national pe institute 2015 - keynote

“Groundhog Day”Being the Change and Changing Our Being

Dr Ash Casey

Thank you

Was a teacher Am a teacher-educator I share research


PEPRN

Analysis of 95 Research Papers

Definition of Groundhog Day in English

A situation in which a series of unwelcome or tedious events appear to be recurring in exactly the same way:

she lived an unrelenting Groundhog Day of laundry, shopping, and rearing us kids

[In reference to the 1993 film Groundhog Day, in which the central character finds himself repeatedly reliving the events of a particular Groundhog Day]

Oxford Dictionaries

“Groundhog Day”In Physical Education

Traditional

physical education is seen as ‘merely’ being about sport and recreation.

““” -- Williams (1985/2012)

a ‘doing’ subject that can be equated to ‘sport’.

““” -- Penney and Chandler (2000/2012)

The curriculum seems to predominantly remain biased towards games and, on the whole, reinforcing girls’ and boys’ activities.

““” -- Fairclough, Stratton, and Baldwin (2012)

school sport is focused on high performance and rarely takes into account the “diverse characteristics of the individuals in school sport or the wide variety of contexts in which sport-based sport curricula are implemented”.

““” -- Ennis (1996/2012)

many kids are already expressing (to researchers) their unhappiness about PE. Research that indicates that some kids will dress for class but will not enter the game by choice and when they are forced to enter the field of play refuse to become involved in the competition

““” -- Ennis (1996/2012)

““”

Kirk and Macdonald asked

What does PE prepare students for?

““” -- Kirk and Macdonald (1998/2012)

Kirk and Macdonald asked

When issues of ‘ability’ and ‘skill’ are positioned as the prime requirements for legitimate participation then many students miss out.

““”

And suggested that

-- Kirk and Macdonald (1998/2012)

children are learning how to behave in sport and yet it is not educative – at least not a form that we would recognize.

““” — Pope and O’Sullivan (2001/2012).

the teacher controls knowledge, regulates behaviour, paces the lesson, directs knowledge and elicits different degrees of student participation in lessons.

““” — Wright (1997/2012).

Traditionally teaching in physical education begins with a technique of movement, and only once this has been mastered, are perceptual, tactical and social elements added. However this takes no account of the idea that movement is a social experience.

““” --Rovegno, Nevett, Brock and Babiarz (2001/2012).

while the prominent concerns of teachers revolve around enjoyment, sports performance, fitness and lifelong participation, the realities of their practices don’t come close to actualising their ambitions.

““” — Green (2002/2012).

Green warned that

In other words, while they [teachers] said that PE was a ‘valued cultural practice” they positioned sport in general and team games in particular at the heart of their doing.

““” — Green (2002/2012).

the PE teacher [is seen] as holding a disciplinary role and “concentrating on the very able and skilled pupils, while lacking some understanding of those less interested in the subject”.

““” — Hendry (1975/2012).

Forty years ago Hendry suggested that

How much has that change?

Business as usual would be defined as decontextualized skills and techniques

““” — Siedentop (1994/2012).

Siedentop suggested that

We must move beyond these traditional and competitive ideas around sport and performance and find ways - however possible - to help people succeed in physical education.

““” — Engström (2008/2012)

If “the ultimate purpose of physical education and its supplemental activities like intramural and extracurricular sports is the promotion of ongoing active lifestyles and lifelong participation in sport and physical activity” then surely there is a strong case for a wholesale change in focus?

““” — Bocarro, Kanters, Casper

and Forrester (2008/2012)

Is this our

“Groundhog Day”?

Traditional

Myths and legends

Myths and legends State of Play


Girls (and non-sporty boys)


Girls (and non-sporty boys) Measuring not doing



Subject in Crisis



Subject in Crisis Hidden Curriculum

Myths and legends

traditionally centred on sport. It has done so because sport is believed to benefit learners and help them to engage in character building and increase social competence, aesthetic awareness, fitness, and motor skill development. However, the development of these ‘benefits’ is fairly haphazard as it occurs in the hope that the process, in a mixing bowl fashion, has helped to develop desirable qualities in our students.

“Physical Education has…

“” -- Whitehead and Fox (1983/2012)

The popular view (some would say urban myth) that there is a clear connection between playing sports and the development of social and moral character owes its origins to English public schools.

““”-- Arnold (2012)

National documents and curricula are filled with hopes that all children will develop physical competence and confidence, and a positive attitude towards physical activity in which they make informed choices about their own participation.

““”-- Smith and Parr (2007/2012)

So much so that

It was believed that playing sport, particularly team games, was educationally useful as it had social and moral outcomes. The ability to co-operate with others on the basis of understanding and respect, and the ability to “put the cause first” without resentment and bitterness were all thought to be worthwhile outcomes of sports.

““”-- Arnold (2012)

team games are used to school children in being civilised through “socially sanctioned forms of rough, sometimes violent, physical contact”. In its sanctioned form this ‘play’ strengths the position of some and forces others into feelings of terror, fear and bodily turmoil.

““”-- Kirk (1999/2012)

Many supporters of PE-as-team-games justify its inclusion - indeed its dominance - with talk about ‘character development’ and ‘health promotion’.

““”-- Smith and Parr (2007/2012)

the dog bit the hand of the master and become master itself.

““”— Whitehead and Fox (1983/2012)

Whitehead and Fox suggested that

School sport (once a vehicle for learning) is now in control of PE.

In other words

Sport doesn’t teach “character building and increase social competence, aesthetic awareness, fitness, and motor skill development”

and yet

the claims made about sport - that it builds character, makes you feel better and encourages fair play in class and in life - far outstrip any evidence that might support such an argument.

““”— Hellison (2003)

Hellison (2003) suggested that

Is this our


State of Play

in an intolerable number of instances, and in intolerable ways, physical education classes do not achieve their objectives. In the most profound sense of what we mean by the word education, they do not work.

““”— Locke (1992/2012)

PE doesn’t correspond to the kids interests and it provides little opportunity to develop their ‘self’. If students are good at games or enjoy games then – great – if not then what does PE have to offer? It doesn’t replicate the images that dominate the space and time that these students occupy and therefore seems irrelevant.

““”— Tinning and Fitzclarence (1992/2012)

what physical education does is now ‘obvious’ to policy makers and communities.

““”— Whitehead and Fox (1983/2012)

So much so that…

Team Games

Some students learn to love games while other learn not to enjoy movement activities and instead find humiliation and embarrassment.

““”— Dodds (2012)

Legislators attempted to include a bill that would change teacher licensing requirements for classroom teachers and other subject areas. Anyone who had a bachelor’s degree and some experience in a content area could apply for a classroom teacher license, and anyone with a high school diploma would be able to apply for a music, art, PE, and health education position.

““”

In her response to the PEPRN Blog this week Patty Kestell wrote

““”

Hoffman predicted this is 1987

The year is 2020 and the last school district in Florida finally throws in the towel and closes its physical education programme; joining every other country in the world. The writing has been on the wall for a decade or more, and only the die hards supporters of PE (some would say the romantics) have managed to keep this programme running to date.

““”

Hoffman predicted this is 1987

journeymen and women often had more knowledge and experience in specific sports than the PE teacher and they were cheaper to train and employ

““”

The perceived truth was that

— Hoffman (1987/2012)

Four weeks rather than four years were required for the basic first aid training etc and where PE teachers were seen as “specialists in generalism” these individuals had more expertise.

““”— Hoffman (1987/2012)

The need to hire coaches with a pedagogic background [can be] removed in favour of those who could win...and at any cost.

““”— Hoffman (1987/2012)

Even when teachers tried to argue against this they had no evidence of their own as to the effectiveness of their programmes - not over ten years, 5 years or even 2 years.

““”— Hoffman (1987/2012)

““”

But why?

The ecology of schools are ever-changing and what works in one lesson doesn’t always work in the next [let alone the next year or decade]. They are fluid places that need skill to navigate and understand.

““”— Sicilia-Camacho and Brown (2008/2012)

But why?

Is this our


men and boys engage in masculine sports that celebrate speed and power while women and girls engage in gymnastics and dance - rhythmical activities.

““”— Vertinsky (1992/2012)

It is commonly believed that

girls were simply invited into the boys’ physical education classrooms and that these classrooms simply did not acknowledge the needs of both genders

““”— Vertinsky (1992/2012)

In schools

no curriculum in physical education has been as effective in constraining opportunities and alienating girls [and many boys] as that found in co-educational, multi-activity sport classes.

““”— Ennis (1999/2012)

Worryingly

““”— Ennis (1999/2012)

That is not to say that there aren’t outstanding teachers

Highly competent teachers who are motivated and energetic have used multi-sport curriculum successfully for many years yet this occurs mainly through their strength and dedication.

““”— Ennis (1999/2012)

These teachers gain their success in spite of the curriculum and not because of it.

““”— Ennis (1999/2012)

In other words

girls are positioned ‘needy’, as lacking and as being the weaker sex. Girls come to accept this view but rather than seeking to resist the dominant belief that boys are better, they develop their own strategies – most notable through their disengagement.

““”— Wright (1997/2012)

However, in PE

Girls are seen as powerless and frail. They are also portrayed as simply not valuing movement or physical activity. The strength of these beliefs is such that, in wanting to be a women and womanly, girls seek to conform to being powerless and frail, and don a ‘costume’ and put on a show much like when an actor wears a costume to perform.

““”— Azzarito, Solmon and Harrison (2006/2012)

Boys were positioned as being team sportsman and their learning was focused on the traditions and expectations of these sports. They were told what to do and then given the independence to do it. They were expected to be good and engaged in physical education but not at dance and in this one area they were expected to be resistant. Any deviation from either of these ‘truths’ then the boys’ masculinity was challenged.

““”— Wright (1997/2012)

boys who don’t participate and girls who do are subject to “negative social and sexual slurs” – especially when these slurs come from other students and parents.

““”— Ennis (1996/2012)

girls “won’t be permitted to participate equitably in most multi-activity, team-sports curricula” and furthers the idea that “boys see girls as the problem” because they get in the way of their aspirations to play competitive sport with their peers.

““”— Ennis (1999/2012)

Boys believed that to be selected for future teams and respected by their male peers, they had to demonstrate their aggression and cool moves, regardless of the impact on less able classmates.

““”— Ennis (1999/2012)

girls were seen as being tentative, resistant and reluctant where teachers perceived the need to be persuasive and supportive to their engagement in physical education.

““”— Wright (1997/2012)

so called ‘new’ evidence showing that PE was turning off girls was not really new and in fact differed little from evidence that was gathered in the 80s.

““”— Flintoff and Scraton (2001/2012)

girls were still being viewed as ‘the problem’ rather than PE itself, where issues of the past remained issues in the present: wearing PE uniform; no-jewellery rules; compulsory showers; and having to play games out in the cold.


They didn’t all want to do traditional team-games and that very little of what was offered was relevant to what the girls did out of school (e.g. swimming, aerobics, dance, jogging).


built up a picture of both active and engaged young people who were seen, in their PE lessons, as uncooperative and unmotivated.


Research in Australia

painted a picture of youth who enjoyed physical activity in the lives outside of school – sometimes as frequently as five or six times a week – and yet who saw little value and only experienced boredom in PE lessons.


There is a difference between what girls will do outside school and what they will do inside school. When in school they might reject their role and the types of physical activity they are permitted to play, while outside school they understand and engage in activity.

““”— Azzarito, Solmon and Harrison (2006/2012)

In other words

Indeed, girls feel that the teachers were putting on options “from their generation” and not the girls.


there is a gulf between teachers’ views and those of pupils.

““”-- Williams and Bedward (2001/2012).

Is this our


Measuring not doing

the humanities of movement have been marginalized in our efforts to tell the story or account of movement

““”— Anderson (2012)

we have paid such scant attention to the subject matter of school physical education in our degree programmes that our graduates could be described as ‘ignorant’.

““”— Siedentop (2002/2012)

the maths, English, music and art we see in schools are clearly related to the maths, English, music and art we see in universities – albeit in less sophisticated, complex, and intellectually rigorous ways. That, he says, is not the case for physical education.

““”— Siedentop (2002/2012)

Maths undergraduate student tries to master “the logic of derivation, facility in calculation, skill in the analysis of problems, and the ability to fit solutions correctly” – in other words the “the stuff of the subject” in school – the physical education teacher learns about the subject’s history, sociology, or neurophysiology.

““”— Siedentop (2002/2012)

physical education has become strangely disembodied and …the feeling of moving has been replaced with an understanding of movement.

““”— Maivorsdotter and Lundvall (2009/2012)

The mechanics of movement have replaced the feeling of moving and we are encourage to know rather than understand movement and to prove rather than reflect on our physical actions.


As a consequence we maintain the multi-activity programme


Despite the shift to study movement

games and play is seen as nonacademic, nonintellectual, non-artistic and fundamentally nonessential.


students see PE as a break from class, a chance to play around, and somewhere to have fun. Indeed while PE is seen as a less important lesson and a release from the academic aspects of school life, it is also valued for the social interactions it affords students.

““”— Smith and Parr (2007/2012)

any course in the study of movement has come to be seen as “just a gym class” which is a nuisance rather than an important aspect of a college education.

““”

Indeed

— Anderson (2012)

Have we missed the mark?

Should we have focused on the humanness of movement?

programmes of movement (or the curriculum) take account of the movement purposes of the individual and provide opportunities for all.

““”— Jewett (1987/2012)

Shouldn’t

bodies are transactional inasmuch as they are moving. “

“”— Maivorsdotter and Lundvall (2009/2012)

After all

So it is to transact i.e. to ‘act across’ environments rather than to ‘interact’ i.e. to have an effect on each other, that is significant in PE.


any physical education curriculum must “include opportunities to acquire the means by which these movement purposes can be fulfilled.

““”— Jewett (1987/2012)

Is this our


Subject in Crisis

physical education was suffering from “Organisational Alzheimer’s”, which left it confused, disoriented and unable to put together a strategy for accomplishing reasonable goals.

““”— Hoffman (1987/2012)

Hoffman suggested that

Schools are places where some people get respect for who they are (head or principal), for what they teach (maths or foreign languages), for the example they set (the disciplinarian), and for the positive publicity they garner (the PE teacher).

““”— Hendry (1975/2012)

Hendry argued that

the PE teacher, due to the low academic standing of the subject, gets by on getting good publicity and for keeping the naughty kids in check.

““”— Hendry (1975/2012)

forty years ago ‘we’ were the disciplinarians

PE has sought legitimation as a school subject, [and] has ‘profited’ (my word) from making unethical links between PE and Obesity.

““”— Gard and Wright (2001/2012)

More recently, Gard and Wright argued

The cult of slenderness has cemented the position of PE in the school curriculum - but is this because of its compliance with slenderness or because of its advocacy of education and understanding around healthy living?

““”— Tinning (1985/2012)

PE presents the notion of keeping in shape as a moral achievement, and that anyone who is out of shape is lazy and immoral.

““”— Oliver and Lalik (2001/2012)

The increasing importance placed on elite sport - its public profile, income generating potential, and the weight of national expectation - has increasing dragged schools into the debate around talent identification and the creation of enhanced opportunities for the gifted few to discover their ‘gold medal event’.

““”— Houlihan (2000/2012)

In contrast

““”— Houlihan (2000/2012)

PE has become a ‘crowded space’

the tensions of this ‘crowded space’ have emerged because of the difference between the muddled, if well meaning, intentions of physical education to help everyone and the clearly defined notion that sport promotes personal and social values and learning

““”— Houlihan (2000/2012)

PE has become a ‘crowded space’

Is this our


Hidden Curriculum

Despite our best efforts as teachers (regardless of the level we teach at) students do not learn what we spent hours planning and conceptualising.

““”— Dodds (2012)

many undesirable aspects are also taught as students learn more than their teachers intended.

““”— Dodds (2012)

‘the hidden curriculum’ has come to represent a “convenient way of describing all the goings-on in classrooms and gyms over which teachers feel they can never gain control.”

““”— Kirk (1992/2012)

the idea of the Hidden Curriculum offers us a frame with which to have difficult conversations with others and ourselves about education.

““”— Kirk (1992/2012)

Learning begins in the Explicit Curriculum that the teacher publicly states, and in which learning is mapped out across lessons, units and years. This is what teachers want students to learn.

““”— Dodds (2012)

However the Covert Curriculum also exists and is unspoken and non-public. This is based on teachers’ expectations of behaviour and how students can and cannot work collaboratively.

““”— Dodds (2012)

The null curriculum is what is not taught and what, therefore, cannot have an impact on students or allow them to show aptitude or inability. It is important to consider that ignorance is not a neutral in education but that it has a part to play in positioning something as important or not.

““”— Dodds (2012)

Finally, the hidden curriculum, impacts on learning. This is the unexamined or unexplained patterns or routines that teach students about importance i.e. registers, tests, picking teams (with the most able frequently chosen as captains and the least able being picked last) etc.

““”— Dodds (2012)

The functional curriculum comes at the intersection of these other curriculum. This is the real curriculum.

““”— Dodds (2012)

lessons don’t have a single meaning“

“”— Core (1990/2012)

In can be seen that

We cannot assume that any curriculum (formal, null etc) operates for everyone in the same way. We all ‘see’ things that we want to see.” There are certain meanings that, as teachers, we would prefer students to glean from our lessons but we cannot be sure that this is the case.

““”— Core (1990/2012)

to survive and prosper in the gym, kids needed to develop a type of ‘street literacy’ that is external to schools and yet which allows they to survive. In other words, those who prosper are highly competent in this environment but it is a competence, respect and even confidence that has been gained over a number of months and years.

““”— Pope and O’Sullivan (2003/2012)

Yes, kids are mean but somewhere in every lesson is a teacher allowing this to happen, as one student said “You know it’s like Mr Evans does the football team and he spends the lesson with the good players and he’s not bothered about us”.

““”— Fitzgerald (2005/2012).

Is this our


Traditional

Myths and legends



Subject in Crisis



Subject in Crisis Hidden Curriculum

So what is PE’s


Definition of Groundhog Day in Physical Education

Casey Keynote

Definition of Groundhog Day in Physical Education

A situation in which the same problems resurface year-on-year to impact on student learning:

She lived an unrelenting Groundhog Day of team games built on the ideas of sport science and a curriculum ‘borrowed’ from the boys. It has, in short, no relevance to her life outside of school.

[In reference to the 2015 Keynote Groundhog Day, in which Physical Education repeatedly reliving the mistakes of a particular approach to teaching]

Casey Keynote

The Future

the “unquestioned truth” about physical education i.e. that exercise makes you thin, that sports builds character and that competition motivations, and start, instead, to build a better future for our children.

“”— Pascual (2006/2012)

We need to challenge

“”— Agergaard (2012)

Significantly

different traditions of physical education are handed down, negotiated, or ignored by both schools and students of sports and gymnastics


Significantly

members of younger generations do not instinctively follow these and instead begin to develop their own by accepting, ignoring or rejecting the ‘bits’ they like or dislike.


the most powerful way in which physical education is defined is through the daily, yet informal activities that occur through the school year (e.g. conversations and informal meetings between students in the corridors and classrooms).


It is in these interactions that students developed a sense of their own community of physical education. In this way students are able to mediate rather than actively oppose the traditions of PE.


If students are voting with their feet then we need to listen

In physical education these teachers will challenge the tensions between traditional and critical pedagogies. They will acknowledge that there is competition from commercial concerns to manage agendas around sport, recreation, fitness and high performance.

“”— Fernadez-Balboa (2012)

In talking about 21st century teachers Fernadez-Balboa argued that

they will challenge tradition and avoid the habitual use of “poisonous pedagogies” that are applied in the belief that they are beneficial to all students, when in fact they exclude and disenfranchise many more than they benefit.


These teachers will focus on the personal development of their students and reveal the hidden curriculum for what it is – a place where the fostering of sexism, racism, elitism, political ignorance and social stratification is ‘allowed’.


We need to be asking “ought questions”.

“”— Lawson (2009/2012)

To do this Lawson argued that

Ought questions are those challenges that look not at what works but at the future. In looking forwards and not backwards these types of questions force us, as a community, to consider the values and ideologies around physical education that best serve its capacity to create a good and just society in a sustainable world.

“”— Lawson (2009/2012)

We need to challenge and modify the beliefs of those undergraduates who take “a sexist, racist and homophobic stance; are biased against overweight people; and are interested only in working with good athletes in programs that benefit able-bodied students”.

“”— Rovegno (2008/2012)

physical education in schools is an opportunity for social engineering with respect to challenging the negative aspects of the pursuit of slenderness.

“”

Instead of the changelessness of PE

— Tinning (1985/2012)

This means exposing the folly of the media, changing our own behaviours and tolerances of different body types, and changing our ‘non-voice’ into actions that make change possible even if this means biting the hand that feeds us.

“”— Tinning (1985/2012)

We need to “reconcile the extent to which [our] critical aspirations [can] be realistically lived-out within the context of [our] practice”.

“”— Hickey (2001/2012)

we “must make radical changes, not just in the way we think but in the way we act, so that we enable students not only to learn to be passionate about what they do but also to carry out their roles…with dignity and responsibility.”

“”— Pascual (2006/2012)

We need to move away from a baseline of “if it works in practice” i.e. a ‘pedagogy of necessity’ and move to a ‘pedagogy of possibility’.

“”— Tinning (1988/2012)

“”— Siedentop (1996/2012)

We must aspire to what Siedentop described as

institutionalised representation of spontaneity and playfulness

“”— Siedentop (1996/2012)

We must aspire to what Siedentop described as

Change takes time, compromise and discomfort. It requires us to make mistakes, to fall down, to feel like novices again. It requires us to return to being beginning teachers but above all it requires a ‘spit and sawdust’ ‘belt and braces’ approach to change i.e. to dig deep and carry on.

“”— Wright and Burton (2008/2012)

While acknowledging

…I have seen that in any great undertaking it is not enough for a man (sic) to depend simply upon himself

“”-- Lone Man [Isna-la-wica] (late 19th Century)

Teton Sioux

Good job we’ve got each other

“Groundhog Day”Being the Change and Changing Our Being

Dr Ash Casey

Agergaard, S. (2012). Sport as social formation and specialist education: discursive and ritualistic aspects of physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. London: Routledge.

Anderson, D.R (2012). The Humanity of Movement or “It’s Not Just a Gym Class”. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 28-38) London: Routledge.

Arnold, P.J. (2012). Sport and Moral Education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 39-54) London: Routledge.

Azzarito, L., Solmon, M.A., & Harrison, L. (2006/2012). “...if I had a choice, I would...”: A Feminist poststructuralist perspective on girls in physical education In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 7-39) London: Routledge.

Bocarro, J., Kanters, M.A., Casper, J., & Forrester, S. (2008/2012). School physical education, extracurricular sports, and lifelong active living. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume IV. (pp. 35-48) London: Routledge.

Dodds, P. (2012). Are hunters of the functional curriculum seeking quarks or snarks? In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 55-64) London: Routledge.

References

Engström, L-M. (2008/2012). Who is physically active? Cultural capital and sports participation from adolescence to middle age -- a 38-year follow-up study. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 40-66) London: Routledge.

Ennis, C.D. (1996/2012). Students’ experiences in sport-based physical education: [More than] apologies are necessary. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 81-85) London: Routledge.

Ennis, C.D. (1999/2012). Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume IV. (pp. 118-142) London: Routledge.

Fairclough, S., Stratton, G., and Baldwin, G. (2013) In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 82-98) London: Routledge.

Fernández-Balboa, J-M. (2012). Physical education in the digital (postmodern) era. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 99-115) London: Routledge.

References

Fitzgerald, H. (2005/2012). Still feeling like a spare piece of luggage? Embodied experiences of dis(ability) in physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 86-108) London: Routledge.

Flintoff, A. and Scraton, S. (2001/2012). Stepping into active leisure? Young women’s perceptions of active lifestyles and their experiences of school physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 109-131) London: Routledge.

Gard, M. & Wright, J. (2001/2012). Managing uncertainty: obesity discourses and physical education in a risk society. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 116-132) London: Routledge.

Gore, J. M. (1990/2012) Pedagogy as text in physical education teacher education: beyond the preferred reading. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 142-176) London: Routledge.

Green, K. (2002/2012) Physical education teachers in their figurations. A sociological analysis of everyday ‘philosophies’. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 198-221) London: Routledge.

References

Hendry, L.B. (1975/2012) Survival in a marginal role: The professional identify of the physical education teacher. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 222-233) London: Routledge.

Hickey, C. (2001/2012) “I feel enlightened now, but . . .” The limits of the pedagogic translation of critical social discourses in physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 234-257) London: Routledge.

Hoffman, S.J. (1987/2012). Dreaming the impossible dream: the decline and fall of physical education. In D. Kirk (ed) Physical Education. (pp. 133-147), London: Routledge.

Houlihan, B. (2000/2012). Sporting excellence, schools and sports development: Politics of crowded policy spaces. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 148-171) London: Routledge.

Jewett, A. E. (1987/2012). Historical background. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume IV. (pp. 243-260) London: Routledge.

References

Kirk, D. (1992/2012). Physical Education, Discourse, and Ideology: Bringing the Hidden Curriculum into view. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume IV. (pp. 261-) London: Routledge.

Kirk, D. (1999/2012). Embodying the school/schooling bodies: physical education as disciplinary technology. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 172-185) London: Routledge.

Kirk, D. & Macdonald, D. (1998/2012). Situated Learning in Physical Education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 190-204) London: Routledge.

Lawson, H.A. (2009/2012). Paradigms, Exemplars and Social Change. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 186-210) London: Routledge.

Locke, L.F. (1992/2012). Changing secondary school physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 211-224) London: Routledge.

Maivorsdotter, N. & Lundvall, S. (2009/2012). Aesthetic experience as an aspect of embodied learning: Stories from physical education student teachers. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 305-321) London: Routledge.

References

Oliver, K.L., & Lalik, R. (2001/2012). The Body as Curriculum: Learning with adolescent girls. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 237-271) London: Routledge.

Pascual, C. (2006/2012). The initial training of physical education teachers – in search of the lost meaning of professionalism. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 322-337) London: Routledge.

Penney, D. & Chandler, T. (2000/2012). Physical education: what future(s). In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 285-306) London: Routledge.

Pope, C.C., & O’Sullivan, M. (2003/2012). Darwinism in the gym. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 272-292) London: Routledge.

Rovegno, I. (1995/2012) Theoretical perspectives on knowledge and learning and a student teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge of dividing and sequencing subject matter. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 338-362) London: Routledge.

References

Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., Brock, S., & Babiarz, M. (2001/2012). Teaching and Learning basic invasion-game tactics in 4th Grade: A descriptive study from a situated and contains theoretical perspective. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 308-331) London: Routledge.

Sicilia-Camacho, A. & Brown, D. (2008/2012) Revisiting the paradigm shift from the versus to the non-versus notion of Mosston’s spectrum of teaching styles in physical education pedagogy: A critical pedagogical perspective. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 363-390) London: Routledge.

Siedentop, D. (1994/2012). The Sport Education Model. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume IV. (pp. 343-354) London: Routledge.

Siedentop, D. (1996/2012). Movement and Sport Education: Current reflections and future images. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume IV. (pp. 324-342) London: Routledge.

Siedentop, D. (1996/2012). Valuing the physically active life: contemporary and future directions. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 376-386) London: Routledge.

References

Siedentop, D. (2002/2012) Content knowledge for physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 414-425) London: Routledge.

Smith, A. & Parr, M. (2007/2012). Young people’s views on the nature and purposes of physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 354-378) London: Routledge.

Tinning, R. (1985/2012). Physical Education and the Cult of Slenderness. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 387-395) London: Routledge.

Tinning, R., & Fitzclarence, L. (1992/2012). Postmodern youth culture and the crisis in Australian secondary school physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 379-398) London: Routledge.

Tinning, R.I. (1988/2012) Student teaching and the pedagogy of necessity. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 426-434) London: Routledge.

Vertinsky, P.A. (1992/2012). Reclaiming space, revisioning the body. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 396-423) London: Routledge.

References

Whitehead, J. & Fox, K. (1983/2012). Student centred physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume IV. (pp. 409-420) London: Routledge.

Williams, A. & Bedward, J. (2001/2012). Gender, culture and the generation gap: Student and teacher perceptions of aspects of national curriculum physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume IV. (pp. 421-438) London: Routledge.

Williams, E.A. (1985/2012). Understanding constraints on innovation in physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education. (pp. 443-450) London: Routledge.

Wright, J. (1997/2012) The construction of gendered contexts in single sex and co-educational physical education lessons. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume II. (pp. 459-481) London: Routledge.

Wright, P.M. & Burton, S. (2008/2012). Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility-based physical activity program integrated into an intact high school physical education class. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume IV. (pp. 439-458) London: Routledge.

References

national pe institute 2015 - keynote

Education

pe teacher

school sport

sportbased sport curricula

film groundhog day

definition of groundhog

teacher controls knowledge

research peprn

physical education