Topic

This proposal is based on a scoping review published in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2022. The proposal focuses on how physical education teachers are positioned in models scholarship. 

Aim

The paper had two specific aims. First, we aimed to provide a detailed map of how scholars have positioned teachers within physical education models literature. Second, we aimed to provide a reinterpretation of our findings using Deweyan theory.

Theoretical framework

In adopting a Deweyan perspective and accepting Dewey's critique of 'recipies and models', we set out to discuss and problematize  the positioning of teachers in models literature in PE. While Dewey did not critique modern pedagogical models, his critical stance on teaching prescriptions, provides a vantage point from which we can view the positioning of teachers achieved in contemporary models scholarship. Dewey's concepts create a useful platform for furthering scholarly discussion on the positioning of teachers in the development and implementation of models in PE.

Method The scoping review conducted were based on the framework provided by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). It involved five steps: (1) the development of a research question which was: in which ways does PE models literature position teachers? (2) the identification of potentially relevant literature through searches of the Web of Science, SPORT Discus and Google Scholar databases. The search terms used were: ‘Physical education’ AND ‘Models-based practice;’ OR; ‘Pedagogical model;’ OR; ‘Instructional model;’ OR; ‘Curriculum model;’ OR; ‘Model;’ OR; ‘Teacher,’ and literature needed to be published between 2010 and 2021 in English, (3) the selection of literature for the review. This occurred as an iterative process that involved going back and forth between potentially relevant literature and our research question, (4) charting of the literature, done through inductive thematic analysis. This involved a close inspection of the included texts and the identification of recurring types of positioning in the corpus, and (5) a theoretical reinterpretation of teacher positioning achieved in models scholarship.

Findings In physical education scholarship on pedagogical models, teachers have been positioned as: (1) resistant to using models; (2) incapable of using models correctly; (3) mechanical reproducers of models; (4) struggling implementers of models; (5) needing models to change their ordinary practices; (6) capable of using models correctly with support; (7) adapters of models, and (8) collaborators with researchers when implementing models. Scholars at times oppose the teacher positions that they describe and at times suggest that teachers occupy several different positions vis-a-vis models. Landi, Fitzpatrick, and McGlashan (2016) for example, discuss the possibility of teachers working as both ‘mechanical reproducers of models’ and as ‘adapters of models.’ Discussion Three issues are raised for discussion. The first relates to the potential disempowerment of teachers achieved by models. The second concerns the relationship between teachers and researchers. The third relates to how models themselves are conceived. Conclusion In the conclusion we acknowledge some limitiations of our methodological approach. Moreover, the relation between researcher and teacher are reflected upon. Finally, the results of the review encourage a reconsideration of the term ‘models.’

Arksey, H., and L. O’Malley. 2005. “Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 (1): 19–32. Bjørke, L., O. F. Standal, and K. Mordal Moen. 2021. “‘While we May Lead a Horse to Water we Cannot Make him Drink’: Three Physical Education Teachers’ Professional Growth Through and Beyond a Prolonged Participatory Action Research Project.” Sport, Education and Society 26 (8): 889–902. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1799781. Casey, A., and D. Kirk. 2020. Models-based Practice in Physical Education. London: Routledge. Casey, A., A. MacPhail, H. Larsson, and M. Quennerstedt. 2021. “Between Hope and Happening: Problematizing the M and the P in Models-based Practice.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 26 (2): 111–122. Curtner-Smith, M. D., P. Hastie, and G. D. Kinchin. 2008. “Influence of Occupational Socialization on Beginning Teachers’ Interpretation and Delivery of Sport Education.” Sport, Education and Society 13 (1): 97–117. Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan. Fernandez-Rio, J., and J. I. Menendez-Santurio. 2017. “Teachers and Students’ Perceptions of a Hybrid Sport Education and Teaching for Personal and Social Responsibility Learning Unit.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 36 (2): 185–196. Gil-Arias, A., S. Harvey, F. García-Herreros, S. González-Víllora, A. Práxedes, and A. Moreno. 2021. “Effect of a Hybrid Teaching Games for Understanding/Sport Education Unit on Elementary Students’ Self-determined Motivation in Physical Education.” European Physical Education Review 27 (2): 366–383. Haerens, L., D. Kirk, G. Cardon, and I. De Bourdeaudhuij. 2011. “Toward the Development of a Pedagogical Model for Health-based Physical Education.” Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich) 63 (3): 321–338. Hastie, P., and A. Casey. 2014. “Fidelity in Models-based Practice Research in Sport Pedagogy: A Guide for Future Investigations.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 33 (3): 422–431. Jarrett, K., and R. L. Light. 2021. “English and Australian Teachers’ Interpretation and use of GBA.” In Game Sense for Teaching and Coaching: International Perspectives, edited by R. L. Light and C. Curry, 117–127. New York: Routldege. Landi, D., K. Fitzpatrick, and H. McGlashan. 2016. “Models Based Practices in Physical Education: A Sociocritical Reflection.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35 (4): 400–411. Metzler, M. W. 2017. Instructional Models in Physical Education. London: Taylor & Francis. Pill, S., K. Swabey, and D. Penney. 2017. “Investigating PE Teacher Use of Models Based Practice in Australian Secondary PE.” Revue phénEPS/PHEnex Journal 9: 1.