18 SES 04, Motivating Students to Learn in Sport and Physical Education
There has been an international trend to turn to standard-based grading in order to obtain accountable and consistent grades. Countries have different solutions to meet the challenge to find a balance between curriculum regulation and providing space for adjustment to local context and student populations (Kuiper & Berkvens, 2013). In Sweden a national standard-based grading system has been in use for the last 20 years. Nevertheless, the validity of grades has been questioned in Sweden as elsewhere. PE teachers’ internalized criteria or gut-feeling (Annerstedt & Larsson, 2010; Hay and MacDonald, 2008; Svennberg, Meckbach & Redelius, 2014), as well as standard irrelevant factors such as motivation and effort (Chan, Hay & Tinning, 2011; Larsson, Fagrell & Redelius, 2009), have been identified to influence the grades. Curriculum regulation has been employed in Sweden to improve the validity of the grades and the grading standards have been reformed in 2011 (Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE]) to make clear that only specified knowledge requirement are to be considered when grading. But will the implementation of more specific standards be enough to keep the teachers’ judgment focused on knowledge only?
Our intention is to study PE teachers’ alignment with national grading criteria when exposed to a government’s attempt to prescribe the knowledge requirements for different grades. More specific, this is done by enlightening the teachers’ use of nonachievement standard irrelevant factors before and after the implementation of more specific standards and more support. The results will be discussed in light of Bernstein’s three interrelated message systems of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment (2003). Several scholars have discussed assessment as an important message system of what count as important knowledge and the influence of assessment on learning (Chan et al., 2011; Hay and Penney, 2013; Redelius & Hay, 2009; Thorburn, 2007). To better understand teachers’ grading practices, we are also interested in how the interrelation works in the other direction—how curriculum and pedagogy influence assessment and grading. We take a starting point in our study of the teachers grading practice before and after the implementation of more specific grading standards and relate the results to the Swedish national curriculum and Bernstein’s definition of a pedagogic discourse. The official message in the Swedish curriculum is that both knowledge and values and norms are important in order to reach the overarching goals of education and the goals for PE (SNAE, 2011). However, only knowledge is to be graded and no attention is to be given to values and norms in the grades. To bring light to the influence of values and norms in the teachers pedagogic work we turn to Bernstein’s (1996) pedagogic discourse that comprise both an instructional discourse, which creates specialized skills (knowledge), and a regulative discourse that creates order and relations (values and norms). In Bernstein’s (1996) concept of the pedagogic discourse, the instructional discourse is embedded in the regulative discourse, with the regulative discourse being the dominant of the two. They are to be considered as one inseparable discourse (Bernstien 1996). Applied in a classroom situation this is illustrated by Lund and Veal (2008): “Student teachers know that if they lose control of a class from a managerial standpoint, desired learning will not occur” (p. 503).
Annerstedt, C. & Larsson, S. (2010). ‘I have my own picture of what the demands are ... ’: Grading in Swedish PEH - problems of validity, comparability and fairness. European Physical Education Review, 16(2), 97-115. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. London, England:Taylor & Francis Ltd., Bernstein, B. (2003). Class, codes and control. (Vol. 3) Towards a theory of educational transmission. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Chan, K., Hay, P. & Tinning, R. (2011). Understanding the pedagogic discourse of assessment in Physical Education. Asia-Pacific Journal Of Health, Sport & Physical Education, 2(1), 3-18. Fransella, F., Bell, R. & Bannister, D. (2004). A manual for repertory grid technique. (2nd. ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley. Hay, P. & MacDonald, D. (2008) (Mis)appropriations of criteria and standards-referenced assessment in a performance-based subject. Assessment In Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 15(2): 153-168. Hay, P., & Penney, D. (2009). Proposing Conditions for Assessment Efficacy in Physical Education. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), 389-405. Hay, P. & Penney, D. (2013). Assessment in Physical Education: a sociocultural perspective. London: Routledge. Kelly, G. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Construct. A Theory of Personality (Vol. 1). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. Kuiper, W., & Berkvens, J. (Eds.). (2013). Balancing curriculum regulation and freedom across Europe. CIDREE Yearbook 2013. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO. Lund, J.L. & Veal, M. (2008). Chapter 4: Measuring Pupil Learning – How Do Student Teacher Assess Within Instructional Models?. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(4), 487-511. Redelius, K. & Hay, P. (2009). Defining, acquiring and transacting cultural capital through assessment in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), 275-294. Redelius, K., Fagrell, B. & Larsson, H. (2009). Symbolic capital in physical education and health: to be, to do or to know? That is the gendered question. Sport, Education & Society, 14(2), 245-260. Svennberg, L., Meckbach, J. & Redelius, K. (2014). Exploring PE teachers’ ‘gut feeling’: An attempt to verbalise and discuss teachers’ internalised grading criteria. European Physical Education Review, 20(2), 199-214. Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the pre-school class and the leisure-time centre 2011. Stockholm: Author. Thorburn, M. (2007). Achieving conceptual and curriculum coherence in high-stakes school examinations in Physical Education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 12(2), 163-184.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.