that this dimension ranks fourth in the hierarchy of PE teachers’ value orientations. This trend emphasises a holistic approach where a balanced learning programme considers students’ needs, the study subject, the educational context, and social issues. SR (31.14±8; α=.852) this dimension receives the least attention. It is based on respecting the most important needs of society and balancing them with one’s own individual needs. In this case, the main aim of the learning programme for PE teachers is to encourage students to become socially responsible and to consider promoting social change.

Beijaard, D. Meijer, P. C. & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and teacher education, 20(2), 107-128. Chen, A., Ennis C.D., Loftus S. (1997). Refining the Value Orientation Inventory. Volume 68(4), 352-356 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1997.10608016 Chere-Masopha, J. (2018). Personal landscapes of teacher professional identities versus digital technology adoption and integration in Lesotho schools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 17(3), 28-42. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Drouet O., Roure C., Boulley G.E., Pasco D., Lenillon-Kaestner V. (2021). Development and Validity Evidence of a Questionnaire on Teachers’ Value Orientations in Physical Education. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 25(3), 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911367X2021.1876067 Ennis C.D., Chen A. (1993). Domain specifications and content representativeness of the revised value orientation inventory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64(4), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1993.10607597 Ennis C.D., Hooper L.M. (1988). Development of an instrument for assessing educational value orientations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(3), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027880200308 International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second edition). [www.InTestCom.org] Jewett, A.E., Bain, L.L.,& Ennis, C.D. (1995) The Curriculum Process in Physical Education (2nd edition). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555 Zhu, W., & Chen, A. (2018). Value orientation inventory: Development, applications, and contributions. Kinesiology Review, 7(3), 206-210. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0030