18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Paper
Student Teachers’ Reflections on their Teaching in Practicum: two Reflection Bodies
Emil Johansson
Dalarna University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Johansson, Emil
Introduction
Reflections in teacher education (TE) is a disputed issue surrounded by “mixed messages and confusing agendas” (Fendler, 2003 p.20). According to Russell (2013), reflections have done more harm than good, especially when TE have forced their STs to reflect on theoretical matters and not on teaching practices. The “place to develop skills of reflective practice is in the practicum classroom as a novice teacher, not in the halls of the university as a student” (Russell, 2013 p.88). For that reason, my study focused on STs’ reflections on how they incorporated specified content into their teaching at practicum. The STs read about Assessment for Learning (AfL) at the university before entering their school placements. Research focusing on the link between universities and practicum is required since few studies on TE have “investigated how preparation [at the university] influenced candidates’ practice, […]to do the actual tasks of teaching” (Cochran-Smith et al., 2015 p.117).
I focused on whether STs' reflections were educative or non-educative (Dewey, 2015), and how contexts within school placements influenced STs' reflections on practicing AfL. An educative experience stimulates to further growth of STs' experiences of teaching situations (Dewey, 2015), which in this study is how STs' experiences of AfL gained at the university stimulate their further growth of experiences when incorporating AfL into their teaching practice. On the other hand, non-educative experiences stagnate STs' further growth (Dewey, 2015).
Examining ST's reflections on their incorporations of AfL can give insights into how they experience their teaching, since “reflections are blind without experiences, and experiences are empty without reflections” (Wackerhausen, 2008 p. 19). These concepts are intertwined because present experiences influence how the STs frame teaching situations in their mindscapes, (Dewey, 2018) when reflecting on them so that they are enabled to teach more intelligently (Dewey, 2015). Intelligent teaching, interpreted in this article, is a matter of STs' judgment, and how they decided to incorporate AfL. AfL is based on research findings from Black and Wiliam’s (1998) meta-study, and Biesta (2020) is concerned with how teaching has come to be seen as an evidence-based practice. Biesta (2020) finds it problematic when teachers take research findings for granted when incorporating them into their teaching thinking that they can solve problems by applying them. Instead, teachers should incorporate findings by judging the situation and adapting them based on what they think is useful for their pupils in the situation.
Aim and research questions
The aim is to shed light on STs' reflection to get insight into how they experience the incorporation of AfL in their teaching and whether their experiences were educative or non-educative. This can be done by analyzing their reflections, and by looking at how they compose them with either educative or non-educative elements. For that reason, the following research questions guided my investigation:
- Does context influence STs’ educative or non-educative reflections on using AfL and if it does, how?
- How can STs’ reflections be described in terms of a composition of parts, shaping either educative or non-educative reflections?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAnalytical toolbox
To analyze STs' reflections I used Wackerhausen’s (2009) reflection anatomy, consisting of four parts that can be used as tools to dissect STs' reflections (Johansson, 2023), by analyzing each part in a reflexive, non-linear process (Cohen et al., 2018 p. 649). The composition of the anatomical parts constitutes the “whole reflection”, called a reflection body (RB) (Johansson, 2023). A RB is a nuanced description, that can take different forms depending on how STs compose their reflections. The anatomical parts constitutes of STs' reflections:
- Within a context, e.i. their school placement. All schools “have some code of manners” (Dewey, 2015 p. 59) that influences their teachers’ practice.
- On their teaching with a focus on certain aspects when incorporating AfL.
- With AfL, based on different understandings and perspectives, either AfL can be applied on-, or adapted to, the teaching situation (Biesta, 2020).
- From a specific interest or intention, when incorporating AfL.
Generating empirical material
I video-recorded their lessons with a chest-attached camera, which enabled me to follow them freely in the gym. After conducting the lesson, I selected interesting clips from the recordings regarding AfL and constructed interview questions for each of the STs. The video recordings were solely used to stimulate STs’ reflections in the Video Stimulated Reflection interview (VSR) (Williams, 2020), and did not constitute any empirical material that is presented in the results.
In the VSR, the STs were first asked to reflect and retell their experience of their teaching before I showed clips and started asking questions. I wanted their reflections as uncontaminated as possible. After their retelling, I continued to ask them what they saw in the clips, and if they did not see any of the interesting aspects that I thought they would see, I asked them directionally questions about it. Therefore, I had to be aware of the empirical material that I generated, since “the questions that the researcher asks during the interview will [...] influence the nature of the data (Vesterinen et al., 2010 p.189)”.
The five participating STs read their last year in a TE program at a University in Sweden. They had a supervisor to discuss their teaching with at their three different upper secondary-, inner-city schools, called School A (ST A and B), School B (ST C and D), and School C (ST E).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsResults
Two RB emerged in the analysis:
The mainly non-educative RB was composed of school C and B’s influence on STs experiences. The supervisors did not discuss AfL with their colleagues, instead, they followed old habits. This influenced to a composition of an unaware focus on using AfL. The STs neither applied, nor adapted, instead they copied how their supervisors used AfL, when reflecting with AfL on their teaching. They made it a habit, using it at the beginning and in the end of each lesson, without considering when to apply it and how to adapt it in their teaching. Seemingly, the STs reflected from an intention to activate their pupils physically, instead of directing the pupils’ attention on the potential learning aspects in the teaching situation. Therefore, their teaching did not seem to stimulate their further educative experiences as they used AfL habitually and not intelligently.
The other RB, the partly educative, composed of STs reflections within school A. The supervisor had daily discussed with his colleagues, and they had worked-up strategies how use AfL. Hence, this school’s “code of manner” guided the STs practice of AfL. They had a clarified intention, that they used as a tool to reflect with when planning and analysing their lesson. Therefore, they experienced further growth of AfL at their school placement, which made these parts of the RB to be considered as educative elements. However, the STs seemed to have a taken-for-granted understanding of how their applied practice of AfL, would stimulate to higher grades. Their grade-oriented intention directed their pupils to focus on achieving high grades, instead of focusing on how to experience the taught content differently. Therefore, this RB also consisted of non-educative elements because STs intentions with their teaching stimulated them to interact mechanically following the school’s grade-oriented manner.
ReferencesReferences
Biesta, G. (2020). Educational research: an unorthodox introduction. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Black P. and Wiliam D. (1998) Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1) pp.7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A. M., Abrams, L., Chavez-Moreno, L., Mills, T., & Stern, R. (2015). Critiquing Teacher Preparation Research. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114558268
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Dewey, J. (2015). Experience And Education (Reprint ed.). Free Press.
Dewey, J. (2018). How We Think. Alpha Editions.
Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher Reflection in a Hall of Mirrors: Historical Influences and Political Reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x032003016
Johansson, E. (2023). An Analytical Toolbox for Research on Reflection. Quest, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2022.2158890
Leeferink, H., Koopman, M., Beijaard, D., & Ketelaar, E. (2015). Unraveling the Complexity of Student Teachers’ Learning in and From the Workplace. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(4), 334–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115592163
Martin, S. D., & Dismuke, S. (2018). Investigating Differences in Teacher Practices Through a Complexity Theory Lens: The Influence of Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117702573
Russell, T. (2013). Has Reflective Practice Done More Harm than Good in Teacher Education? Phronesis, 2(1), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.7202/1015641ar
Vesterinen, O., Toom, A., & Patrikainen, S. (2010). The stimulated recall method and ICTs in research on the reasoning of teachers. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 33(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2010.484605
Wackerhausen, S. (2009). Collaboration, professional identity and reflection across boundaries. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(5), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820902921720
Wackerhausen, S (2008) Erfaringsrum, handlingsbåren kundskab og refleksion. Refleksion i praksis. Skriftserie Nr 1. Institut for Filosofi og Idéhistorie Aarhus Universitet.
Williams, A. T. (2020). Growing student teachers’ reflective practice: explorations of an approach to video-stimulated reflection. Reflective Practice, 21(5), 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1798917
18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Paper
Teacher Positioning in Physical Education Models Scholarship
Robin Lindgren Fjellner1, Valeria Varea2, Dean Barker3
1Örebro University, Sweden; 2Edith Cowan University, Australia; 3Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway
Presenting Author: Lindgren Fjellner, Robin
Topic
This proposal is based on a scoping review published in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2022. The proposal focuses on how physical education teachers are positioned in models scholarship.
Aim
The paper had two specific aims. First, we aimed to provide a detailed map of how scholars have positioned teachers within physical education models literature. Second, we aimed to provide a reinterpretation of our findings using Deweyan theory.
Theoretical framework
In adopting a Deweyan perspective and accepting Dewey's critique of 'recipies and models', we set out to discuss and problematize the positioning of teachers in models literature in PE. While Dewey did not critique modern pedagogical models, his critical stance on teaching prescriptions, provides a vantage point from which we can view the positioning of teachers achieved in contemporary models scholarship. Dewey's concepts create a useful platform for furthering scholarly discussion on the positioning of teachers in the development and implementation of models in PE.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethod
The scoping review conducted were based on the framework provided by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). It involved five steps: (1) the development of a research question which was: in which ways does PE models literature position teachers? (2) the identification of potentially relevant literature through searches of the Web of Science, SPORT Discus and Google Scholar databases. The search terms used were: ‘Physical education’ AND ‘Models-based practice;’ OR; ‘Pedagogical model;’ OR; ‘Instructional model;’ OR; ‘Curriculum model;’ OR; ‘Model;’ OR; ‘Teacher,’ and literature needed to be published between 2010 and 2021 in English, (3) the selection of literature for the review. This occurred as an iterative process that involved going back and forth between potentially relevant literature and our research question, (4) charting of the literature, done through inductive thematic analysis. This involved a close inspection of the included texts and the identification of recurring types of positioning in the corpus, and (5) a theoretical reinterpretation of teacher positioning achieved in models scholarship.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFindings
In physical education scholarship on pedagogical models, teachers have been positioned as: (1) resistant to using models; (2) incapable of using models correctly; (3) mechanical reproducers of models; (4) struggling implementers of models; (5) needing models to change their ordinary practices; (6) capable of using models correctly with support; (7) adapters of models, and (8) collaborators with researchers when implementing models.
Scholars at times oppose the teacher positions that they describe and at times suggest that teachers occupy several different positions vis-a-vis models. Landi, Fitzpatrick, and McGlashan (2016) for example, discuss the possibility of teachers working as both ‘mechanical reproducers of models’ and as ‘adapters of models.’
Discussion
Three issues are raised for discussion. The first relates to the potential disempowerment of teachers achieved by models. The second concerns the relationship between teachers and researchers. The third relates to how models themselves are conceived.
Conclusion
In the conclusion we acknowledge some limitiations of our methodological approach. Moreover, the relation between researcher and teacher are reflected upon. Finally, the results of the review encourage a reconsideration of the term ‘models.’
ReferencesArksey, H., and L. O’Malley. 2005. “Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 (1): 19–32.
Bjørke, L., O. F. Standal, and K. Mordal Moen. 2021. “‘While we May Lead a Horse to Water we Cannot Make him Drink’: Three Physical Education Teachers’ Professional Growth Through and Beyond a Prolonged Participatory Action Research Project.” Sport, Education and Society 26 (8): 889–902. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1799781.
Casey, A., and D. Kirk. 2020. Models-based Practice in Physical Education. London: Routledge.
Casey, A., A. MacPhail, H. Larsson, and M. Quennerstedt. 2021. “Between Hope and Happening: Problematizing the M and the P in Models-based Practice.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 26 (2): 111–122.
Curtner-Smith, M. D., P. Hastie, and G. D. Kinchin. 2008. “Influence of Occupational Socialization on Beginning Teachers’ Interpretation and Delivery of Sport Education.” Sport, Education and Society 13 (1): 97–117.
Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Fernandez-Rio, J., and J. I. Menendez-Santurio. 2017. “Teachers and Students’ Perceptions of a Hybrid Sport Education and Teaching for Personal and Social Responsibility Learning Unit.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 36 (2): 185–196.
Gil-Arias, A., S. Harvey, F. García-Herreros, S. González-Víllora, A. Práxedes, and A. Moreno. 2021. “Effect of a Hybrid Teaching Games for Understanding/Sport Education Unit on Elementary Students’ Self-determined Motivation in Physical Education.” European Physical Education Review 27 (2): 366–383.
Haerens, L., D. Kirk, G. Cardon, and I. De Bourdeaudhuij. 2011. “Toward the Development of a Pedagogical Model for Health-based Physical Education.” Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich) 63 (3): 321–338.
Hastie, P., and A. Casey. 2014. “Fidelity in Models-based Practice Research in Sport Pedagogy: A Guide for Future Investigations.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 33 (3): 422–431.
Jarrett, K., and R. L. Light. 2021. “English and Australian Teachers’ Interpretation and use of GBA.” In Game Sense for Teaching and Coaching: International Perspectives, edited by R. L. Light and C. Curry, 117–127. New York: Routldege.
Landi, D., K. Fitzpatrick, and H. McGlashan. 2016. “Models Based Practices in Physical Education: A Sociocritical Reflection.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35 (4): 400–411.
Metzler, M. W. 2017. Instructional Models in Physical Education. London: Taylor & Francis.
Pill, S., K. Swabey, and D. Penney. 2017. “Investigating PE Teacher Use of Models Based Practice in Australian Secondary PE.” Revue phénEPS/PHEnex Journal 9: 1.
18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Paper
Physical Education Teachers’ and Teacher Educators Engagements With Curriculum Policy in Scotland
Jing Yang, Dillon Landi, David Kirk
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Yang, Jing
When considering the overarching educational policy landscape in Scottish physical education, the two main documents that influence teaching and learning are the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) (Scottish Government, 2009) and Benchmark physical education (BPE) document (Education Scotland, 2017). Despite claim of a central focus of health and wellbeing (HWB) within physical education curriculum documents, many schools do not have this focus on HWB and HWB often gets marginalised in practical settings (Thorburn et al., 2009; Thorburn et al., 2011). Thorburn and colleagues (2009) point out, for example, that there is a recognized problem with the policy-driven process because of this notable difference in government documents and the actual practices happening in schools. Furthermore, teachers are required to read, interpret and enact curriculum policies across a wide variety of teaching contexts (Penney, 2006). Given this, teachers have been conceptualised as policy actors (Alfrey et al., 2017) who go through a process of making sense of policy documents. Through this process, teachers may have different interpretations of the CfE and BPE document. Therefore, it is important to explore how teachers shape their classrooms based on curriculum policy documents. As some scholars have noted, in the classroom, teachers' beliefs may not align with those with the official curriculum (Hay & Macdonald, 2010), and their actions may not be as "progressive" as they are in the documents (Evans & Penney, 2008, p.32). Therefore, this research aims to gain insight into how physical education teachers and teacher educators in Scotland engage with, the curriculum policy, and physical education benchmarks.
Research Questions:
1.How do PE teachers and teachers educators understand with Curriculum for Excellence and the Benchmarks for Physical Education?
2.What challenges do PE teachers and teacher educators face in using the Benchmarks?
Critical Theory as a lens in this research
Critical theory, as an approach is based on the assumption that knowledge is a social construct (Bain, 1989). This lens is particularly relevant in the field of physical education, which is a discipline that is shaped by social and cultural constructs (Kirk, 2010). In this study, critical theory is used as a lens to examine physical education teachers' interpretations and understanding of curriculum policies in the Scottish context, specifically the curriculum for excellence.
Kirk (2006) points out the fundamental features of critical pedagogy in physical education, which is primarily concerned with education for social transformation. He emphasizes critical pedagogy as cantered on achieving social change through education, revealing the complexity of society and resisting indoctrination as well as the imposition of simplistic and “quick-fix solutions” (p. 257). Therefore, this study attempts to explore issues of current curriculum policy, as well as teachers' positions, perspectives, through critical theory. Teachers, as intellectuals, work groups, and actors of curriculum, I support Kirk (1986) advocates that teachers are potential agents of social reproduction or emancipatory change.
Critical theory provides a useful framework for examining physical education teachers' and teacher educators engagement with curriculum policy in the Scottish context. By analysing the underlying power dynamics and social constructs that influence teachers' and teachers educators understandings and values, physical education teachers' perspectives on curriculum for excellence and benchmarking policies are uncovered. The lens of critical theory allows for an in-depth and wide-ranging analysis of the issues and factors affecting physical education in Scotland. This research has the potential to contribute to the development of transformative curriculum policy and practice.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research takes a qualitative approaches to address research questions. Currently, this research project is in the data collection process---through individual interviews with physical education teachers and teacher educators
Individual interviews
The research question aims to explore how physical education teachers and teacher educators understand with CfE and BPE policies and what challenges face in using physical education benchmarks. In this phase, 10 participants took part in individual interviews to discuss their understandings and perspectives of the CfE and BPE document. Individual interviews could be an effective approach to understanding the participants’ perspectives, experiences and real thoughts (Cohen et al., 2018; Maxwell, 2012). By engaging in one-on-one conversations, researchers can obtain in-depth insights and capture the nuances of each participant's understanding and experiences related to the CfE and BPE document.The individual interviews will be semi-structured, as it provides a middle ground between the unstructured and highly structured, allowing participants some freedom to describe their concerns while allowing researchers to ask crucial research questions (Liamputtong, 2019). The semi-structured nature of the interviews fosters an open dialogue where participants can freely describe their thoughts and experiences, facilitating a deeper exploration of their perspectives. Therefore, the individual interviews serve as a valuable means to uncover the participants' perspectives, experiences, and thoughts, contributing to a richer understanding of how physical education teachers and teacher educators navigate the CfE and BPE policies and address the challenges they encounter in utilizing physical education benchmarks.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe expected findings of the research project exploring how physical education teachers and teacher educators understand and face challenges with the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) and Benchmarks for Physical Education (BPE) policies may vary depending on the specific context and participants involved. However, here are some potential findings that could emerge from the individual interviews:
The research may reveal that physical education teachers and teacher educators have diverse interpretations of the CfE and BPE policies. Some teachers may struggle to understand the value and relevance of these curriculum policies.
The individual interviews may reveal areas where physical education teachers and teacher educators require further professional development or support to effectively implement the CfE and BPE policies. This could include additional training on interpreting benchmarks, instructional strategies and assessment methods.
The findings could highlight the challenges faced by educators when using physical education benchmarks. These challenges may include limited resources, time constraints, conflicting priorities, and difficulties in assessing and measuring student progress according to the benchmarks.
The expected results of this study include a better understanding of physical education teachers' perspectives on the Curriculum for Excellence and Benchmark policies. Through the lens of Critical Theory, this study aims to provide a deep and broad analysis of the factors that influence physical education in Scotland. By engaging in reciprocal conversations between a physical education teacher and a researcher, this study has the potential to uncover the complexities and nuances of teachers' and teacher educators' positions and perspectives. By amplifying teachers' and teacher educators' voices, this study will provide policy makers with recommendations for future improvements to the CfE and BPE documents.
ReferencesAlfrey, L., O'Connor, J., & Jeanes, R. (2017). Teachers as policy actors: Co-creating and enacting critical inquiry in secondary health and physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(2), 107-120.
Education Scotland. (2017). Benchmarks Physical Education. March 2017. https://education.gov.scot/improvement/Documents/HWBPhysicalEducationBenchmarksPDF.pd
Evans, J., & Penney, D. (2008). Levels on the playing field: The social construction of physical ‘ability’ in the physical education curriculum. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13(1), 31-47.
Hay, P. J., & Macdonald, D. (2010). Evidence for the social construction of ability in physical education. Sport, education and society, 15(1), 1-18.
Kirk, D. (2012). Defining physical education: The social construction of a school subject in Postwar Britain. Routledge.
Paraskeva, J. (2021). ‘The Nature of Conflict’ In Paraskeva (Ed.) Conflicts in curriculum theory: Challenging hegemonic epistemologies / [internet resource] (Second ed., Education, politics, and public life), pp. 1-15.
Penney, D. (2006). Curriculum construction and change. In D. Kirk, D.
Macdonald, & M. O'Sullivan Handbook of physical education (pp. 565-579). SAGE Publications Ltd, https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608009.n31
Schwandt, T. A. (2007). Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. In The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (3rd ed.)
Scottish Government. (2009). Curriculum for excellence: Building the curriculum 4: Skills for learning, skills for life and skills for work. https://www.education.gov.scot/Documents/btc4.pdf
Thorburn, M., Jess, M., & Atencio, M. (2009). Connecting policy aspirations with principled progress? An analysis of current physical education challenges in Scotland. Irish Educational Studies, 28(2), 209-223.
Thorburn, M., Carse, N., Jess, M., & Atencio, M. (2011). Translating change into improved practice: Analysis of teachers' attempts to generate a new emerging pedagogy in Scotland. European Physical Education Review, 17(3), 313-324.
|
