What does 'quality' PE mean?
Recently, John Williams from the University of Canberra and I explored the question "What is quality PE?" with a group of teachers. What has been referred to in the literature as 'traditional' understanding of PE emerged from this group. 'Activity', 'fun', 'enjoyment', 'skill' and 'sport' were the common words associated with PE. 'Learning' was not one of the common words. Similar to findings by Green (2006), teacher understanding of 'quality PE' was derived from an 'everyday understanding' of PE that emerged from experience and an amalgam of 'taken-for-granted' assumptions. There was no common understanding of 'what' PE is among the teachers. Rather, PE was described in broad, sweeping terms without any reference to the curriculum explanation of PE and its underpinning propositions, or any definition of PE that stayed with them from their PETE or that was from the extant literature in PE.
In Australia, their is a 'national' curriculum framework for HPE (AC: HPE) with a definition of HPE and five propositions to inform quality HPE. The curriculum is composed of two interrelated strands - one clearly a health education strand and the other clearly a physical education strand. Although some states have not adopted the AC: HPE in favour of writing their own state HPE curriculum, there is more similarity than difference in the various curriculum versions, especially in the front end statements about assumptions, structure and propositions of the curriculum. In our recent study, the teachers seemed largely detached from the curriculum framework. This is similar to findings in another study I undertook (available here). Furthermore, state and territory education systems in Australia have a framework for 'quality' teaching' or 'teaching for effective learning' meant to guide 'best practice' regardless of what subject you teach. While there was awareness of the relevant jurisdiction quality teaching framework, the teacher comments about concepts that could be connected to elements of the framework were largely 'surface level' statements without evidence of depth of understanding of the application of the framework to PE.
Peers and significant others had the biggest influence on notions of QPE. There was no indication that research or theory played a part in their construction of understanding of QPE. For me, this was disappointing as quality teaching/teaching for effective learning frameworks stress the need for teachers to be aware of the evidence for practice in their field generated by research. Teacher reflection on research can have a positive impact on practice to enhance student learning as this reflection can lead to rethinking or re-evaluation of what is taught, how it is taught, and how learning is assessed (Bransford et al., 2000). However I was not surprised. A few years back, I took a look at what teachers were reading to inform their practice (if interested, see here). Professional association publications, like e-newsletters and member publications, were the most common read. There was some mistrust of the motives for research, and a lack of time to read research papers was a barrier to engaging with research. Person-to-person was the most highly valued means of continuous professional learning in this earlier study.
For further reading about this most recent study on teacher perception of QPE, see the full paper here
In Australia, their is a 'national' curriculum framework for HPE (AC: HPE) with a definition of HPE and five propositions to inform quality HPE. The curriculum is composed of two interrelated strands - one clearly a health education strand and the other clearly a physical education strand. Although some states have not adopted the AC: HPE in favour of writing their own state HPE curriculum, there is more similarity than difference in the various curriculum versions, especially in the front end statements about assumptions, structure and propositions of the curriculum. In our recent study, the teachers seemed largely detached from the curriculum framework. This is similar to findings in another study I undertook (available here). Furthermore, state and territory education systems in Australia have a framework for 'quality' teaching' or 'teaching for effective learning' meant to guide 'best practice' regardless of what subject you teach. While there was awareness of the relevant jurisdiction quality teaching framework, the teacher comments about concepts that could be connected to elements of the framework were largely 'surface level' statements without evidence of depth of understanding of the application of the framework to PE.
Peers and significant others had the biggest influence on notions of QPE. There was no indication that research or theory played a part in their construction of understanding of QPE. For me, this was disappointing as quality teaching/teaching for effective learning frameworks stress the need for teachers to be aware of the evidence for practice in their field generated by research. Teacher reflection on research can have a positive impact on practice to enhance student learning as this reflection can lead to rethinking or re-evaluation of what is taught, how it is taught, and how learning is assessed (Bransford et al., 2000). However I was not surprised. A few years back, I took a look at what teachers were reading to inform their practice (if interested, see here). Professional association publications, like e-newsletters and member publications, were the most common read. There was some mistrust of the motives for research, and a lack of time to read research papers was a barrier to engaging with research. Person-to-person was the most highly valued means of continuous professional learning in this earlier study.
For further reading about this most recent study on teacher perception of QPE, see the full paper here
Comments
Post a Comment