• A
  • A
Switch colours to view the site as you prefer!

“What do you see? Is it the same as me? I assume it is…”

Volume 3: Teachers, teaching and teacher education in physical education 

The previous blog talked about gender and its apparent place in PE as “the elephant in the room”. It asked if it is OK just to laugh issues of gender off and play dumb. It considered if strong emotional responses to the idea of gender discrimination – both positive and negative – are suitable in the modern age. It concluded by asking what can be done to help us talk about issues of gender in a mature and adult way. 

In this week’s blog I explore the idea of assumption. There is an expression that suggest that to ‘assume’ is to make an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’ and perhaps we have been guilty of that in education. By assuming that there is a ‘right’ way of doing things and by assuming that the outcomes of our lessons are obvious then we run the considerable risk of assuming that kids learn. This blog explores this notion and asks if we can every be that sure.

  

Paper 54:

Gore, J. M.  (1990/2012) Pedagogy as text in physical education teacher education: beyond the preferred reading. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 142-176) London: Routledge.

 

My ‘take home’ message – the implications of the research on practice

“I didn’t see that coming” is frequently my response to who donnits. My wife on the other hand normally gets there an hour or so ahead of me. I am not sure this is just a matter of observation skills, or if she just reads things differently to me, but there is clearly a difference. The same comes when we observe lessons. During my PhD I would frequently be observed by my Head of Department and never, despite my best efforts, could I ever get him to give me outstanding. I used to pass this off as jealousy or bloody-mindedness. He didn’t really like the new fangled ways in which I taught and I thought he was just determined never to give it an outstanding and therefore admit that it was better than the traditional way of teaching PE. He always found something that stopped him from awarding that elusive grade. “They weren’t active enough”, or “too much talking and not enough doing”, or other such things were always cited as reasons for my good with outstanding features. It always used to rile me a little but as I mature in age and understanding I wonder if my head of department and I  simply saw different things in the lesson.

A group of children stand talking through a number of tasks on a clipboard and one, in the role of coach, is going through the assessment. Around this group in gymnasium are several other groups doing different things. Some are working in pairs on some assigned task and there is a lot of chatter. Some are standing in similar huddles and there are some animated conversations going on. Others still are heavily engaged in activity. Boys and girls work easily together and the atmosphere – while noisy – seems fun and relaxed. The teacher is watching from afar and every so often she joins a group to listen and asks the odd question before retiring from the group and continuing her vigil. The first group break up and move to their designated area and start a new task. Everyone is engaged and some stand and observe while others perform. They are checking their achievement against the sheet on the clipboard. One of them is struggling but he doesn’t seek help from his teacher but is instead supported by his group. He quickly masters the activity and the group return to the huddle to talk again. The teacher stays on the side of the lesson and only interjects occasional. She, it appears, is a watching brief.

The question I would pose here is “what did you see in this lesson?”

I saw a group working in a Cooperative Learning lesson – probably in the learning teams structure – and going through the task cards that were carefully written for them. I see them engaged in five elements of Cooperative Learning (group processing, promotive face-to-face interaction, individual accountability, positive interdependence, and small group and interpersonal skills) without the direct interference of the teacher. The teacher’s role is that of facilitator – ‘the guide on the side’ – rather that the teller – ‘the sage on the stage’. I see boys and girls working together equally and with no apparent hierarchy in terms of ability or gender.

But what would my Head of Department have seen?

Perhaps he would have seen an undisciplined class with too much noise. Maybe he would have seen a class with too much standing around and not enough doing? Would he see a teacher who is lazy and who doesn’t want to join in? Would he see a child forced to ask for help from his friends because his teacher wouldn’t give it?

The point I am trying to make is that we see different things in the same circumstances. There are always multiple sides to every story and the same applies to teaching as well as learning. No two children will learn in the same way and no two children will emerge from a lesson with the same messages that you intended them to get. So what do we do? 

We could assume that we are following a hopeless path that will lead us, as teachers, to failure – at least in some cases. We will never get through to some children and we need to worry about the majority. Or we could try to ascertain and understand what learning is? I never took the time to educate my Head of Department to these new ways of teaching. He was switched off and I left him that way. Perhaps I could have achieved my outstanding if he actually understood what I was doing. I see teachers advocating hard for their teaching and I see communities accepting these messages. Perhaps we need to advocate more with our children and with ourselves. Why are you doing this? Find the answer to that question and then shout it from the rooftops. Make sure people get where you are coming from.

 

The Paper

Gore starts by exploring the notion of curriculum and the different sorts of curriculum that have been identified in the research (see blog 4 for a fuller explanation). She argues that while the formal curriculum is tangible (in as much as it is written down and can be identified through observation and interpretation) other notions of curriculum (the hidden, null or functional curriculum) cannot be talked about in the same way. These notions of curriculum are dependent on what is observed and by whom.

Just like when someone watches the television or a film, it is their past experiences and the social context of their lives that has the biggest an impact in what they ‘see’. The texts (or social signs) have to be read and it is the reading that indicates  a number of different things are (or could be) seen. When you go to see a film, however, you are not provided with a formal explanation of what is there. In other words you are not told what to see. The same can be said of a lesson or a curriculum. 

When you read a curriculum document you could read it, as Gore suggests, prescriptively or descriptively. You could read it as a detailed plan of what you have to do or as an indication of what you might do. But Gore asks “what if we read it critically and reflexively?” If we were to focus on a form of pedagogy that was reflexive (i.e. if we were aware contradictions between the form that we present them in and the form that the designers’ advocated for) and which was morally and politically defensible then we would have greater success in our field. Which, to date, we don’t always have. 

Gore writes “that physical education is a negative and destructive experience for a significant number of students is itself condemnation of some practices we carry out in the name of physical education”. This is a point that many of us would struggle to disagree with. You only have to witness the text about PE that comes from film and television to see how our subject is being portrayed. It has become – in its current form – part of the social world, of human life and our histories. 

One of the problems though is “that lessons don’t have a single meaning”. Gore argues that we cannot assume that any curriculum (formal, null etc) operates for everyone in the same way. We all ‘see’ things that we want to see.” There are certain meanings that, as teachers, we would prefer students to glean from our lessons but we cannot be sure that this is the case.

When, as physical educators, we provide answers to questions then we inadvertently present knowledge as unproblematic and incontestable and say that technical competence is of “paramount importance”. We have, in Gore’s words, come at teaching with a tendency to “scientize” the subject.

We present ourselves as the expert knowers but don’t consider who the expert learners are. We need to “scientize” it so we can grade it. How do you award grades for problem solving – especially when students get it wrong. Yet, in learning that there is a ‘right’ answer that is what children are socialised to look for. They want answers and not questions. They want to get it right first time and not repeatedly get it (singular) wrong. There is no margin for error. They want recipes rather than a few ingredients – as Gore so articulately put it.

Yet this is a school issue that has been historically created. But how do we challenge it and change it? Surely, that is the million-dollar question. It think, as Gore suggests, we do it by adopting reflexive pedagogies and consider the wider text of what our curriculum might provide. We need to see that there is no single meaning and look for answers that are not destructive and negative.

 

What’s next? As part of this series of blogs I propose the following as a way of considering the implications of this research on your teaching- Think, Act, Change (or TAC for short).

Think about findings of the paper – do they resonate with you? Use the comment box below to ask a question, seek clarification, may be challenge the findings.?

Act on what you’ve read. What do you believe? Is it your responsibility to make changes or is this just something else that I’ve put on your plate? Is there action to take? If so, what might it be?

Change what you do in response to your thoughts and actions? Is this a personal undertaking? If you want to do something or are looking for help then please let the community know about it.

I wouldn’t expect every paper to get beyond the T or even the A of TAC but if one paper resonates enough to get to C then hopefully all this is worthwhile. Good luck.

 

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Vicky Goodyear whose work behind the scene as copy editor is a vital part of getting this blog out on time and in a semblance of coherence.

 

comment avatar
About me
On Monday 10 February at 04:09 Joshua Turnipseed said
Hello Dr. Casey my name is Joshua Turnipseed and am a student at the University of South Alabama. I am enrolled in edm310 and am assigned to comment on your blog. But I like what you have to say about how we shouldn't assume that what we see is not exactly correct. You're right about how depending on what we go through during our life has an effect on how we perceive different things.
comment avatar
About me
On Wednesday 12 February at 17:52 Vicky Retter said
As a PGCE student this is certainly something I am seeing first hand. What the observer sees and what I think and feel about the lesson are not always the same. I often think that things could've gone better or I'd change X-Y-Z, but I think it is the process of reflection, evaluation and discussion that permits me to develop my own understanding of teaching and learning. Also being able to observe other teachers and team teach has allowed me to see that everything can be interpreted in more than one way, as well as learn how to present information in a multitude of ways to access students. I am trying to incorporate more room for reflection within my lessons, to identify what students have learnt / are learning, which I am finding helps with my future planning and adapting of lessons. With regard to the curriculum, I think that we are stuck in our ways. We are presented with schemes of work that get results, students learn from and meet the curriculum needs (not saying they meet the needs of students) so why deviate? The NCPE doesn't state we have to teach a unit of football, rugby or basketball, but we do... Why don't we teach a unit of invasion games, net and wall etc, using students to create their own games based on the games they know reflecting and adapting each week? Would they learn, develop, understand and engage more with this method? or do they expect to do football, netball, hockey and rugby? Finally, this blog has really made me think about 'what my students learn in my lessons' this week, I have also approached my lessons, planning and teaching in a different way. Thank you Ash and Vicky
comment avatar
About me
On Thursday 13 February at 23:19 jonita watkins said
I have never heard of the expression “the elephant in the room.” I decided to follow the link and find out what it means. “The elephant in the room,” visually expresses a problem or an issue that is impossible to overlook. If the problem or issue is overlooked, it is because a person chooses to overlook it or be in denial about it. The author of this blog is saying gender is that “elephant in the room” in PE. I can agree because I have taken PE. When girls want to play with a football instead of volleyball and the PE coach says, “The footballs are for boys.” Is that because we only see males playing the sport? I am sure it is but it is PE, no one should be restricted to play with unisex equipment. We can address this issue in a mature manner by involving an equal amount of females and males trying to accomplish a goal together, and explain why each female and male was chosen. Then each male and female can be assigned a specific task of their own that will contribute to accomplishing the goal. To assume is an act of inconsideration because no one is the exact same, we do not have the exact thoughts, we do not all learn the same, we do not look the same, nor do we react the same to the same situations given in a scenario. If I did everything under the assumption as a future educator I would honestly consider myself an ‘Unsuccessful Educator.’ It is always good to ask the question, “Do you understand?” or “Who does not understand?” Watch the hands that may go up, read the body languages, and facial expressions.
comment avatar
About me
On Thursday 13 February at 23:29 jonita watkins said
Hi My name is Jonita Watkins. I am a student at the University of South Alabama. This assignment was given in my EDM310 class. I really could have gone in depth with your blog because I have witnessed gender discrimination from teachers to students, and on my job. The previous comment is from me.
comment avatar
About me
On Friday 14 February at 13:59 Ben said
Reading the comment above regarding the PEcoach saying football is only for boys - have I been working in a bubble for the last 18 years, as I am shocked that this still occurs? If this is the case then I feel fortunate to have worked with. Some great teachers!

In order to add your comments, you must login or register as a member

You can login or register here