Thoughts on Models Based Practice and Physical Education

Models Based Practice (MBP) has been advocated by some theorists as a means of moving away from the well documented shortcoming of the traditional PE curriculum model (multi activity: short units of work of insufficient duration for meaningful skill learning to occur, resulting in little more than PE as talent identification) and pedagogical stance (largely directive instruction aimed at student replication of teacher demonstrations).

Metzler (2011) identified 8 instructional models for PE: Direct instruction; Personalised system for learning; Cooperative learning; Sport education, Peer teaching, Inquiry teaching, Tactical games, and Teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR). Metzler invoked the metaphor of a blueprint to represent the idea that each model is a different type of plan from which PE teaching can be built and operationalised instructionally. This has led to the idea that fidelity to the tenets of the model is necessary for authenticity of adoption. However, most teachers I know are theory appliers and not theory generators, and as such, they are concerned with 'what works' with their students. Steve Stolz and I therefore argued that teachers are pragmatically interpretative of models (See paper at this link  for example)

There are other ways to think about MBP in PE. What has been described as Health-Based PE, which also goes by the name Health Orientated PE and Health Focused PE (see Haerens et al., 2011 for a discussion) are models not covered in Metzlers work. Health related fitness (Harris & Cale, 2006) is a version of this model, and Corbin & Lindsey's Fitness for Life is a very early example from the 1970s. There is also adventure education that provides a model for PE (for example, see the work of Dick Prouty and Karl Rohnke)

The first example of a MBP for PE was arguably the Spectrum of Teaching Styles, released in 1966 (an overview of the Spectrum theory is available in an earlier blog here ). I like the Spectrum model as it places an emphasis on the PE teacher as a pedagogical decision maker. I also like it as it adopts a 'non-verses' approach to teaching styles where one is not 'better' than another: each style has a purpose. Brendan SueSee, Ken Edwards and I have explained how using the Spectrum model, other models can be viewed as a collection of teaching styles, using an example of a teaching episode delivered via a tactical model (available here ). I believe the Spectrum provides a solid pedagogical grounding for enhanced clarity about the learning effects from the pedagogical choices of PE teachers (the Spectrum of Teaching Styles website (link here) is an outstanding resource, and the book Teaching Physical Education which explains the Spectrum theory is a free download from this website).

 Another earlier example of an instructional model for movement education is Laban's movement analysis framework. Used extensively in dance and drama, there have been adaptations of the movement framework into games teaching, including into explanations of the tactical dimensions of sport. For example, in Play with Purpose: Game Sense to Sport Literacy I have applied a modification of the framework as Time, Space, Force, Flow and Momentum, and Control to the question matrix Who, What, Why, Where, How to guide PE teacher question design for purposeful guided discovery.

The Spectrum theory demonstrates that most teaching episodes can be viewed as a cluster of teaching styles. When looking at curriculum design, we generally see that most PE units of work are a cluster of models applied to achieve specific learning objectives or student outcomes. For example, the Sport Education model incorporates cooperative learning episodes as part of the team responsibilities in designing and presenting a season of sport. The Sport Education model includes the tactical model as a tool to achieve the aim of competent players within a season of sport (see the Complete Guide to Sport Education for detailed explanation and examples). Elements of TPSR are also evident in attainment of the Sport Education aim of engaged and enthusiastic participants. For this reason, the Sport Education model is sometimes described as a curriculum model whereas TPSR and Tactical Models etc are described as pedagogical models aimed at specific aspects of the PE curriculum.

In the last ten years of my PE teaching I had moved to a hybrid model of sport teaching incorporating the three elements of Arnold's (1979) model for PE, education in, through and about movement, which I later described as Sport Literacy (see this earlier blog for an explanation). In many countries, Arnold's model has been the basis for standardised PE curriculum frameworks during the last 30 years (such as the Australian Curriculum for HPE).

While holistic models such as movement literacy, sport literacy and games literacy exist as a guide for PE teachers work, physical literacy has 'emerged from the pack', due to substantial institutional appropriation and advocacy, as an orientating narrative for PE over the past decade - to the point where it has moved from its origins as a philosophy to some promoting it as a model for PE teaching and program design. For PE teachers ready to move beyond a thinking of how to use individual models in PE, more holistic and encompassing models like physical literacy provide a 'lens' for thinking about PE in a more integrated and connected manner. For example, one could think about the application of MBP as the mapping of a model to particular 'bodies of knowledge, which in curriculum documents are often referred to as strands and sub-strands. Using the Australian Curriculum HPE/PE, this might look like:

Alternatively, one could look at the task of program design as integrated curriculum challenge, and think like this:

A few years ago, I looked at the PE teacher use of MBP in Australia (see here for the full paper). That study found MBP was yet to make an impact on the teachers thinking about curriculum and pedagogy. Multi-activity program design and largely directive instruction remained the defining feature of the common PE practice. Despite this, I believe MBP has much to offer the continuing professional development of the PE teacher. Firstly through MBP as instructional models where the 'blueprint' is provided, and then as pedagogical mastery progresses, more holistic and nuanced understanding enabling use of the Spectrum theory within movement literacy, sport literacy and physical literacy models.

*This blog is developed from a 2018 presentation at the Australian Capital Territory HPE PD event October 19 at Canberra Girls Grammar School