Playing with Ideas: Facilitating young people’s understanding of disability, impairment and inclusion through sport-based games

Author(s):

Rachel Sandford(presenting / submitting)Angharad Beckett Richard Giulianotti

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

19. Ethnography

Format:

Paper (Copy for Joint Session)

Session Information

19 SES 09 C JS, The Practice of Inclusion in Physical Activity Settings

Joint Paper Session NW 18 and NW 19

Time:

2017-08-24

13:30-15:00

Room:

K3.23

Chair:

Contribution

This paper draws from a recent evaluation of the Cambridge House (CH, a UK-based charity) ‘Playdagogy’ programme; an initiative that seeks to use sport-based games as a vehicle to facilitate young people’s understanding of disability, impairment and inclusion. The programme employs a methodology developed by PL4Y International within a European context (and now employed internationally) which conveys educational messages via the medium of sport-based games and physical activities. Playdagogy can be seen to contribute to a growing body of international work on positive youth development (e.g. Holt, 2008; Armour et al., 2013) and Sport for Development (SfD) (e.g. Giulianotti 2011; Darnell, 2012). In both cases, there is an acknowledgement of the ‘power of sport’ to excite and engage young people, as well as offer opportunities to enhance personal, social and moral development and contribute more widely to sustainable social developments. In focusing on promoting understandings of inclusion and disability through sport-based games, Playdagogy can also be perceived to reflect a growing recognition of the importance of ensuring inclusion and equity in sport for disabled young people and critiquing ‘normalized conceptions and practices in youth sport’ that have meant that physical education has not always been a ‘happy place’ for disabled children (Fitzgerald, 2009, 3-5). In this respect, the programme also builds on the work of international initiatives such as the Inclusion Spectrum framework (Stevenson & Black, 2011), Mixed Ability Sport (www.mixedabilitysports.org) and ‘No Barriers, No Borders’ (SALTO, 2006).

The CH Playdagogy programme embraces a teaching methodology that supports children’s learning/development through the playing of games and sports. In terms of underlying philosophies, three main perspectives underpin the programme. Firstly, constructivist perspectives of learning; with pedagogical practice being shaped around techniques of questioning, problem-solving and debate (MacDonald, 2013) to encourage young people’s active involvement in constructing knowledge and understanding in collaboration with those around them. Secondly, play-based education (Henricks 2015) where play is believed to promote holistic development and act as a laboratory in which children learn skills for life. Finally, notions of anti-oppressive education; in particular ‘Education About the Other’ (EAO) (Kumashiro, 2000) which seeks to challenge stereotypes and social biases, promote empathy and encourage children to understand that ‘people are different and difference should be celebrated’ (Beckett 2015, 79).

It has been noted that progress has been made in conceptualising ‘anti-disableist’ or ‘anti-ableist’ pedagogies within the context of inclusive education (Beckett, 2015), but that these have yet to be traced clearly into relevant curricula or teaching and learning strategies. In this respect, the Playdagogy programme raises intriguing questions; including how to resolve the inherent tensions involved in seeking to address issues of impairment, disability and inclusion through sport - a field bounded by discourses around the ‘able’ body. Sport/PA is highly controversial terrain within ‘disability politics’. Participation in sport/PA can highlight the inabilities of people with impairments; yet it can also highlight their abilities, providing a challenge to ableist assumptions about ‘in/capacity’ (Berger, 2008). Within this paper, through providing an insight into the impact of the CH Playdagogy project, we look to explore some of these questions and examine the potential for these debates to aid future programme design/development. Moreover, in acknowledging claims that educational messages are often inherent but not explicit within these kinds of sport for development programmes, we also heed the call for a closer look at the ‘educational process and impact of SfD initiatives’ (Rossi & Jeanes, 2016, 484) and, specifically, examine the place of an inclusion/disability focus in future SfD work.

Method

Informed by a theory of change framework (e.g. Fulbright-Anderson et al., 1998) a mixed method approach was employed to capture the experiences of the programme of all involved, namely programme staff, teachers/coaches and students (aged 6-12 years). Over the course of the evaluation (January – December 2015) data were generated via pre-/post-training surveys and individual interviews with teachers/coaches involved in programme delivery; observations of teacher/coach training sessions; observations of Playdagogy sessions in 6 case study schools; and pre-/post-focus group interviews with students. By including multiple methods and providing numerous opportunities for open answers and the explanation/expansion of comments, this approach also sought to deliberately seek out, hear and acknowledge participant voice (Sandford et al., 2010). Techniques that give voice and articulate participant perspectives have been identified as a valuable means of enhancing participants’ engagement with the research process and are viewed as particularly useful when undertaking research with young people who may be considered vulnerable or marginalised, including those with disabilities (Hallett & Prout, 2003). Data generated through the evaluation were collated and analysed to identify key findings and points of interest relating to the aims of the evaluation and broader academic debates. The quantitative data relating to participants’ responses in the pre- and post-training surveys were collated and entered into an Excel spreadsheet. These numerical data were then used to generate descriptive statistics (i.e. the frequency of a particular response or the percentage of the total data set that this represented) relating to, for example, participant demographics, individuals’ understanding of the initiative and the general response to the Playdagogy training. With regard to the qualitative data, the focus groups with young people and individual interviews with programme staff, teachers and coaches (conducted both face-to-face and via telephone) were audio-recorded and then transcribed. These transcriptions, along with the open-ended responses from the pre- and post-training surveys and observation field notes, were then collated and analysed thematically using a constructivist grounded theory approach (e.g. Harry et al., 2005) in order to ascertain various groups’ views regarding their experience/understanding of the initiative and identify factors to feed into on-going programme design and development. This constructivist approach facilitated a reading of the data in line with key programme features and evaluation aims, as well as opening up opportunities to identify novel or unexpected outcomes (Armour et al., 2013).

Expected Outcomes

Findings suggest that there were perceptible benefits to the Playdagogy programme for schools, teachers/coaches and pupils. Key messages are that the programme is perceived to offer something ‘different’ and have a valuable role to play in equipping practitioners to deliver inclusive sport/PA sessions. In addition, there are clear benefits for all involved in Playdagogy, most notably in terms of: enhanced understanding of impairment and knowledge of activities/games to promote inclusive practice (for practitioners); increased knowledge of teaching staff and the promotion of community cohesion (for schools); and developing social/communication skills (for young people). Importantly, the data generated through the evaluation reinforce the assertion within previous literature that context, ‘buy-in’ and a critical appreciation of the core programme philosophy are important in determining the nature/degree of programme impact (e.g. Armour et al., 2013). In other words, programme resources by themselves are necessary but not sufficient conditions for change. As Coalter (2012, 596) argues, the mechanism of programme impact is dependent both on “a change in participants’ reasoning… and/or the resources (e.g. information, skills, material resources, support) they have available to them”. Bearing this in mind, it is suggested that some elements of the Playdagogy programme require further thought and development. It is suggested that the initiative could benefit from more opportunities for critical reflection on the complex issues at the heart of the programme and the promotion of stronger cross-curricular learning/opportunities in order to aid the transfer of knowledge. Within the paper, we argue that greater engagement with, ‘buy-in’ to and subtle understanding of the key objectives of Playdagogy on the part of teachers/coaches is essential if its core messages are to shape more sustainably individuals’ understanding, perspectives and wider professional practices and, ultimately, impact young people’s understanding of disability and inclusion.

References

Armour, K.M., Sandford, R.A., Duncombe, R. (2013) Positive Youth Development and Physical Activity/Sport Interventions: Mechanisms leading to Sustained Impact, Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 18(3), 256-281. Beckett, A.E. (2015) Anti-oppressive pedagogy and disability: possibilities and challenges. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 17 (1), 76-94. Berger, R.J. (2008) Disability and the dedicated wheelchair athlete: beyond the “supercrip” critique, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 37(6), 647-678. Coalter, F. (2012) ‘There is a load of relationships here’: Developing a programme theory for sport-for-change programmes, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48(5) 594-612. Darnell, S. (2012) Sport for Development and Peace: A Critical Sociology. London, Bloomsbury Academic. Fitzgerald, H. (2009) (Ed) Disability and Youth Sport. London, Routledge. Fulbright-Anderson, K., A. Kubisch and J. Connell, eds (1998) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 2, Theory, Measurement, and Analysis. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Gambone, M. (1998) Giulianotti, R. (2011) ‘Sport, Transnational Peacemaking, and Global Civil Society: Exploring the Reflective Discourses of “Sport, Development, and Peace” Project Officials, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35 (1), 50-71. Hallett, C. & Prout, A. (2003) Hearing the Voices of Children. Abingdon, Oxon, RoutledgeFalmer. Harry, B., Sturges, K.M., & Klingner, J.K. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34(2) 3-13. Henricks, T.S. (2015) Play and the Human Condition. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Holt, N. (2008) (Ed) Positive Youth Development through Sport. London, Routledge. Kumashiro, K. K. (2000) ‘‘Toward a Theory of Anti-oppressive Education.’’ Review of Educational Research, 70 (1), 25-53. MacDonald, D. (2013) Understanding learning in physical education. In J. Wright, D. MacDonald & L. Burrows (Eds) Critical Inquiry and Problem-Solving in Physical Education (pp. 16-30). Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge. Rossi, T. & Jeanes, R. (2016) Education, pedagogy and sport for development: addressing seldom asked questions, Sport, Education and Society, 21(4), 483-494. SALTO (2006) No Barriers, No Borders: A practical booklet for setting up international mixed-ability youth projects, available at: https://www.salto-youth.net/downloads/4-17-913/NoBarriersNoBorders.pdf Sandford, R.A., Armour, K.M. & Duncombe, R. (2010) Finding their Voice: Disaffected Youth Insights on Sport/Physical Activity Interventions, in: M. O’Sullivan & A. MacPhail, Young People’s Voices in Physical Education and Sport (pp.65-87). London: Routledge. Stevenson, P. & Black, K. (2011) The Inclusion Spectrum incorporating STEP. Available via www.theinclusionclub.com

Author Information

Rachel Sandford (presenting / submitting)

Loughborough University, United Kingdom

Angharad Beckett

University of Leeds, United Kingdom

Richard Giulianotti