Teaching physical education for effective learning

Teaching is a complex and sometimes complicated endeavour. The goal of physical education teaching is student learning and it is the teacher who has the responsibility for directing the learning through their curriculum (program design), pedagogy and assessment decision-making. Pedagogical and content knowledge together with knowlesdge of the student as learner will direct the teaching design (curriculum) and enactment (pedagogy and assessment) process of the teacher. Physical education teaching is therefore a goal directed activity. That means, physical education is meaningless unless it is designed with a clear goal regarding what the students will learn. 

The pedagogy-instructional processes used by the physical education teacher need to be specific to the intent of the curriculum: the goal for student learning. Teaching for effective learning in physical education teaching therefore begins with the curriculum design - what Mosston termed the pre-impact decision making of the physical education teacher. 

Knowledge to be learnt in physical education

Typically, physical education will include goals for learning across all domains of learning - physical, social-emotional (affective) and cognitive. Arnold's (1979) model of knowledge underpins many curriculum frameworks in Australia and elsewhere. This model covered the domains of learning as three knowledge bases for teaching for effective learning in physical education: 

        Education in movement (physical: technical and tactical movement learning: movement ability)

        Education through movement (social-emotional learning: inter and intra personal skill    

        development)

        Education about movement (cogntive learning: for example, principles of skill acqusition and

        biomechanics)

What I find sometimes is lost with physical education teachers that don't teach a second subject area is that physical education shares many cognitive and social-emotional goals with all other subjects within a school curricula. All that I believe that can claim to be uniquely the remit of physical education is the use of movement as the primary means for teaching and learning. Movement learning should therefore feature as the primary goal of all physical education programs. Arnold (1979) seemed to recognise this as while describing three types of knowledge for physical education he emphasised the preeminance of the development of student movement competency (skill). 

Learning experiences

I like Rink's (2006) definition of a learning experience as "a set of instructional conditions and events that gives structure to student experiences and is related to a particular set of teacher objectives" (p. 10). I concur with Rink, that physical education curriculum (the pre-impact planning ) and the pedagogy (the impact stage - the teaching and learning context) should be designed to make students skillfull. This can only occur by making realistic descisions about what can be taught and learnt in the time available to physical education in the school curricula.

Rink set out four crtieria I believe are instructive to teaching for effective learning in physical education:

Criteria 1. The learning experience must have the potential to improve the motor performance/activity skills of students.

Criteria 2.  The learning experience must provide maximal activity or practice time for all students at an appropriate level of ability.

Criteria 3. The learning experience must be appropriate for the experience level of the all students.

Criteria 4. The learning experience must have the potential to integrate education in, through and about movement (physical, social-emotional, and cogntive domains of learning).

By the end of compulsory school physical education, which is Year/Grade 10 in Australia and many other countries, I believe teaching for effective learning in physical education should result in students attaining through physical education (therefore, in addition to what they are developing through school sport and/or community sport involvement) at least to a social-recreational participant level of competency in one team sport and one individual sport or pursuit of their interest, be able to design personal goals for being active and healthy, and be able to meet those goals through a personal physical activity program.

To attain this program goal, I agree with Siedentop (1991), "less is more" in physical education as there needs to be the time within curriculum to realistically achieve movement development outcomes with students. Siedentop, along with many others, identified many years ago that the common use in schools of a multi-activity curriculum model, which is typically based on short and disconnected units of work, is a major "culprit" in the reason many students move through school physical education without developing the confidence in their competence to pursue physical activity outside school and beyond the requirements to be at physical education (if they are not already 'turned on to' the pursuit of physical activity through family modelling an active life and their involvement in community sport and physical activity options, which are usually initiated and supported by a parent/s). 

A clear, limited vision for a physical education curriculum will reduce the number of things in the curriculum by establishing what the physical education program stands for and thus allow more time within the curriculum to achieve the goals that are set (Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000).

Looking at the concept of 'less may be more' for school physical education curricula another way, it can take up to 10 hours to learn one basic skill to proficiency in a closed skill test (Kelly, 1989; NSW Department of Education and Training, 2016). Kaufman suggested it is at least 20 hours of deliberate practice to learn something new. If you have physical education class for 2x1 hour classes per week for 40 weeks per year, there is 80 hours allocated in curiculum time for physical education. 

You may be familiar with the term 'use it or lose it', which is why a spiral curriculum model (Bruner, 1960) is often advocated for planning teaching for effective learning. A spiral curriculum is a teaching planning method that involves revisiting topics multiple times, each time in greater depth and complexity. In addition to the vertical integration of topics within a spiral curriculum, there is also need for horizontal connections between ideas and knowledge domains for dpeth of learning to occur (Ireland & Mouthaan, 2020).

Thanks for stopping by and reading this post. If you would like to connect with me on a project to do with the ideas in this blog or any of the other ideas that I have blogged about, you can contact me by the email link available here

References

Arnold, P. (1979). Meaning in Movement, Sport and Physical Education. Heneman.

Arnold, P. J. (1988). Education, movement, and the rationality of practical knowledge. Quest, 40(2), 115-125.

Arnold, P. J. (1991). The preeminence of skill as an educational value in the movement curriculum. Quest, 43(1), 66-77.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.

Ireland, J., & Mouthaan, M. (2020). Perspectives on curriculum design: comparing the spiral and the network models. Research Matters, 30, 7-12.

Kaufman, J. (2014). The first 20 hours. How to learn anything fast. Penguin.

Kelly, L. E. (1989). Instructional time. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, August, 29-32.

Mosston, M. (1992). Tug-O-War, no more: Meeting teaching-learning objectives using the spectrum of teaching styles. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(1), 27-56.

NSW Department of Education and Training. (2016). Get skilled. Get active. A K-6 resource to support the teaching of fundamental movement skills.

Rink, J. (2006). Teaching physical edeucation for learning. McGraw Hill.

Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education. Mayfield.

Siedentop, D. & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education. Mayfield.