Transformative Learning and Teaching in Physical Education

Malcolm Thorburn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138393523
• eBook ISBN: 9781317232162
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Transformative Learning and Teaching in Physical Education explores how learning and teaching in physical education might be improved and how it might become a meaningful component of young people's lives. With its in-depth focus on physical education within contemporary schooling, the book presents a set of professional perspectives that are pivotal for realising high-quality learning and teaching for physical education.

With contributions from a range of international academics, chapters critically engage with vital issues within contemporary physical education. These include examples of complex learning principles in action, which are discussed as a method for bettering our understanding of various learning and teaching endeavours, and which often challenge hierarchical and behaviourist notions of learning that have long held a strong foothold in physical education. Authors also engage with social-ecological theories in order to help probe the complex circumstances and tensions which many teachers face in their everyday work environments, where they witness first-hand the contrast between discourses which espouse transformational change and the realities of their routine institutional arrangements.

This book enables readers to engage in a fuller way with transformative ideas and to consider their wider implications for contemporary physical education. Its set of professional perspectives will be of great interest to academics, policymakers, teacher educators and teachers in the fields of physical education, health and well-being. It will also be a useful resource for postgraduate students studying in these subject areas.

Part I
The societal perspective

1
Physical education, economic liberalism and the free market

Professional changes ahead?

Malcolm Thorburn

Introduction

As you read this chapter it may be that physical education is being taught in familiar ways that are a well-established part of public education. Classes will be grouped together in some way and the reassuring rhythm of lessons, intervals and bells will provide a comfortable backdrop against which time-honoured patterns of provision are rolled out. This familiar and traditional approach will bring order and stability to the lives of many learners and, of course, to the lives of many teachers as well (Thorburn, 2010). Such provision is likely to yield predictable if mixed results. Many learners will be thoroughly engaged in activity, grasp meaning from their movements and be buoyed by the well-run and sympathetically delivered programmes on offer. Other learners may find gains more modest; for some levels of enjoyment, motivation and learning may be conditional (e.g. activity and/or teacher dependent) while for others physical education may lack in meaning, choice and sociability (Tannehill, MacPhail, Walsh & Woods, 2015). However, as the chapter will highlight, these stable routines may be less enduring in the future than they have been in the past, as there is a ‘growing tendency amongst governments world-wide to introduce forms of privatisation into public education and to move to privatise sections of public education’ (Ball & Youdell, 2008, p. 9).

Neoliberal-based privatisation reforms are designed to achieve better outcomes and introduce greater choice in order to change traditional schooling. Thus, even though global concerns about obesity and physical inactivity have often seen a revival in the fortunes of physical education, these developments are taking place within a crowded and contested policy space where different public and private stakeholders are reviewing how various aims and performance targets can be achieved during a sustained period of economic austerity (Jess & Thorburn, 2016). These developments raise questions about the extent to which physical education can proactively engage with these priorities. For example, will neo-liberal influences such as the outsourcing of teaching to private providers prove to be a help or a hindrance to the ways in which teachers negotiate curriculum spaces and organise their teaching? Gard (2015, p. 105) notes, that the tendency among most educationalists and physical educationalists to date has been one of a ‘largely justified foreboding’, based on the expectation that greater privatisation will lead to widening inequalities, with fewer opportunities being available to those from poorer backgrounds. Evans and Davies (2015a), for example, are concerned that pro-liberty arrangements may lead to a commodification of physical education, where ‘buying’ access to classes of choice becomes available for some, while others less fortunate make do with more modest provision. Under these arrangements, inequalities are accepted rather than challenged: physical education becomes an available choice (perhaps at a cost) rather than anything more akin to an educational entitlement. And, while Tozer (2012) provides an upbeat account of the joys and successes of teaching physical education and sport in independent (private) schools, other teachers may find certain aspects of neo-liberal education more perplexing.

Macdonald (2014, p. 496) rhetorically asks: ‘If global neoliberalism is inevitable, is it a problem for Australian physical education? … [before equivocally answering] … “Yes”, this is a problem as the ideology can … introduce curriculum solutions that are not suited to twenty-first century learners and learning … [and which] … limit universal access to physical education.’ However, as Gard (2015, p. 115) notes, if we pre-judge this area ‘then there really is no point spending time researching or discussing these phenomena’. Evidence of this happening is again provided by Macdonald (2014, p. 496), who, following on from citing the problems of economic liberalism, considers that to ‘not engage with resources and services beyond the school, particularly given the richness of web-based resources and the personalised learning opportunities that they offer, is an anathema to education in the digital age’. This follows on from Macdonald’s (2011) earlier view that in order to avoid de-professionalisation and to contribute more forthrightly to policy agendas, it would be prudent to engage with neo-liberal discourses. Given these varied and complex neoliberal influences that are orbiting around contemporary physical education, the chapter invites readers to critically reflect on how physical education might prosper as part of government ambitions for education, health and sport and/or as part of the increasing free market (neoliberal) arrangements that fund educational provision across much of the Anglophone (English-speaking) world. The chapter considers three theoretical sets of ideas for explaining the privatisation of education and educational futures prior to reviewing some of the main school-related, policy, partnership and professional challenges for physical education.

Main findings Policy theorising

Endogenous and exogenous privatisation

In reviewing the privatisation of education, Ball and Youdell (2008) distinguish endogenous privatisation, which involves the importing of ideas and practices from the private sector and deploying these within the public sector in order to make efficiency gains, and exogenous privatisation, which involves the opening up of public education provision to private sector involvement on a profit-making basis. Very often endogenous privatisation provides the policy basis towards greater forms of exogenous privatisation; in effect, an eventual privatisation of education. Currently a myriad of endogenous and exogenous issues exist in physical education. These impact on student teachers’ and teachers’ professional identities and daily lives in terms of: the professional education of teachers (Pope, 2014); evaluating the worthiness of educational resources (Macdonald, 2015); reviewing the quality of pupils’ learning experiences (Penney, Petrie & Fellows, 2015); reconsidering levels of teacher expertise (Powell, 2015); thinking through whether social inequalities are rising (Evans & Davies, 2015b); examining the role of policy entrepreneurs in shaping policy discussions (Thorburn, 2009) as well as analysing the country-specific contextual factors that influence the rise in outsourcing physical education to the private sector (Williams & Macdonald, 2015). More generically Gard (2015) considers that the part choice and freedom plays in new governance arrangements relative to the professional influences of control, decision making and autonomy is also a useful construct for reviewing privatisation influences. Collectively, there is some urgency in reviewing these highlighted issues, for as Ball and Youdell (2008, p. 10) note, there is as yet ‘no clear-cut research based evidence demonstrating the benefits of programmes of school choice [endogenous privatisation] or the contracting out of schools [exogenous privatisation] in terms of raising students’ achievement.’

Reschooling and de-schooling

Key to considering how transformative futures for physical education might flourish is reviewing the extent to which reforms should take place as part of reschooling (i.e. where reform agendas confront the paradox that a better future is predicated on continuing with the public education arrangements that have largely prevailed in the past), or through de-schooling (i.e. where education takes place among a looser network of new learning communities), or through a mix of reschooling and de-schooling influences. Porter (1999) considers that market ideologies limit the capacity of schools to be independent and democratic and to fulfil the wider social and community functions that have typified their historical role. To remedy this, schools should be set broad objectives and thereafter have the freedom and decision-making autonomy to pursue them. Wrigley, Lingard and Thomson (2012) concur and argue that schools need to engage with new and wider educational networks in order to rebuild and sustain supportive systems of public education.

At face value, this is largely the situation that exists in Scotland, where physical education is thriving as part of enhanced government provision (reschooling), as physical education has succeeded in arguing for more curriculum time (i.e. two hours per week for all learners between 3 and 18 years) and an increase in teacher supply. These targets were based on arguing that it is vital to recognise physical education’s contribution to a balanced education and for its potential for bringing about the cultural change of attitude towards healthy living that is required (Jess & Thorburn, 2016). The sense of renewal is reflected in teacher age demographics: the average physical education teacher is 36 years old compared to the all subject average of 42 years, with less than one-fifth of teachers (19.0%) over 50 years old (Scottish Government, 2014). However, as Kirk’s (2010) futures thinking has highlighted, radical reform rather than more of the same is needed in order for physical education to thrive. Therefore, in Scotland, a dynamic future is likely to be dependent for the present on further changes within physical education, and through arguing that current levels of funding is money well spent. This analysis is consistent with Sinnema’s (2016, p. 966) view that Scotland (unlike England and Australia) is one of the leading examples of where schools ‘are asked to address the challenges inherent in designing and implementing a local curriculum in a manner that also ensures they give effect to a national curriculum’.

The three horizon framework

Leicester, Bloomer, Stewart and Ewing (2009) contrast how educational horizons that merely sustain, improve or adjust the present system differ from transformative innovations that signpost that something very different is taking place. The authors define three horizons. The first (H1) is based on improving matters from within present policy contexts. The second transition horizon (H2) happens when innovations are noted as working better than the original system. This is a confusing place, however, as there is a tension ‘between the power of the first horizon and the attraction of the third’ (Leicester et al., 2009, p. 28). Furthermore, it is difficult to introduce new ideas at the same time as familiar patterns of schooling are continuing, as teachers can be torn between trying to protect what they already have or invest in innovations that look set to replace it. The third horizon (H3) is the long-term successor to the first ‘business as usual’ horizon and advocates a completely new way of doing things. At any one time, all three horizons can be present and contesting their influence. For example, the first horizon’s (H1) instinct for survival can lead to H2 innovations being mainstreamed ‘in order to prolong the life of the existing system against the grain of the changing world’ (Leicester et al., 2009, p. 12). The challenge if advocating visionary change is to introduce innovations that over time become coherent with H3 ideals. However, as Leicester et al. (2009) notes, the drive for system-wide improvement in schools has tended to coalesce around a global fixation with improving standards relative to international measures of educational attainment. Such standards-based reform opens up the possibility of neoliberal influences on education arguing for change (perhaps even radical change) but where the outcome is likely to be more of the same (H1) and possibly better (H2).

Physical education might need to be wary of this situation. For example, Kirk (2013) has recently advocated that a more fulsome engagement with sport education and physical literacy models may lead to a greater sense of purpose allied to better quality learning and teaching in physical education. However, the possibility exists, following Leicester et al. (2009) that the full six stages of H3 transition reform: compelling vision; encouragement for early adopters; realistic view of policy landscape; strategic exemplification and systems of support and evaluation are not fully engaged with. If this happens the future vision could become denuded and morph over time into something very similar to the ongoing reproduction of ineffective physical education-as-sport techniques programmes, which are cited as being a big part of the ‘business as usual’ malaise that is limiting the contribution of physical education programmes (Kirk, 2010). More broadly though in terms of health and physical education, McCuaig et al. (2016) considers that there has been a subtle erosion of shared social justice agendas in favour of an approach to participatory citizenship, which is founded on personal responsibility as the driver for improving society. Within this challenging context, McCuaig et al. (2016, p. 12) considers that teachers should be vigilant about the ‘proliferation of market-based partnerships and the relations between the public and the private that are playing out in their schools and the discourses that are used to mobilise responsible citizenship’.

Physical education in the Anglophone world: A brief review of free market-related challenges

Types of schools and their implications for professionalism

As Evans and Davies (2015a) highlight, reviewing free market-related professional and practice challenges is complex, as circumstances vary within and between countries. This makes reviewing country-specific assessments of constraints and opportunities available worthwhile. In England increasing choice through expanding the number and range of school types is a key part of a neoliberal policy agenda for raising educational standards (Mortimore, 2013). Schools can differ according to: legal status; curriculum focus; pupil selection and types of academy. This diversification has been ongoing for 30 years and reflects a shared political consensus, as the earlier emphasis on comprehensive schooling and fairness has ‘shifted to derisory depictions of bog-standard comprehensives as the economy faltered and policy makers’ confidence in the capacity of any polity waned’ (Courtney, 2015, p. 2). Effectively the proliferation of different types of secondary schools, e.g. academies, faith schools, has led to schools functioning as individual corporations rather than as part of a network of schools under local democratic (local authority) control (Evans & Davies, 2014). In 2016, the Conservative Government were so besotted with academy schools that they planned to go even further along the free market route by making all schools of academy status, before pressure from many quarters (including their own party members) led to cessation of this intention.

In this increasingly fragmented landscape, the ambitions of neoliberalism often need to co-exist alongside neoconservatism, which typically has a focus on the promotion of national interest and identity. Accordingly, schools need to balance being sufficiently distinctive in order to be successful in...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of contributors
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• PART I The societal perspective
• PART II The theoretical perspective
• PART III The school perspective
• PART IV The practice perspective
• PART V A futures perspective
• Index