Conference Agenda
| Session | ||
18 SES 03 A: Pre-Service Teachers in Physical Education
Paper Session | ||
| Presentations | ||
18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Paper Engaging Pre-service Teachers to Explore – a Self-study in PETE Malmö University, Sweden Presenting Author:Research shows that in physical education (PE), it is relatively uncommon for students to be provided with explorative tasks where the solution is not movements with specific predetermined techniques. It is more common for them to encounter the ‘ready-made’ movements, including elements of what Kirk (2010) call PE-as-sport-techniques. PE teachers often adopt a teacher-centered method when teaching, where the teacher makes all decisions and students are expected to follow the teacher's instructions regarding correct technique. A student-centered method, on the other hand, enables the students to make their own choices and emphasizes the students' discovery of new knowledge (Karlefors & Larsson, 2018). But research projects where student-centered and explorative working methods have been studied show that the participating teachers and physical education teacher education (PETE) educators become uncertain about their teaching role and what teaching can entail if it is not about 'direct instruction' (Aasland et al. 2024). Since PETE educators have a responsibility to lead reform in PE (Kirk, 2010) the project presents a proposal and tentative results for a more specific student-centered and explorative teaching, where the emphasis is on the pre-service teachers´ (PSTs) own learning through explorative tasks, as well as on the PETE educator´s experience of teaching. The aim of this study is therefore to investigate what the role of PETE educators can entail in a student-centered and explorative approach and what is required for PETE educators to experience that teaching and learning are taking place. Our research group consists of five PETE educators. Collectively, the group has a deep and broad expertise, both in terms of experience in teaching in schools and higher education, and in terms of academic competence. The choice of teaching content fell on folk dance. Traditionally, this content is taught using a teacher-centered method, where the teacher instructs and the students follow (Karlefors & Larsson, 2018). In parallel with the joint development of a student centered and explorative task in dance, the main author of this abstract (Sofia) conducted a self-study. A self-study in PETE is characterized by examining one's own practice, often with the goal of identifying and/or questioning professional tacit knowledge. It is also common for such study to have a practical (and often didactic) focus with an overall goal of improving one's own didactic practice with PSTs (Vanassche & Kelchtermans, 2015). A self-study aims to provide an in-depth understanding of one's own professional practice by reflecting on, critically analyzing, and evaluating it. A fundamental requirement of such a study is to reveal and study one's experiences and practices, to learn from and improve them (Pithouse-Morgan, 2022). Consequently, this self-study also aims to shed light on PSTs´ learning experiences (Lunenberg et al, 2018). Lastly, this study is also a productive way to combine the main authors’ dual roles of PETE educator and researcher (Loughran 2014). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Our research group created a teaching plan for folk dance that was based on an explorative and student-centered method, where the focus was on PSTs experiencing and discovering new knowledge in dance themselves (Chatoupis, 2010). The task (explained below) spanned four teaching sessions. The PSTs were divided into three different groups, which generated a total of 12 lessons. Our research group jointly created the instructions for the explorative task that was given to the PSTs, but the main author planned and taught all the lessons. The task for the PSTs was aimed at enabling them to pay attention to their own and others' ways of moving. This means that they would actively participate together in a learning process where it is central to explore movements by feeling how one moves, observing how others move and trying to put into words what differs between ways of moving. It was also about noticing what is experienced as difficult (a movement problem), both for themselves and others and together trying to identify why it is difficult and exploring different ways of solving the movement problems that arise. The PSTs worked systematically with different dance descriptions where they first interpreted a dance description individually, then practiced in smaller groups. Then the group taught the same dance to other PSTs. They were given specific instructions to try to identify, understand and solve movement problems. They were also to actively use dance-specific concepts which they identified in the dance descriptions. The rest of the research group attended the lessons as critical friends and made observation notes. In connection with each lesson, the main author kept a logbook. The PSTs (n: 66) also kept a logbook during each lesson. Finally, several meetings with the research group were recorded and transcribed. The research group has functioned as critical friends, partly by describing and reflecting on the teaching in the observation notes, and partly by discussing the teaching and the main author’s role as a PETE educator during the research group meetings. Critical friends are important in a self-study for triangulation of understandings and interpretations (Vanassche & Kelchtermans, 2015). The analysis of empirical data has been thematic, where themes have been created through coding (Guest et al., 2019). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings In this study, the main author has examined her own practice to understand what role a PETE educator can have in teaching that is based on student-centered and explorative methods. This began with the creation of a teaching plan, where the PSTs’ responsibility for their own learning was highlighted. The PETE educator's instructive role was downplayed and instead focused on a facilitating teacher role that guided the PSTs when necessary. Just like in the Aasland et al. study (2024), the PETE educator/main author initially experienced uncertainty about the teaching role when she was not supposed to instruct specific movement techniques. A student-centered teaching method thus changed the PETE educator´s role, from being instructive and assuming that knowledge transmits from PETE educator to PSTs, to help the PSTs how to develop their own knowledge. By not giving the PSTs the "right answer" (which in this study can be understood as movements with correct technique) but instead letting them explore (in this case the dances) themselves, opportunities were created for the PSTs to develop knowledge in movement through their own experiences. This study also highlights a changed behavior in the PSTs. Instead of imitating the PETE educator, they explored movements on their own. Through helping PSTs identify movement problems and different ways of solving these problems, the PETE educator was able to gain insight into their learning process. This study thus provides examples of what the PETE educators’ role might look like in a student-centered and explorative approach and how the PETE educator might experience that teaching and learning are taking place. References Aasland, E.; Nyberg, G. & Barker, D. (2024). Enacting a new physical education curriculum: a collaborative investigation, Sport, Education and Society, 30(7), 841-854. Chatoupis, C. (2010). Spectrum Research Reconsidered. International Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 22(1), 80-96. Guest, G.; MacQueen, K. & Namey, E. (2019). Introduction to Applied Thematic Analysis, In: Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Karlefors, I. & Larsson, H. (2018). Searching for the ‘How’: Teaching methods in Swedish physical education, Scandinavian Sport Studies Forum, 25-44. Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London: Routledge. Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 271–283. Lunenberg, M.; Berry, A.; van Den Bos, P.; Geursen, J.; Hagebeuk, E.; de Heer, A.; Radstake, J.; van Rijswijk, M. & Tuithof, H. (2018). Signposts, profits, and pitfalls in teaching and learning self-study research: A conversation. In J. K. Ritter; M. Lunenberg; K. Pithouse-Morgan; A. P. Samaras & E. Vanassche (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and enacting of self-study methodology: Unraveling a complex interplay, 163–172, Springer. Pithouse-Morgan, K. (2022). Self-study in Teaching and Teacher Education: Characteristics and contributions, Teaching and Teacher Education, 119, 103880. Vanassche, E. & Kelchtermans, G. (2015). The state of the art in Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices: a systematic literature review. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(4), 508–528. 18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Paper Preservice Classroom Teachers’ Content Development in Physical Education University of Cyprus, Cyprus Presenting Author:In physical education (PE), content development refers to a teacher’s ability to intentionally sequence instructional tasks to support meaningful student learning. Rink’s (2020) content development framework, which includes four types of tasks—informing, extending, refining, and applying—has been widely used to examine how teachers organize and progress lesson content (Rink, 2020; Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000; Ward & Lehwald, 2018). Within this framework, informing tasks introduce new content and establish initial understanding; extending tasks increase task complexity or challenge to support skill progression; refining tasks emphasize performance quality through feedback and attention to critical elements; and applying tasks provide opportunities for students to use learned skills in more authentic, game-like contexts. Research using this framework has examined not only the presence of different task types, but also how tasks are sequenced within and across lessons to support learning progression. Attention has been given to whether instructional tasks build logically on one another and provide appropriate levels of challenge for learners over time. As a result, content development has been used as an indicator of how instructional goals are translated into enacted teaching practices. Together, these task types represent a developmental sequence aligned with instructional goals. Research on content development has largely focused on in-service teachers, with findings indicating that teachers often implement one informing task followed by two or three refining or extending tasks (Dervent et al., 2018). Studies have also reported variability in the sequencing patterns teachers use across lessons, suggesting that content development is influenced by contextual, curricular, and instructional factors (Kim & Ward, 2020). Differences in lesson objectives, student needs, and teacher experience appear to shape how tasks are selected and ordered (Kim & Ward, 2020). Although a consistent developmental sequence has not been identified, the use of a broader range of task types has been linked to greater instructional flexibility and more varied learning experiences for students (Vleugels et al., 2025). Recent literature has emphasized the need for greater attention to content development among pre-service teachers, who remain underrepresented in this line of research (Vleugels et al., 2025). Existing studies have primarily focused on the investigation of planned lessons, which, while valuable, provide only a partial picture of instructional practice. Far less is known about how content is developed and enacted during actual teaching, especially by pre-service classroom teachers (PCTs) (Kim & Ward, 2020; Vleugels et al., 2025). As PCTs are still learning to design, adapt, and sequence instructional tasks, examining how they enact different task types during instruction is essential. Focusing on PCTs’ content development during classroom teaching provides a more comprehensive understanding of how instructional tasks evolve in practice and offers insight into the development of instructional task design during early teaching experiences. Purpose of the Study. The purpose of this study was to examine pre-service classroom teachers’ (PCTs) enactment of content development during instruction, with particular attention to the types of instructional tasks they employed and how those tasks were enacted in practice. Specifically, the study aimed to (a) identify the frequency and distribution of informing, refining, extending, and applying instructional tasks used by PCTs and (b) explore how these task types were enacted in practice. By addressing these questions, the study seeks to provide insight into PCTs’ instructional decisions regarding content development within teacher preparation programs. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Participants Participants were 10 pre-service PCTs enrolled in a student practicum during the final year of their studies. Data collection included systematic observations. Data collection In total, 79 lesson observations were conducted, videotaped, and subsequently systematically coded by two trained coders. The instructional units were designed in accordance with the National Curriculum for Physical Education in Cyprus. Cypriot education policy organizes primary education into two cycles: Cycle A comprises Grades 1–3 and targets children aged six to eight, while Cycle B includes Grades 4–6 and is intended for students aged nine to twelve. To capture the instructional tasks quality, a modified version of the Task Structure System (mTSS) low-inference observational instrument (Siedentop et al., 1994) was employed. This modified version of TSS has been validated in previous studies. Data Analysis. The data were analyzed using quantitative methods. Data derived from observers’ ratings of the quality of PCTs’ practices using the mTSS observation rubric, were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Given the study’s aim to delineate PCTs’ instructional tasks development, descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were primarily employed. Specifically, descriptive statistics were calculated for each type of instructional task (informing, refining, extending, and applying). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary findings indicated that participants implemented a range of content development patterns, with the most prevalent pattern consisting of three task types. Descriptive statistics showed that informing tasks were used more frequently than extending, refining, and applying tasks, a finding consistent with prior research reporting higher proportions of informing tasks (Iserbyt & Coolkens, 2020). Although the literature suggests that the use of informing tasks typically decreases across an instructional unit (Dervent et al., 2018; Vleugels et al., 2025), this trend was not evident in the present findings. Extending and applying tasks were used to a moderate extent, aligning with previous studies that report mixed results regarding their frequency of use (Dervent et al., 2018; Ward et al., 2017). In contrast, refining tasks were rarely observed, indicating a limited emphasis on improving skill quality during instruction. These findings highlight the need for teacher education programs to support pre-service teachers in the actual implementation of content development during lessons, particularly in applying instructional tasks that promote skill refinement and high-quality learning experiences. References Dervent, F., Ward, P., Devrilmez, E., & Tsuda, E. (2018). Transfer of content development across practice in physical education teacher education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(4), 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0150 Iserbyt, P., & Coolkens, R. (2020). Content development as a function of content knowledge courses in preservice physical education teachers. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 4(2), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/24711616.2019.1666691 Kim, I., & Ward, P. (2020). Changes in the content development and adaptive competence of teachers following a specialized content knowledge workshop. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 40(4), 626–634. Rink, J. E. (2020). Teaching Physical Education for Learning (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education (4th ed.). Mayfield. Siedentop, D., Doutis, P., Tsangaridou, N., Ward, P., & Rauschenbach, J. (1994). Don’t sweat gym! An analysis of curriculum and instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13(4), 375–394. Vleugels, L. W. E., Dehandschutter, T., & Iserbyt, P. (2025). Pre-service teachers’ content development in lesson plans for teaching net games during school placements. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/24711616.2024.2417005 Ward, P., & Lehwald, H. (2018). Effective physical education content and instruction: An evidence-based and teacher-tested approach. Human Kinetics. Ward, P., Dervent, F., Lee, Y.S., Ko, B., Kim, I., & Tao, W. (2017). Using content maps to measure content development in physical education: Validation and application. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0059 18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Paper How Does Physical Education Teacher Education Prepare Preservice Teachers to Make Practical Judgements when Teaching Games? 1: Örebro University, Sweden; 2: Malmö University, Sweden; 3: The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH), Sweden Presenting Author:In the last 40 years, physical education (PE) scholars have developed an array of approaches for teaching games (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Mitchell et al., 2003; Gréhaigne et al., 2001). Many of these approaches are games-centred and focus on helping learners understand how games work (Thorpe et al., 1986; Mitchell et al., 2020). In one respect, this development can be seen as positive in that PE professionals now have a wealth of theoretically-grounded but practically-oriented scholarship to help them work with games. In another respect, the widespread availability of prescriptions for teaching games potentially reduces both the need and opportunity for teachers to exercise their professional judgement when planning and implementing games education. The specific aim of the current investigation is to develop an understanding of how physical education teacher education (PETE) provides preservice teachers with opportunities to develop professional judgement with respect to games teaching. We rely on Joseph Dunne’s (1997; 2005) notion of practical judgement to frame our investigation. Practical judgement refers to the knowledge individuals use in complex and dynamic situations, where they need to find resonance between general principles relevant to a practice and the particular characteristics of the situation they are dealing with. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Nine practical PETE lessons focusing on games were observed over a period of three weeks at one university in Sweden. Three three-hour lessons took place once with approximately 44 students. Three two-hour lessons took place twice (i.e. six times in total), each time with half the student cohort (approx. 22 students). Video data were produced by one researcher using a GoPro camera. The researcher alternated between active participation and passive participation in the lessons. Parallel to the filming, either one or two of the remaining authors wrote observation notes. The researchers recorded interesting interactions, questions, and tentative interpretations to be followed up when reviewing the videos or when jointly discussing findings in the empirical material. Drawing on our theoretical framework, we examined the empirical material for instances where preservice teachers were provided opportunities to: (1) discuss how general principles of games teaching could intersect with specific teaching situations or conditions outside of the PETE lessons; (2) deliberate on how general principles of games teaching might intersect with problematic situations occurring within the PETE lessons; (3) compare content or teaching approaches. Comparison could be on the basis of social properties such as competition and inclusion (e.g. ‘basketball is more inclusive than handball’), or on practical grounds relating to time or equipment (e.g. tennis requires more equipment than softball); and (4) make judgements about challenges or problematic situations that might arise in games teaching. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The PETE lessons provided the preservice teachers with four different types of opportunities to exercise their practical judgement: (1) opportunities to judge how principles of games teaching would operate in school contexts; (2) opportunities to compare different approaches and content against one another; (3) opportunities to consider the teacher educator’s pedagogical decisions; and (4) opportunities for preservice teachers to make decisions while taking on teaching roles. We claim that while opportunities for exercising practical judgement were observed, PETE may benefit from introducing situations that are more problematic when it comes to games, where a greater number of interests compete, and where preservice teachers have greater need to deliberate on the consequences of their decisions. We further propose that one outcome of providing space for preservice teachers to exercise their practical judgement is that they may choose not to base their practices on up-to-date research once they are working in schools. In this sense, the investigation provides insights into a common trend seen in ball games scholarship. References Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school. Bulletin of Physical Education, 10: 9-16. Dunne, J. (1997). Back to the Rough Ground: Practical Judgment and the Lure of Technique. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Pess. Dunne, J. (2005). An intricate fabric: Understanding the rationality of practice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13 (3): 367-390. Gréhaigne, J-F., Godbout, P. & Bouthier, D. (2001). The teaching and learning of decision making in team sports. Quest, 53 (1): 59-76. Mitchell, S., Oslin, J. & Griffin, L. (2003). Sport Foundations for Elementary Physical Education: A Tactical Games Approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Mitchell, S., Oslin, J. & Linda Griffin. (2020) Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach. Champaign, IL: Human kinetics. Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. & Almond, L. (1986). Rethinking Games Teaching. Loughborough, England: University of Technology. | ||