18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Paper
Uncovering Critical Perspectives Through UK Cross-Border Dialogue
Shirley Gray1, Julie Stirrup2, Oliver Hooper2, Anna Bryant3, Rachel Sandford2, Stephanie Hardley1
1University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 2University of Loughborough, United Kingdom; 3Cardiff Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Hooper, Oliver
For decades, scholars internationally have explored and advocated for critical perspectives and pedagogies within the context of Physical Education (PE) (see Pringle, Larsson & Gerdin, 2020). For example, researchers have investigated the extent to which PE marginalises and/or privileges young people in relation to issues of gender (Oliver & Kirk, 2015), ethnicity (Hill & Azzarito, 2012) and ability (Wilkinson & Penney, 2022). Much of this research has focused on uncovering the social inequalities prevalent within PE, and seeks to develop alternative ways of thinking about and doing PE so that all young people feel that PE can be a space for them. However, it is important to note that these approaches remain themselves on the margins, and have had relatively limited impact on how PE is conceptualised across the UK (Gray et al., 2022, 23) and internationally (Philpot et al., 2021; Tinning, 2019). Overall, PE continues to be a rather exclusive space, primarily for those young people who have the physical capacities to engage in competitive sports.
In this presentation, and building on our previous UK PE cross-border research (e.g., Gray et al., 2022; Stirrup et al., 2023), we propose that PE teachers from across the four nations of the UK might be supported to think critically about PE curriculum through opportunities to engage in cross-border dialogue. By comparing knowledge and experiences of curriculum across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, exploring similarities and differences and all the complexities around these, teachers might begin collectively to develop new knowledge, or ‘alternative vocabularies’ (Evans, 2014, p. 555), around the purposes of PE.
Acknowledging the complexities working critically with curriculum (Priestley et al., 2012), and considering critical thinking as a useful entry point for teachers on a journey towards change (Hickey & Mooney, 2019), we planned a series of workshops bringing PE teachers together from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to engage in activities intended to stimulate cross-curriculum discussion, critical thinking and the development of new ideas. The four countries of the UK present an interesting and somewhat unique research context in that each devolved government within the UK is responsible for setting their own educational agenda, which inevitably leads to points of divergence across each system (Gray et al., 2022; Stirrup et al., 2023). As such, this context is notable because those points of convergence can support collaboration through initiating and sustaining productive dialogue, while points of divergence can open up opportunities to disrupt and re-imagine (O’Connor & Jess, 2019).
Recognising the novelty of our approach, this project was 'tentative and exploratory' (Lupton and Leahy 2019, p. 636-637) in nature. It is one part of a larger proof of study project focused on the feasibility and possible outcomes of cross-border learning (see Gray et al., 2022a; 2023). As a result, we were guided by research questions that were intentionally ‘open’ to allow an organic and emergent research process:
1. What discussions or themes are evident when PE teachers from across the four nations of the UK are invited to share curriculum knowledge and experiences?
2. In what ways (if any) do discussions encourage critical perspectives to emerge?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDrawing from participatory methods, we planned a series of workshops (three series in total, with two workshops per series), bringing together PE teachers from across the four nations to discuss the UK PE curricula. In the present study, we report on the data from the first participatory workshops of each series, which took place between February 2023 and April 2023 and which focused on sharing and learning from curriculum knowledge and experiences. Seventeen participants (n=8 male and n=9 female) attended the first workshops across the three series including four from Wales, seven from Scotland, four from England and two from Northern Ireland. Participants were recruited through social media (Twitter/X), where a message was sent inviting teachers from across the four nations of the UK to express their interest in participating in the workshops. All those teachers who expressed an interest in participating (n=40) were sent an information sheet and consent form. Out of the 40 teachers who expressed an interest in taking part in the workshops, 25 teachers returned a consent form and 17 attended the first workshops.
The aim of the first workshop was to explore each of the curricula across the UK. To do so, participants created word clouds and engaged in discussions that focused on the purposes and defining strengths of their respective curricula. To support these discussions, participants were also presented with a summary of our previous research that has analysed the PE curricula across the UK (Gray et al., 2022). Participants used Padlet to (anonymously) note their responses to this presentation, which were then used to guide further discussions. All of the discussions in each workshop were recorded using Microsoft Teams and transcribed for subsequent analysis. Text from the chat function on Teams was copied into a Word document and analysed along with the artefacts produced from the workshop activities (e.g., Padlet posts).
To make sense of the data that was generated from the workshops, we undertook a process of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019), engaging in a systematic, but also collaborative, flexible and iterative, process of generating codes and themes. Guided by the researchers’ discussions and notes, this involved assigning phrases to relevant units of texts to reflect/summarise meaning, and then grouping similar units of meaning (codes) together to generate themes. This process was carried out for each workshop separately, before bringing the themes from each workshop together to identify themes across groups.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsEvidence from the discussions suggest that the teachers found it interesting, and at times surprising, to learn about the different UK curricula. For example, several of the teachers highlighted the curriculum in England as being notably different from the other curricula in terms of the limited detail presented within the curriculum document and the overt focus on developing pupils’ performance within this. For some teachers, this knowledge of different curricula was subsequently used as a basis to reflect on the relative strengths and weaknesses of their own curriculum. It was also through cross-border discussions that the teachers seemed to become more aware of how health was conceptualised differently in PE curricula across the UK.
It is important to note that, although our analysis revealed some evidence of critical thinking, our findings also suggest the persistence of traditional PE discourses related to organising curricula in blocks of activity as well as a focus on teaching games. This suggests that, while the teachers were perhaps on the journey to becoming critical, more time was necessary for them to further interrogate and disrupt the prevailing discourses in PE in order to allow new ways of thinking and acting on the world to emerge (Priestley et al., 2012).
Overall, the findings indicate that thinking critically is challenging, even for those teachers already on their journey towards criticality. Thus, time and support are required to help them become critical, to develop alternative perspectives and to bring these perspectives to their reading and enactment of curricula. We argue that ongoing cross-border dialogue and collaborative learning might be one way to support teachers on this journey towards becoming critical where, with time to explore and interact with others from different contexts, new idea might emerge - ideas driven by issues of social justice and inclusion.
ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597.
Evans, J. (2014) Neoliberalism and the future for a socio-educative physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(5), 545-558.
Gray, S. et al. (2022). A comparative analysis of discourses shaping physical education provision within and across the UK. European Physical Education Review, 28(3), 575–593.
Hickey, C. & Mooney, A. (2019). Critical scholarship in physical education teacher education: A journey, not a destination. In R. Pringle, H. Larsson & G. Gerdin (Eds.), Critical research in sport, health and physical education (pp. 147-159). Routledge.
Hill, J. & Azzarito, L. (2012) Representing valued bodies in PE: a visual inquiry with British Asian girls. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17(3), 263-276.
Lambert, L., & O'Connor. J. (2018) Breaking and making curriculum from inside ‘policy storms’ in an Australian pre-service teacher education course. The Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 159-180.
O’Connor, J., & Jess, M. (2020) From silos to crossing borders in physical education, Sport, Education and Society, 25:4, 409-422.
Oliver, K., & Kirk, D. (2015). Girls, gender and physical education. Routledge.
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A. & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher Agency in Curriculum Making: Agents of Change and Spaces for Manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42, 191-214.
Pringle, R., Larsson, H., & Gerdin, G. (2019). Introduction: Are we making a difference? In R. Pringle, H. Larsson & G. Gerdin (Eds.), Critical research in sport, health and physical education (pp. 1-24). Routledge.
Stirrup, J. et al. (2023). Exploring the re-legitimisation of messages for health and physical education within contemporary English and Welsh curricula reform. Sport, Education and Society.
Wilkinson, S., & Penney, D. (2022). ‘The participation group means that I'm low ability’: students’ perspectives on the enactment of ‘mixed-ability’ grouping in secondary school physical education. British Educational Research Journal. 48, 932-951.
18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Paper
Stakeholder Perspectives on Physical Education (PE) as a Core Subject in England
Oliver Hooper1, Rachel Sandford1, Shirley Gray2, Naomi Harte1
1Loughborough University, United Kingdom; 2University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Hooper, Oliver
There has been much debate – both nationally and internationally and over a sustained period of time – about the subject of physical education (PE) and its place and purpose within schools (Kirk, 2010; Ekberg, 2021; Gray et al., 2022a). It has long been recognised by those within the subject that it has much potential for realising learning across multiple domains (Hooper, Sandford & Jarvis, 2020; Lamb et al., 2021) and for supporting the holistic development of young people (Bailey et al., 2009; Luguetti & Oliver, 2020). However, questions have continued to be raised about the educative capacity of the subject and the contribution it makes – or is able to make – to the education of young people (Quennerstedt, 2019). These questions typically stem from what has been considered to be the relatively limited change with regard to how PE has been conceptualised and enacted in practice (Kirk, 2010; Herold, 2020; Gray et al., 2022a) and the continued dominance of particular agendas (i.e., health) within PE (Jung, Pope & Kirk, 2016; Lindsey et al., 2020; Gray et al., 2022b). Nonetheless, advocates of the subject have continued to ‘make the case’ for the subject and to argue its value to and for young people (see UNESCO, 2017; afPE, 2019). Calls for PE to become a core subject are not new, though in England these were formalised by Harris (2018) on behalf of the PE Expert Group.
It is notable that PE is the only foundation subject that is compulsory from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 4 but while this is somewhat akin to core status it is not an equivalent and interpretations of this in practice have been varied. As such, there has continued to be sustained interest and advocacy – following the formal call from Harris (2018) – in making PE a core subject and momentum has been gained in this regard following the formation of the Association for PE (afPE) Taskforce in 2020. The afPE Taskforce was assembled to consider (and make recommendations on) the future of PE within England and comprised expert representatives from across the PE sector with support from a wider advisory group. As part of their work, the afPE Taskforce published a report on putting PE at ‘The Heart of School Life’. The afPE Taskforce report set out to make recommendations to Government about the subject of PE with two of the headline recommendations relating to making PE a core subject. However, despite the House of Lords responding positively to the recommendation to make PE a core subject, the Government’s official response was less positive, affirming that they “do not currently plan to make PE a core subject” (HM Government, 2022, p. 11). As such, despite a strong case being put forward by Harris (2018) and continued interest and advocacy in making PE a core subject, the Government remain unconvinced.
Whilst there is evidently much enthusiasm for making PE a core subject, from a range of stakeholders, there is a lack of consensus as to what might constitute PE as a core subject and what this might 'look like'. This present challenges when trying to ‘make the case’ for PE as a core subject when – even amongst the PE community itself – there remains uncertainty. As such, this paper presents findings from a project that seeks to address this notable gap, by engaging with key stakeholders (e.g., teachers of PE, PE subject leaders, PE teacher educators, PE consultants) across England to explore their visions of PE as a core subject.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research outlined with this paper took place from June to October 2023 and adopted a mixed methods approach, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data to generate rich insights. Data were generated via online surveys sent to key stakeholders (e.g., teachers of PE, PE subject leaders, PE teacher educators, PE consultants) across England. Surveys were disseminated – with support from the Association for Physical Education (afPE) – via social media and newsletters. In total, 332 complete survey responses were received from participants. Data analysis is ongoing but quantitative data will be used to generate descriptive statistics and qualitative data will undergo a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This is an inductive (i.e., ‘bottom up’) process where themes are derived from close examination and interpretation of the data itself. Data will firstly be read and re-read before codes are assigned to portions of text and memos noted. Themes will then be developed from codes before being reviewed and refined.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs noted, data analysis for this paper is ongoing. However, it is anticipated that this project will extend existing work in this space by Hooper et al. (2023) on PE as a core subject in England.
ReferencesAssociation for Physical Education (2019) Outcomes of Quality Physical Education. Available at: https://www.afpe.org.uk/physical-education/wp-content/uploads/Outcomes-Poster-2019-Final.pdf
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Ekberg, J-E. (2021) Knowledge in the school subject of physical education: a Bernsteinian perspective, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26:5, 448-459, DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1823954
Herold, F. (2020) ‘There is new wording, but there is no real change in what we deliver’: Implementing the new National Curriculum for Physical Education in England, European Physical Education Review, 26:4, 920-937. DOI: 10.1177/1356336X19892649
Jung, H., Pope, S. and Kirk, D. (2016) Policy for physical education and school sport in England, 2003–2010: vested interests and dominant discourses, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21:5, 501-516. DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2015.1050661
Gray, S., Sandford, R., Stirrup, J., Aldous, D., Hardley, S., Carse, N., Hooper, O. & Bryant, A. (2022a) A comparative analysis of discourses shaping physical education provision within and across the UK, European Physical Education Review. DOI: 10.1177/1356336X211059440
Gray, S., Hooper, O., Hardley, S., Sandford R., Aldous, D., Stirrup, J., Carse, N. & Bryant, A. (2022b) A health(y) subject? Examining discourses of health in physical education curricula across the UK, British Educational Research Journal. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3820
Harris, J. (2018) The Case for Physical Education becoming a Core Subject in the National Curriculum. Available at: https://www.afpe.org.uk/physical-education/wp-content/uploads/PE-Core-Subject-Paper-20-3-18.pdf
HM Government (2022) Response to House of Lords National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8874/documents/89382/default/
Hooper, O., Sandford, R. and Jarvis, H. (2020) Thinking and feeling in/through physical education: What place for social and emotional learning? In F. Chambers, D. Aldous and A. Bryant (Eds.), Threshold Concepts in Physical Education: A Design Thinking Approach (137-148). London: Routledge.
Hooper, O., Sandford, R. and Gray, S. (2023) Scoping the Potential of Physical Education (PE) as a Core Subject: Challenges, Opportunities and Need for Support. Available at: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.afpe.org.uk/resource/resmgr/downloads/pe_as_a_core_subject_-_scopi.pdf
Kirk, D. (2010) Physical Education Futures. London: Routledge.
Lindsey, I., Metcalfe, S., Gemar, A., Alderman, J. and Armstrong, J. (2020) Simplistic policy, skewed consequences: Taking stock of English physical education, school sport and physical activity policy since 2013, European Physical Education Review, 27:2, 278-296. DOI: 10.1177/1356336X20939111
Quennerstedt, M. (2019) Physical education and the art of teaching: transformative learning and teaching in physical education and sports pedagogy, Sport, Education and Society, 24:6, 611-623. DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2019.1574731
UNESCO (2017) Quality Physical Education. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231101
|
