The Effect of Learning Model and Physical Fitness towards the
Improvement of Self-Efficacy
Bachtiar Wildan Hambali Maarif, Amung Ma’mun and Tite Juliantine
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: TPSR learning model, Direct Instruction, Fitness, and Self-Efficacy.
Abstract: This article discusses the model of learning and physical fitness of its effects on increasing self-efficacy. The
objectives of this study were to compare the learning models of Personal and Social Responsibility Teaching
(TPSR) and Direct Instruction (DI) and their interaction with physical fitness to increase self-efficacy. The
method used is experiment with simple 2x2 factorial design. The sample in this study is forty students of
SMPN 1 Banjaran following extracurricular futsal. Data analysis using SPSS version 23 with hypothesis
testing through two way anova and Tukey test. Based on the calculation and data analysis, the following
results are obtained: Firstly, there is a whole difference between the TPSR and DI models for the improvement
of self-efficacy in which the TPSR learning model is better than DI; Secondly, there is an interaction between
the learning model with physical fitness that gives a difference in effect to the improvement of self-efficacy;
Thirdly, there is a difference of influence between TPSR and DI models on increasing self-efficacy in high
fitness group whereas TPSR learning model is better; Fourthly, there is a difference of influence between
TPSR and DI model on increasing self-efficacy in lower physical fitness group where the DI learning model
is better.
1 INTRODUCTION
Learning model is one of the indicators in achieving
the best learning result (Kirk, 2015; Macphail, 2011).
In the application, the model used can be the
teachers’ creation or can be adopted from the others.
In applying the learning model, a teacher must
understand well about the essence of that learning
model so that the application will be more effective
and efficient. The right learning model is not only
good for the teaches, but also for the students as well
(Justi and Gilbert, 2013). Not only the learning model
offers convenience for the teachers, but in the
process, that learning model should be able to make
the students to get information, idea, skill, value, way
of thinking, and how to express their thoughts
(Goodyear, 2014).
In the world of education, there are so many
learning models. The learning model usually used in
the learning process at school consists of many
varieties or types (Klaus and Maklan, 2011). The
point is, learning models can be classified into four:
(1) Information Processing Model, (2) Personal
Model, (3) Social Interaction Model, and (4)
Behavior Model (Raab et al., 2009; Bergsteiner et al.,
2010).
One of the models that is often used in the
physical education learning process in order to
cultivate the social and individual values of the
students is known as Teaching Personal and Social
Responsibility (TPSR) model (Filiz, 2017; Martinek
and Hellison, 2016; Severinsen, 2014). TPSR Model
is an approach model that emphasizes the individual
and social development of the students through
intrinsic motivation (Walsh et al., 2010). This model
can be integrated with the learning model which is
generally used often by physical education teachers
like the Direct Instruction Model.
Direct Instruction Model is a learning model that
centered on the teachers that force the students to do
every instruction designed by the teachers (Cobern et
al., 2010; Gurvitch and Metzler, 2013). This learning
model is predominantly used in the physical
education learning. The main purpose of this learning
model is to maximize the learning period of the
students and to develop independence in achieving
and actualize the goals of education (Activities, 2013;
Cohen and Zach, 2013).
286
Maarif, B., Ma’mun, A. and Juliantine, T.
The Effect of Learning Model and Physical Fitness towards the Improvement of Self-Efficacy.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 286-291
ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

So that in this model the teachers design all
learning situations like designing the goals and the
assignments, dividing those assignments into some
smaller components, developing the training
activities that ensure the mastery of each parts of the
component (Metzler et al., 2015).
The learning activity that is often seen in the
school is, the Direct Instruction Model is a learning
activity that centered on the teachers, the students are
passive and merely become the objects of the learning
material. In the learning application, sometimes a
teacher doesn’t reflect into the learning so that the
affective formation of the students does not form. On
the TPSR learning, the teachers have to be more
interactive, and respect each other, the teachers
should give the opportunities for the students to
express their thoughts.
Aside from responsibility, one thing that the
teacher should also develop in PBM is Self-Efficacy.
Self-efficacy is someone’s belief in their own abilities
to do some certain assignments, that belief will affect
the action that’s chosen to be done (Sciences, 2008;
Bandura, 2007), and try as hard as possible so that
they can survive in facing the obstacles and failures,
and their toughness if they have to face setbacks
(Daly et al., 2017).
The student’s belief in their own success to
manage their own learning activity and to master the
academic activities can determine the aspiration,
motivation level, and their academic achievements.
The teacher’s belief on their own efficacy to motivate
and promote learning affect the type of learning
environment that they create and the level of
academic progress that’s achieved by their students
(Marasso et al., 2014; Bandura, 2010; Prestwich et al.,
2014)
The former research, that was revealed by Escarti
et al. (2010), self-efficacy is defined and enhanced at
first and especially on the A behavior psychologist’s
work. Bandura states that belief and judgement made
by individuals are that they can succeed or finish their
identified work (Green, 2008).
The researchers have developed the concept of
self-efficacy and generalized as belief that someone
can succeed on the global and non-specific
assignment, and the specific self-effectiveness as a
belief that someone can finish the assignment’s
specific behavior (Wood and Olivier, 2007; Ivars et
al., 2014)
We need to do a deeper review on the application
of TPSR learning model (Teaching Personal and
Social Responsibility) compared to the DI (Direct
Instruction) learning model, with first categorizing
the samples based on the high and low physical
fitness.
2 METHODS
2.1 Participants
Forty students that were in the futsal extracurricular
in SMPN 1 Banjaran Kabupaten Bandung with the
age ranging from 13 – 14. No students have got any
futsal training using the TPSR and DI Models.
2.2 Instruments
2.2.1 Tes Kebugaran Jasmani Indonesia
(TKJI) / Indonesian Physical Fitness
Test
One parameter used to measure the level of physical
fitness that consists of a set of test matters that
become one of the parameters in knowing the level of
a child physical fitness that is categorized based on
that child’s age. Tes Kebugaran Jasmani Indonesia or
as known as TKJI (Indonesian Physical Fitness Test)
is divided into three groups of instrument test which
are differentiated according to the groups of age:
 Tes Kebugaran Jasmani Indonesia (TKJI)/
Indonesian Physical Fitness Test for
Elementary School level, age 6 – 12;
 Tes Kebugaran Jasmani Indonesia (TKJI)/
Indonesian Physical Fitness Test for Junior
High School Level, age 13 – 15;
 Tes Kebugaran Jasmani Indonesia (TKJI)/
Indonesian Physical Fitness Test for High
School level, age 16 – 19.
Based on the physical fitness parameter, this
parameter can only apply to measure the child’s
physical fitness, in accordance with those age groups.
Therefore, this parameter doesn’t apply in measuring
physical fitness of those who are not on those groups.
In this research, I did some tests on junior high
school students of VII and VIII grades, most are 13
years old in average, then the scoring and
measurement from each test uses the test size for
groups consisting of 13 – 15 years old. The physical
fitness test in Indonesia for junior high school level,
aged 13 – 15, there are several test matters, such as:
sprint run for 50 meters, pull ups in 60 second, sit ups
in 60 seconds, vertical jump, and medium distance
run 1,000 meters (males). Those tests have to be done
at the same time.
The Effect of Learning Model and Physical Fitness towards the Improvement of Self-Efficacy
287

This test aims to classify and know which students
have high and low physical fitness.
2.2.2 Self-Efficacy Instruments
Questionnaires to score self-belief trust in sports.
Consisting of 42 questions using 5 Likert scales.
Whereas for the way of scoring using the Likert scales
with four choices of answer. The answers are SS
(sangat setuju)/really agree, S (setuju)/agree, KK
(kadang-kadang)/sometimes, TS (tidak setuju)/
disagree, and STS (sangat tidak setuju)/really
disagree.
2.3 Procedures
The samples consisted of 40 students that joined the
futsal extracurricular at SMPN 1 Banjaran. We
ranked the samples that had participated in the
physical fitness test from sample number 1 to 40.
Then divide the sample into two groups: group A
from rank 1 to 20 with high physical fitness and group
B from rank 21 to 40 with low physical fitness.
Then each group was divided into 2 smaller
groups using the matching paired technique with the
ABBA formula, from the highest rank of the samples,
until there were 4 small groups, each consisted of 10
samples.
Then each group was randomized using the
random assignment to determine which one had more
and got what treatment.
Sample groups with high physical fitness:
Gr. A : 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13,16, 17,20.
Gr. B : 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15,18,19.
Sample groups with low physical fitness:
Gr. A : 21,24, 25,28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40.
Gr. B : 22,23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39.
After being classified, it was then given the
treatment. (A) Teaching Personal and Social
Responsibility. 20 people consisting of 10 people that
had high physical fitness and 10 people with low
physical fitness. Treatment (B) Direct Teaching. 20
people consisting of 10 people with high physical
fitness and 10 people with low physical fitness.
Giving the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire to see the
ability of the self-belief level from the samples, to
find out about the result of the self-belief level before
the treatment was given.
We referred to the article by Escarti et al. (2010),
based on that article reference, we set the treatment
with 12 meetings outside the pre-test and post-test. So
that it could be ensured that each sample class got 3
times learning process a week with 90 minutes
duration for each meeting.
Did the last test (post-test) after the treatment was
given. Analyzed the data and gave the conclusion.
3 RESULTS
The result of the research data was analyzed with the
help of SPSS 16. This is the review of the calculations
in table 1:
Table 1: Research Result Data.
Physical
Fitness (B)
Model Pembelajaran(A)
TPSR
Direct Instruction
High Physical
Fitness
27.6
11
Low Physical
Fitness
11.7
24.9
Because the value of t is higher (>) than the t table
value (6,732 > 2,740), then H0 is declined and H1 is
accepted. So the research hypothesis that states: there
is a significant difference of influence between the
teaching personal and social responsibility model and
direct instruction model that is accepted on the
significance level α=0,05.
Because the Sig. value is higher (>) than α (4,11
> 0,05), then H0 is declined and H1 is accepted. So
the research hypothesis that states: there is interaction
between the learning model with the physical fitness
towards the improvement of self-efficacy accepted on
the significance level α=0,05.
Because the t value is higher (>) than the t table
(5,938 > 720), then H0 is declined and H1 is accepted.
So the research hypothesis that states: there is a
difference between teaching personal and social
responsibility model and direct instruction model on
the group with high confidence is accepted on the
significance level α=0.05.
Because the t value is lower (<) than the t table
(794 < 2,028), then H0 is declined and H1 is accepted.
So, the research hypothesis that states: there is a
significant difference of influence between the
teaching personal and social responsibility model and
direct instruction model on the group with low
confidence is accepted on the significance level
α=0,05.
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
288

4 DISCUSSION
The TPSR Learning Model is better than the DI
Learning Model on improving self-efficacy. The
result of this research fills the literature gap about the
TPSR learning model on the improvement of
confidence and supports the TPSR theory that states,
“TPSR stands for a set of ideas that have grown out
of my attempt to help at risk kids take more
responsibility foot their personal and social
development in physical activity settings,” and means
that the TPSR model was created by Hellison based
on his best ideas with the purpose of improving the
attitude of responsibility which is formed slowly
through the direct experience of the students in the
physical activity that starts from the personal feeling
of responsibility to the social responsibility.
Self-efficacy that means self-belief or believing in
what someone will do to make a decision or respect
others is one of the forms of social responsibility that
developed under this TPSR model.
Self-belief is the purpose of TPSR model learning.
Through this TPSR model, this behavior develops
because it was applied into the daily lesson plan,
consisting of counselling time, awareness talk, lesson
focus, group meeting, and reflection time.
On the counselling time session, the students are
given some motivation in the form of explanation that
they have great potentials in improving their behavior
or to give some appreciation on their learning result
for that day, this is done so that the motivation inside
the students can develop and improve.
Then, on the awareness talk session, the students
are given the explanation about the respect behaviors
and give them chance to commit in choosing the
learning purpose that they will achieve that day
through the learning contracts. Then, on the lesson
focus session, the instructional strategy is used to
integrate the respect behavior in their moving
assignment, in this case we apply a small side game
so that we can give the students more chance to
interact socially. This is in accordance with
Vygotsky’s theory that says that the change of
development will happen in the social process
internalisation. Then on the group meeting session,
the students will gather based on their own groups to
discuss about the ongoing learning, in this session the
students are asked to realize about the rights that
everyone has so that they can appreciate and respect
others’ thoughts and decisions. The last is the
reflection time session, the students are given
opportunity to evaluate the behavior that they have
done based on the learning purposes on the contracts.
Maximizing the opportunity to interact socially is in
accordance with Vygostsky’s theory that says that the
change of development will happen in the social
process internalisation.
The application of self-belief behavior on this
research has a chance of changing the students’
behavior in the physical education learning through
the futsal extracurricular, the behavior that is used to
be done, like hesitating when they’re about to pass to
their friends who happen to lack ability so that they
make mistake, make fun of them, disturbing other
students while they are learning, act selfishly when
they play and other negative behaviors have been
changed by them by the application of the self-belief
behavior that are developed during the learning. This
is proved by the notes on the field that show that there
are changes of behaviors that they do to their friends.
Like on the first meetings (1 – 4), the students’
negative behaviors that reflected the low self-belief
behavior could still be seen, like making fun of their
friends who couldn’t catch the ball passed by their
friends, also when they did the passing that
sometimes didn’t fit their friends’ ability, there was a
student that did something that could harm their
friends, not accepting defeat and led to mocking
battle, and also there were several students that didn’t
receive thoughts and advices and disturbed the others
by throwing small stuffs to the other groups on the
group meeting session.
On the next meetings (5–9) the students’ negative
behavior that reflected the low self-belief behavior
started to decrease, like the decrease of behavior that
could harm their friends, they started to accept the
defeat in the games, making fun of their friends when
they made mistakes could still be seen but rarely, and
there were still students that disturbed other groups
on the group meeting session, but their other friends
have reminded them not to do so.
On the last meetings (10–12) the change of
behavior could finally be seen clearly, especially
compared to the first meetings. Like the students
could finally accept defeat and were able to receive
the balls passed, and good decision making with no
hesitation, and appreciating each other by giving
applause for the winning teams, vice versa. There was
still some incident that could be harmful, but they
didn’t do it on purpose, and they apologized right
after. There was no more student that disturbed their
friends on the discussion and the students had finally
able to accept some advices on the group meeting
session.
Those behaviors show that with some value,
attitude, and behavior development, the students can
become better.
The Effect of Learning Model and Physical Fitness towards the Improvement of Self-Efficacy
289

5 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the research and the discussion result, we
could conclude that (1) As a whole, there are
significant differences between the teaching personal
and social responsibility learning model with the
direct instruction model towards the improvement of
self-efficacy, in which the TPSR model is better than
the Direct Instruction model; (2) There are
interactions between the learning models with the
physical fitness towards the improvement of self-
efficacy; (3) There are differences between the
teaching personal and social responsibility model and
direct instruction model towards the improvement of
self-efficacy on the high physical fitness group, in
which the TPSR learning model is better than the
Direct Instruction learning model; (4) There are
differences between the teaching personal and social
responsibility model and direct instruction model
towards the improvement of self-efficacy on the low
physical fitness group, in which the Direct Instruction
is better than TPSR.
REFERENCES
Activities, L., 2013. Instructional Models, 30–37.
Bandura, A., 2007. Self-efficacy Conception of Anxiety.
Anxiety Research : An International Self-efficacy
conception of anxiety. (April 2012), 37–41.
Bandura, A., 2010. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive
development and functioning. Educational
psychologist. 28(2), 117-148.
Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C., Neumann, R., 2010. Kolb's
experiential learning model: critique from a modelling
perspective. Studies in Continuing Education. 32(1),
29-46.
Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B.,
Skjold, B., Undreiu, A., Gobert, J. D., 2010.
Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct
instruction in science. Research in Science &
Technological Education. 28(1), 81-96.
Cohen, R., Zach, S., 2013. Building pre-service teaching
efficacy: a comparison of instructional models.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 18(4), 376-
388.
Daly, J. A., Thompson, C. M., Daly, J. A., Thompson, C.
M., 2017. Persuasive Self-Efficacy : Dispositional and
Situational Correlates Persuasive Self-Efficacy :
Dispositional and Situational Correlates.
Communication Research Reports. 0(0), 1–10.
Escarti, A., Gutiérrez, M., Pascual, C., Llopis, R., 2010.
Implementation of the personal and social
responsibility model to improve self-efficacy during
physical education classes for primary school children.
International Journal of Psychology and Psychological
Therapy. 10(3).
Filiz, B., 2017. Applying the TPSR Model in Middle
School Physical Education: Editor: Ferman Konukman.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance.
88(4), 50-52.
Goodyear, V. A., Casey, A., Kirk, D., 2014. Hiding behind
the camera: social learning within the Cooperative
Learning Model to engage girls in physical education.
Sport, education and society. 19(6), 712-734.
Green, D. M., 2008. Journal of Teaching in Social Work
Self-Efficacy. (October 2014), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v23n03
Gurvitch, R., Metzler, M., 2013. Aligning learning
activities with instructional models. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance. 84(3), 30-37.
Ivars, A. J., Pinazo, C. D., Ruiz, i. F. M., 2014. Self-efficacy
and language proficiency in interpreter trainees. The
Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 8(2), 167-182.
Justi, R. S., Gilbert, J. K., 2013. teachers views on the
nature of modelling , and implications for the education
of modellers. International Journal of Modelling.
Kirk, D., 2013. Educational value and models-based
practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy
and Theory. 45(9), 973-986.
Klaus, P., Maklan, S., 2011. Bridging the gap for
destination extreme sports: A model of sports tourism
customer experience. Journal of Marketing
Management. 27(13-14), 1341-1365.
MacPhail, A., 2011. Professional learning as a physical
education teacher educator. Physical education & sport
pedagogy. 16(4), 435-451.
Marasso, D., Laborde, S., Bardaglio, G., Raab, M., 2014. A
developmental perspective on decision making in
sports. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. 7(1), 251-273.
Martinek, T., Hellison, D., 2016. Teaching personal and
social responsibility: Past, present and future. Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 87(5), 9-
13.
Metzler, M. W., Mckenzie, T. L., Mars, H. V. D., Barrett-
williams, S. L., 2015. Recreation and Dance. Journal of
Physical Education. (February 2015), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2013.773826
Prestwich, A., Kellar, I., Parker, R., MacRae, S.,
Learmonth, M., Sykes, B., Castle, H., 2014. How can
self-efficacy be increased? Meta-analysis of dietary
interventions. Health Psychology Review. 8(3), 270-
285.
Raab, M., Masters, R. S., Maxwell, J., Arnold, A.,
Schlapkohl, N., Poolton, J., 2009. Discovery learning in
sports: Implicit or explicit processes?. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 7(4), 413-
430.
Sciences, C., 2008. Applying Bandura’s Theory of Self-
Efficacy to the Teaching of Research. (October 2014),
37–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v19n01
Severinsen, G., 2014. Teaching personal and social
responsibility to juniors through physical education.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical
Education. 5(1), 83-100.
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
290

Walsh, D. S., Ozaeta, J., Wright, P. M., 2010. Transference
of responsibility model goals to the school
environment: Exploring the impact of a coaching club
program. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy.
15(1), 15-28.
Wood, L., Olivier, T., 2007. Increasing the self-efficacy
beliefs of life orientation teachers: an evaluation.
Education as Change. 11(1), 161-179.
The Effect of Learning Model and Physical Fitness towards the Improvement of Self-Efficacy
291