Background and objective

Currently, we have little knowledge on how students perceive their learning experiences in physical education in Norway (Borgen & Engelsrud, 2015), even though research on this topic has been demanded both internationally and within the Nordic context (Kirk, 2010; Annerstedt, 2008). Especially is knowledge limited on primary school in Norway, where almost no research has been conducted (Souminen et. al, 2018). What we do know from research internationally is that teachers prioritize keeping students physical active and that ‘pupils learning is not the first priority of physical education teachers’ (Kirk, 2010, p. 123). This is also supported by Norwegian research which found that that teacher`s perceive PE as a subject in which students are supposed to be physically active, and not a subject for ‘learning’ (Ommundsen, 2013), even though the curriculum highlight numerous learning outcomes that students are supposed to master (Udir, 2015).

Consequently, one of the biggest challenges PE currently face is the wide array of learning outcomes that rarely are achieved. One possible solution to this problem is according to the research literature for teachers to adopt a models-based practice (Kirk, 2013). A pedagogical model offer a limited number of learning outcomes, subject matter and teaching strategies, adapted to the particular model (Jewett, Bain & Ennis, 1995). As no single model can deliver the whole curriculum, different models have been developed over time to meet the different objectives in the curriculum (Lund & Tannehill, 2015).

Cooperative Learning (CL) is a pedagogical model that according to a recent review of literature ‘contribute to achieving the legitimate learning outcomes of physical education’ (Casey & Goodyear, 2015, p. 68). In CL, students work in small, heterogeneous groups to master subject content and tasks (Dyson & Casey, 2016). The model is centred around five elements: positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual accountability, interpersonal and small group skills, as well as group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Although prior studies have shown that CL have facilitated student learning, less is known about the implementation of CL over a extended periods of time (Dyson, Colby & Barratt, 2016; Casey & Goodyear, 2015). Research has shown that social skills act as a catalyst to support academic learning through the model. The development of these skills take time, ‘although there is no definitive timeline for this’ (Casey & Goodyear, 2015, p. 63). However, Casey, Dyson & Campbell (2009) suggested that it took a few weeks before students were comfortable working and learning alongside their peers. Based on Casey’s (2014) argument that we do not know to what degree CL works over time, the purpose of the present study is to investigate students’ reflections on a two-year cooperative learning project in physical education.

Theoretical framework

In order to understand how students reflect, this paper lean on Wackerhausens (2015) understanding of reflection. According to Wackerhausen (2015) there are some common features across all the different definitions of reflection, namely what he labels as an anatomical structure. He argue that when we reflect, we always reflect on something; there will always bean object of reflection (e.g. ‘PE’). Wackerhausen (2015) continue by suggesting that we will always reflect with something, such as concepts, assumptions and knowledge (e.g. prior experience). Furthermore, he suggests that when we reflect we will always reflect from something, such as interests, motivations and values (e.g. ‘having fun’). Finally, Wacherhausen (2015) underline that our reflection will always take place within certain contexts (e.g. alone). The anatomical structure of reflections is helpful to understand how reflections might take different directions even though the object of reflection is the same.

The present study is part of a bigger action research project investigating three primary school PE teachers’ pedagogical development and change in Norway. This study consists of four independent six-week intervention periods (units) over a two-year span. A total of 64 students from grade 5 and 6 (10-12 years old) is included in this study. Out of the total 64, 35 students and parents signed the declaration of consent to participate in the study and thus quality for interviews. In this action research project data has been collected from various sources such as interviews of students before the project started and after each unit, researcher observation, field notes, recorded workshops and teacher interviews. The data have served different purposes at different levels. At the first level, in order to enhance teaching through the model data has continuously been analysed to overcome challenges that arose. At the second level, researcher and teachers systematically reflected after each unit to learn from the completed period. Student voices has been important at both levels to enhance teaching through the model. At the third level, in order to investigate the purpose of this paper, I as the researcher took one step back and investigated all data sources to explore how students’ reflections might have changed throughout the project. As action research is a cyclical process that should be viewed as multiple cycles within cycles and not a stand-alone event (Casey et. al, 2018), critical cycles, understood as cycles that mark a significant change, will be identified to gain more knowledge about the students journey. Analysis at the third level correspond with an abductive approach. An abductive approach ‘is fruitful if the researcher’s objective is to discover new things – other variables and other relationships’ (Dubois & Gadde, 2002, p.599). Furthermore, it is concerned with generating new concepts and development of theoretical models, rather than just confirming already existing theory. Theory development, and not generation, is thus an important objective for abductive approaches. Through the abductive approach, developing the existing knowledge about cooperative learning will be in the forefront. Moreover, Wackerhausens (2015) understanding of reflection has been used as an analytical lens at the third level. This theoretical perspective has been useful to understand student’s reflections, as well as how the reflections might have changed throughout the project.

Preliminary findings from the pre-interviews showed that students reflected on PE as a ‘play-subject’ that offers variation and break from a theoretical school day. The students were not able to express what they learn in PE other than ‘having fun’ and ‘get in shape’. Students mostly experienced learning through the direct instruction approach, and had no reflections about other ways they could possibly learn in PE. When the teacher changed his pedagogical approach to Cooperative Learning, most students expressed this change to be challenging and problematic. Leaning on Wackerhausen this show that what the students reflect from and with did no longer corresponded with the new way the subject was delivered. However, this action research project show that time is a crucial matter for change; findings form my study show that throughout the four intervention periods students gradually perceived learning through the model as more meaningful. Nevertheless, in the post-interviews students still reflected on PE as a ‘play-subject’ that represented a much needed break in their school day. However, when talking about the Cooperative Learning units, the students had far more reflections about their learning experiences regarding what they had learnt and how they had learnt it. The post-interviews however, did also show that the students perceived the Cooperative Learning lessons as ‘something else’ and struggled to understand that these lessons was in fact part of their ordinary PE lessons/classes. Thus, it could be argued that reflecting on PE was something different than reflecting on the cooperative learning intervention periods. Further analysis and findings will be presented at the conference.

Annerstedt, C. (2008). Physical education in Scandinavia with a focus on Sweden: a comparative perspective, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13:4, 303-318, DOI: 10.1080/17408980802353347 Borgen, J. S., Engelsrud, G. (2015) Hva skjer i kroppsøvingsfaget? [What happens in PE?] Bedre skole 2015, (2). Casey, A., Dyson, B. & Campbell, A. (2009). Action research in physical education: focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning. Educational Action Research. DOI: 10.1080/09650790903093508 Casey, A. (2014). Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19:1, 18-34, DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2012.726977 Casey, A. & Goodyear, V. (2015). Can Cooperative Learning Achieve the Four Learning Outcomes of Physical Education? A Review of Literature, Quest, 67:1, 56-72, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2014.9847 Casey, A. (2018). Action Research. In Casey, A., Fletcher, T., Schaefer, L. & Gleddie, D. (Ed), Conducting Practitioner Research in Physical Education and Youth Sport: Reflecting on practice (p.13-26). London: Routledge Dubois, A. & Gadde, L.E. (2002) Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55, 553-560. Dyson, B. & Casey, A. (2016). Cooperative Learning in Physical Education and Physical Activity. A practical introduction. Oxon: Routledge Dyson, B., Colby, R. & Barratt, M. (2016). The Co-Construction of Cooperative Learning in Physical Education With Elementary Classroom Teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. DOI: 10.1123/jtpe.2016-0119 Jewett, A. E., Bain, L. L., & Ennis, C. D. (1995). The curriculum process in physical education (2nd Ed.). Madison, WI: Brown. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (2009) An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 67-73. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X09339057 Kirk, D. (2010) Physical Education Futures. London, UK: Routledge. Kirk, D. (2013). Educational Value and Models-Based Practice in Physical Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45:9, 973-986, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2013.785352 Lund, J. & Tannehill, D. (2010) Standards-Based Physical Education Curriculum Development, (2nd Ed.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers Ommundsen, Y. (2013). Fysisk-motorisk ferdighet gjennom kroppsøving – et viktig bidrag til elevenes allmenndanning og læring i skolen. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 97(2), 155-166 Souminen, L., Engelsrud, G., Moe, V.F. & Leirhaug, P.E. (2018) Primary Physical Education in Norway. In G. Griggs. & K. Petrie. (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Primary Physical Education (p. 307-317). London: Routledge Utdanningsdirektoratet [Udir] (2015). Læreplan i kroppsøving. Retrieved from http://www.udir.no/kl06/KRO1-04 Wackerhausen, S. (2015). Erfaringsrom, handlingsbåren kunnskap og refleksjon. In McGuirck, J. & Methi, J. (Eds.), Praktisk kunnskap som profesjonsforskning. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget