Learning How to Juggle Differently

Author(s):

Dean Barker(presenting / submitting)Mats Rönnqvist(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

18. Research in Sports Pedagogy

Format:

Paper

Session Information

18 SES 02, Learning to Move in and through Physical Education: An embodied experience

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-22

15:15-16:45

Room:

K3.23

Chair:

Marie Öhman

Contribution

Current knowledge of how people learn to move has been powerfully influenced by the field of motor learning (Fischman, 2007). Motor learning concepts like ‘program’, ‘skill acquisition’ and ‘performance’ are largely taken for granted within physical education and sport settings (Evans & Penney, 2008). There are two interrelated problems with this situation. First, although the motor learning field provides sophisticated theories of movement learning, these theories take a dualistic approach, separating mind and body (Nyberg & Carlgren, 2014; Light & Kentel, 2015). As a result, they are insufficient on their own to explain and inform the events that occur when someone is learning to move. Second, existing motor learning theories organize different ways of moving hierarchically where a narrow range of movements – typically related to elite performance in team sports – are seen as gold standards (Larsson & Quennerstedt, 2012). Learners whose movements deviate from these standards are marginalized. Learners that have special needs or bodies dissimilar to elite athletes, indeed, people with little experience of team sports in general are disadvantaged by framing movement learning in this way.

To counter these problems, the current investigation involved developing and implementing a pedagogical sequence based on alternative perspectives of moving bodies. Building on recent research of Nyberg and colleagues (Nyberg & Carlgren, 2014; Nyberg & Larsson, 2014), we used concepts of Gilbert Ryle (Ryle, 2009) regarding dispositions, actualization and intelligent practice, along with the work of Michael Polanyi (Polanyi, 1969, 2002) on practical knowledge, connoisseurship, and types of attention, to create a series of learning experiences for movement learners in physical education lessons. These perspectives challenged dualistic thinking and provided radically different starting points for both the practice and analysis of movement learning. The specific aims of the project addressed through the interplay of pedagogical, empirical and analytical activities were to:

1. Identify the meanings which students ascribe to movement learning when participating in movement sequences underpinned by Ryle and Polanyi’s theories.

2. Explain how the meanings which students ascribe to movement learning support, expand and challenge formal theories relating to movement.

Method

The project focused on students in one physical education class at one upper secondary school in Gothenburg, Sweden. Research activities were organized into three phases: 1. Design and implementation of pedagogical sequence. The pedagogical sequence aimed to help students improve bodily knowing in relation to juggling. The sequence took place over one school week and students were asked to take part in learning activities for two to four hours each day. The sequence was based on Ryle’s (2009) and Polanyi’s (1969) theories of the practical and tacit dimensions of knowledge. In concrete terms, the sequence was designed to provide many possibilities for students to explore their bodily knowing. Exploration involved reflecting on and discussing what there was ‘to know’ about juggling and how difficult elements of juggling can be described. Student choice was a guiding principle and students had opportunities to choose how they learned. 2. Data generation using observations, interviews and learning diaries during implementation of pedagogical sequence. (a) Observations: During the students’ participation in the sequences, learning practices were observed. Students filmed themselves and submitted video files as data. One researcher made field notes, focusing on the actions and interactions of the participants. (b) Interviews: Informal interviews of short duration were conducted with students during the week. These interviews provided students with opportunities to talk about their experiences and focused on the students’ impressions of their learning. (c) Learning Diaries: The students used tablets as diaries over the course of the week. Students used the tablets in four ways: as cameras to make still photos of themselves; as dictaphones to capture their reflections of events; as video cameras to film short action sequences; and as notebooks to write textual reflections of their learning experiences. To structure the students’ use of the diaries, they were asked to address a number of questions based on Polanyi’s notion of tacit knowing. 3. Analysis of students' ways of making sense of movement learning. Empirical materials were analyzed in an interpretive manner. Sense making resources, essentially culturally-grounded linguistic and corporeal models, were identified and used to organize the materials. In general terms, the approach involved assuming that: people draw on existing sense making resources to act; sense making is socially and historically situated; people make sense in flexible and fluid ways and can employ multiple, sometimes conflicting resources, and; the resources on which people draw have consequences (Holstein & Gubrium, 2005).

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary analysis of data suggested that: (1) when learning to move in the presence of peers, learners develop common linguistic and corporeal 'vocabularies'; (2) some learners are able to describe in detail how one can move in intentional ways without being able to move in those ways themselves. This suggests that moving and talking about moving can be considered two separate kinds of practical knowledge; (3) Despite making significant progress towards moving with intention, learners were reluctant to regard themselves as 'experts' and were more likely to hold on to 'amateur' dispositions. The results in general suggest that non-traditional approaches to movement learning can be generative and worth pursuing. At the same time, the results also raise a number of questions for pedagogues and movement researchers. How, for example, are different forms of practical knowledge related to one another? How might it be possible to get movement learners to imagine themselves as movement experts?

References

Barker, D., Bergentoft, H., & Nyberg, G. (in press). What would physical educators know about movement education? A review of literature, 2006-2016. Quest. Chow, J. Y. (2013). Nonlinear learning underpinning pedagogy: Evidence, challenges, and implications. Quest, 65, 469-484. Chow, J. Y., & Atencio, M. (2014). Complex and nonlinear pedagogy and the implications for physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 19(8), 1034-1054. Evans, J., & Penney, D. (2008). Levels on the playing field: The social construction of physical 'ability' in the physical education curriculum. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13(1), 31-47. Fischman, M. G. (2007). Motor learning and control foundations of kinesiology: Defining the academic core. Quest, 59(1), 67-76. Larsson, H., & Quennerstedt, M. (2012). Understanding movement: A sociocultural approach to exploring moving humans. Quest, 64(4), 283-298. Light, R. L., & Kentel, J. A. (2015). Mushin: learning in technique-intensive sports as a process of uniting mind and body through complex learning theory. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(4), 381-396. Nyberg, G., & Carlgren, I. M. (2014). Exploring capability to move–somatic grasping of house-hopping. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy(ahead-of-print), 1-17. Nyberg, G., & Larsson, H. (2014). Exploring ‘what’ to learn in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(2), 123-135. Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being. Essays by Michael Polanyi. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Polanyi, M. (2002). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge. Ryle, G. (2009). The concept of mind. New York: Routledge. Wallian, N., & Chang, C. W. (2006). Development and learning of motor skill competencies. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald & M. O'Sullivan (Eds.), Handbook of Physical Education (pp. 292-311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ward, P. (2013). The role of content knowledge in conceptions of teaching effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84, 431-440.

Author Information

Dean Barker (presenting / submitting)

University of Gothenburg

Department of Food and Nutrition, and Sport Science

Göteborg

Mats Rönnqvist (presenting)

University of Gothenburg

Department of Food and Nutrition and Sport Sciences

Gothenburg

Search the ECER Programme

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.