Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:47 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
18 SES 05.5 A: General Poster Session
General Poster Session | ||
| Presentations | ||
18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Poster Pedagogical Approaches for Facilitating Student Voice in Secondary School Physical Education: A Systematic Review Loughborough University, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Recent years have seen growing research and practice focused on facilitating student voice in physical education (PE), particularly among students who may be disengaged, underserved, or marginalized (Fisette, 2013; Howley et al., 2021; Oliver, 2010). Evidence shows that listening to students’ needs can enhance curriculum relevance and provide more meaningful learning experiences (El-Sherif, 2014), while also fostering inclusion and engagement (Cardiff et al., 2023). Student voice has also been found to particularly support marginalised groups, including disengaged girls (Enright & O’Sullivan, 2010) and students with SEND (Allen et al., 2022). Although various tools such as questionnaires and reflective journals have supported students in sharing their experiences, few studies have examined how student voice is enacted in practice from a pedagogical perspective (Iannucci & Parker, 2022). As noted by Howley and O’Sullivan (2021), the operationalization of student voice remains limited, partly due to a lack of guidance for everyday teaching (Cardiff et al., 2023). This highlights the need for a systematic review to understand which pedagogical approaches have been used, their impacts, and areas for improvement. The systematic review presented through this poster drew on literature from 1990–2023 and adopted Mitra’s (2007) student voice framework, conceptualizing pedagogical approaches as strategies that create opportunities for students to express opinions and engage in decision-making. Additionally, the analysis was informed by the whole-child theory, emphasizing students’ holistic development (Slade & Griffith, 2013). Given that previous reviews examined student voice in primary PE (Iannucci & Parker, 2022) and higher education (Sun et al., 2022), this review focused specifically on secondary PE (ages 11–18), addressing a significant gap within the literature. In doing so, it sought to address the following questions: 1. What pedagogical approaches have been utilized to facilitate student voice within the context of secondary PE? 2. What were the impacts of these approaches on students and teachers? 3. What were the challenges involved in implementing these pedagogical approaches? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines to ensure transparent reporting (Page et al., 2021). Preliminary trial searches were conducted to refine search terms, after which six databases – Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO and PubMed – were searched, supplemented by reference and manual searches. Eligibility criteria required studies to have been conducted between 1990–2023, published in English, peer‑reviewed and focused on secondary PE (ages 11–18). Studies had to involve curriculum PE, use pedagogical approaches that facilitated student voice (e.g., activist approaches, negotiated curricula), and draw on empirical data of any design. For studies spanning multiple phases of schooling, secondary‑level data needed to be identifiable. The review proceeded through searching, screening, full‑text review, and data extraction. The initial search yielded 6,576 records; after removing duplicates, 3,725 studies were screened, resulting in 158 for full‑text review. Following collaborative assessment between members of the research team and consensus discussions, 48 studies were deemed to meet the criteria for inclusion. Quality assessment used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (Hong et al., 2018). All studies scored ≥60%, with most scoring ≥80%, indicating strong methodological quality. Data from all included studies were extracted and analyzed using descriptive statistics, thematic analysis of pedagogical approaches, and domain analysis informed by whole‑child theory (Slade & Griffith, 2013). Reported impacts were categorized across physical, cognitive, emotional, and social domains, with frequency and proportional analyses conducted across pedagogical approaches. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings 48 studies were finally included in the systematic review for descriptive and thematic analysis. The analysis determined that most of the included studies aligned primarily with the Collaboration level in Mitra's (2007) framework, which is where students not only express their voices but may also engage in some (limited) decision-making in PE, such as in content design or activity selection. Moreover, the analysis identified various benefits to the pedagogical approaches that facilitated student voice (e.g., improving sports skills and cultivating students' life skills). However, the review also highlighted the challenges and limitations of implementing such pedagogical approaches (e.g., curriculum design issues, dominant behaviours and hierarchies and inauthentic student voice) and identified gaps in the current literature (e.g., insufficient research on particular contexts/populations). It is argued that further research on pedagogical approaches for facilitating student voice in PE is needed with consideration of the aforementioned challenges/gaps. References Allen, G., Milne, B., Velija, P., & Radley, R. (2022). ‘Hearing their voice’: the experiences of physical education with pupils diagnosed with severe learning disabilities. Sport, Education and Society. 29(3), 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2022.2141704 Cardiff, G., Ní Chróinín, D., Bowles, R., Fletcher, T., & Beni, S. (2023). ‘Just let them have a say!’ Students’ perspective of student voice pedagogies in primary physical education. Irish Educational Studies. El-Sherif, J. L. (2014). Student Voice: Student Choice and Participation in Physical Education. Strategies, 27(5), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2014.938875 Enright, E., & O’Sullivan, M. (2010). ‘Can i do it in my pyjamas?’ negotiating a physical education curriculum with teenage girls. European Physical Education Review, 16(3), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X10382967 Fisette, J.L. (2013). “Are you listening?” Adolescent girls voice how they negotiate self-identified barriers to their success and survival in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(2), 184–203. Howley, D., Dyson, B., Baek, S., Fowler, J., & Shen, Y. (2021). “This Is Not Gym”: Enacting Student Voice Pedagogies to Promote Social and Emotional Learning and Meaningful Physical Education. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.764613 Howley, D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2021). “Getting better bit by bit”: Exploring learners’ enactments of student voice in physical education. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 12(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2020.1865825 Iannucci, C., & Parker, M. (2022). Student voice in primary physical education: A 30-year scoping review of literature. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 41(3), 466–491. https://doi.org/ 10.1123/jtpe.2021-0007 Mitra, D. (2007). Student voice in school reform: From listening to leadership. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 727–744). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3367-2_29 Oliver, K. L. (2010). The body, physical activity, and inequity: Learning to listen with girls through action. In M. O’Sullivan & A. MacPhail (Eds.), Young people’s voices in physical education and youth sport (pp. 31-48). Routledge. Slade, S., & Griffith, D. (2013). A whole child approach to student success. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, Special Issue, 21–35. Sun, S., Gao, X., Rahmani, B.D., Bose, P., & Davison, C. (2022). Student voice in assessment and feedback (2011–2022): A systematic review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 10, Article 478. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2156478 18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Poster To be able to participate? An Ethnographic Study on Inclusion in Equestrian Sports and Gymnastics The Swedish School of Sport and Health Science, Sweden Presenting Author:The sports movement provides opportunities for youth to learn motor skills, play sports, and be physically active in a social context, but participation rates have declined, fewer girls than boys participate, and many stop in their teenage years (CIF 2023). Gymnastics and equestrian sports are among the top 10 largest youth sports, and a majority of the athletes are girls. The policy document of the Swedish Sport Confederation states its intentions to make sports inclusive and sustainable. Still, little is known about how the actual sport training takes place and what teenagers experience from an inclusive perspective. Being involved, having a voice, and learning sporting skills be important for young athletes to stay in sport (Thedin Jakobsson 2015; Schubringen et al. 2022). But, as Wangsson (2009) shows, youth who perceive themselves as not physically and socially competent are more likely to quit. Research shows that youth sports coaches have limited knowledge and a poor understanding of pedagogical perspectives on learning (Fahlström et al., 2016; Kilic et al., 2024), as well as of what it means to make oneself heard as a child in sporting practice (Eliasson, 2015). Gymnastics and Equestrian sport are no exception (Redelius 2002, Thorell et al 2016). This study aims to investigate equestrian sport and gymnastics practice from a pedagogical perspective, focusing on youth. A sociocultural perspective, based on the didactic triangle (Amade-Escot 2006) is used which consists of the athletes, the trainers and the training content. Of interest is the ways pedagogic and didactics issues such as inclusion, learning and making oneself heard are considered and developed in sports practices. More specifically, the aim is to explore how young athletes experience the training practice. The research questions are: • What do the athletes perceive the training to be about? • What is required of them to be able to participate and do what is requested? • How are they included and involved in their own learning process? In the long run, the study aims to contribute to a discussion about how young athletes can feel involved, develop their skills, and make their voices heard in their sport. The study focuses on young equestrians and gymnasts. Young people's experiences and voices are rarely explored in sports research. Therefore, to get a broader perspective, the study of what the athletes perceive as important would add critical and valuable knowledge concerning pedagogical and didactic issues in youth sports, especially sports in which many girls participate. By examining the athletes’ descriptions of their experiences of training, the intention is to identify, analyze and discuss, what values and content are intended to be learned, what training is prescribed as valuable and what chances are there of feeling of involvement, inclusion and to make their voice heard. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The purpose of the study is to explore equestrian and gymnastic sports practice from a pedagogical and didactic perspective, how young athletes’ experiences training and practices from an inclusive and learning perspective. The point of departure is from a sociocultural perspective (Säljö 2014) with the didactic triangle used as a framework (Amade-Escot 2006) when analyzing the interaction process between athlete and instructor and the content. To achieve the purpose of this project employs a qualitative methodology based on interviews, observations and fieldnotes. The choice of design is related to a view of knowledge as constructed and subjectively experienced (Patton 2015). This means that through interviews, observations and fieldnotes researchers provide detailed descriptions of people, behaviors, and cultures in their ordinary environment. With a sociocultural perspective, the individual and the environment are understood as mutually constructed (Säljö, 2014). Young athletes act consciously or unconsciously based on the experiences they have of what is needed in different situations (ibid). The project includes two gymnastics and equestrian groups’ practices in two different sports clubs. Ten practices for each training group was be observed and ten athletes in each training group was interviewed. Data collection was be done with semi-structured interviews with athletes, which also contribute to examining the training practice and the context in which athletes find themselves. The research aim and questions and with the theoretical perspectives was employed within the project. The questions served as a guide in the observations and interviews. The analysis process was be guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2022) six phases of thematic analysis. Phases 1-2: Familiarization and coding. Phases 3-5: Theme development, refinement, and naming. Phase 6. Producing report. The themes in the analysis work are used in the interpretation of interview statements and observations made on the basis of didactic questions and principles - ‘Who’, ‘What’, ‘Where’, ‘When’, and ‘How’ (Amade-Escot, 2006). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis of the data from the observations and interviews with the riding instructors is finished, but not yet with the athletes and gymnastics coaches. By using a sociocultural approach and the didactic triangle data two preliminary overarching themes were identified: - Young riders as passive objects – “I give instruction, you do them” - Young riders as active agents/learners but just to some point. “I give instructions, ask questions and you implement them”. Furthermore, the constructions of the rider as an object or a subject guided the analysis. With this in mind following preliminary results were identified: - Different riding activities are communicated at the beginning of the semester but it is not clear what the content will be for each lesson. - Information about the overall activity of the lesson, such as jumping, is made orally at the beginning of each lesson. - The lesson content seems to be taken for granted by both instructors and riders. The overarching aim is for riders to prepare for different levels of equestrian dressage and show jumping and to participate in competitions. - Explanations are seldom given about what, how, and why to do what during lessons. - Instructors give commands and sometimes involve the riders by asking questions. The rider can seldom decide what to do or make their own decisions. - Instructors use direct teaching, ad hoc teaching, and adapted teaching due to what happens during the lesson. They never use discovering teaching. - The results show non-formalized learning and communication. Teaching seems to be about controlling the sessions with a focus on the horse. - There is little or no involvement of mutual communication and pedagogy by asking questions. The interaction takes place in a way where leaders give instructions, and the riders try to do what the instructor says. References Amade-Escot, C. (2006). Student learning within the didactique tradition. Handbook of research in physical education (pp. 347–365). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: a practical guide. SAGE. Eliasson, I. (2015). In different sports worlds": Socialisation among children, coaches, and parents in girls and boys football teams. EJSS. 12(2), 187-214. Fahlström PG., Glemne M. & Linnér S. (2016) Goda idrottsliga utvecklingsmiljöer. En studie av miljöer som är framgångsrika i att utveckla elitidrottare.FoU-rapport 2016:6 Gundem, B. B. (2000). Understanding European didatics. Routledge International Companion to Education. D. & Kennan, D. (red.) (2022). Child and youth participation in policy, practice and research. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Lang, M. (2022) Advancing children’s rights in sport: coaching, childhood agency and the participatory agenda. Sport coaching review. Statens stöd till idrotten – uppföljning 2022. Centrum för idrottsforskning 2023:1. Redelius, K. (2020). Vad fostrar idrotten till?: om lärande i föreningsidrott. Lärande i civilsamhället. s.194-225. Schubring, A., Grahn, K., Rylander,P., Lundvall, S. & Bergström, E. (2022). Vägen till världstoppen. En studie av toppidrottares karriärerfarenheter. FoU-rapport 2022:6 Riksidrottsförbundet. Säljö, R. (2014). Lärande i praktiken: ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. [Learning in practice: a sociocultural perspective.] (3. uppl.) Lund: Studentlitteratur. Thedin Jakobsson, B. (2015) Vilka stannar kvar och varför? En studie av ungas föreningsidrottande under uppväxtåren. Diss. GIH Thorell, G., & Hedenborg, S. (2015). Riding instructors, gender, militarism, and stable culture in Sweden: Continuity and change in the twentieth century. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 32(5), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2015.1021337 Thorell, G., S. Hedenborg, O. Strålhman, K. Morgan (2016). From Giving Orders to Engaging in Dialogue: Military Norms being Challenged at the Swedish Riding School. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. Vetenskapsrådet (2017). God forskningssed, Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie 1:2017, Vetenskapsrådet. | ||
