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

Knowing the difference between changeable and unchangeable practices

The previous blog looked back on a paper written nearly 40 years ago and asked if PE still stands on the outskirts of school life and if it still needs to justify itself through elite sporting success. Fundamentally, it asked why, given the changes that have occurred in the world, PE (a) is still positioned as the prestige gathering arm of the school, and (b) shows understanding of the skilful children but doesn’t know how to help those who are disaffected or low skilled?

This week’s blog looks at the inherent difficulties of pedagogical change and of stepping away from the “traditional way” of teaching physical education. It asks how we might be increasingly aware of what we can and cannot change in the short term with regards to teaching and learning in PE and how we might know the difference. It also challenges us all to adopt a critical approach to teaching that is grounded in theoretically informed practice or praxis.

 

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

Paper 58:

Hickey, C.  (2001/2012) “I feel enlightened now, but . . .” The limits of the pedagogic translation of critical social discourses in physical education. In D. Kirk (ed.) Physical Education: Volume III. (pp. 234-257) London: Routledge.

 

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

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can change, and wisdom to know the difference."

                                                                                                                                                                                   Anon   

The serenity prayer seemed like an apt metaphor for pedagogical change in physical education. So much has been written about “that traditional way” of teaching in physical education that it might be assumed that perhaps, as educators, we simply need the serenity to finally accept that no(thing) can be change. Yet, if we actually believed that then I wonder what our future is and the opportunities that we might overlook and ignore in our meek acceptance of ‘reality’.

I certainly believe that serenity, courage and wisdom are needed in pedagogical change but, perhaps, in different ways than was first intended by the prayer. 

My experience of pedagogical change comes from seven years of personal change; a period in which I meet forms of indifference, resistance, ridicule, barely disguised distrust, and open confrontation. What I did – in advocating for a models-based approach to teaching physical education – was increasingly distanced myself from the traditional way of teaching. The better I got at MBP the further away from the traditional model I strayed and the more uncomfortable it made my colleagues feel (certainly not all of them and not all of the time but some of them and some of the time). I was told I didn’t teach properly, I was asked not to use this ‘rubbish’ when we had visitors, aspiring teachers were questioned when they wanted to watch me teach, and my practices left the school when I did.

It wasn’t easy and I did need a degree of serenity to understand when I was confronted with aspects of life at school that I could not change. I also felt that it needed courage to push forwards with some of the ideas I had to change things against the different types of resistance I faced. Sometimes this resistance was overt and ‘in my face’ and at other times in was a form of covert undermining – at least that is how I see it now – but it certainly didn’t make my life easy. I also think that, on a number of occasions, I didn’t recognise the difference.

That said the things that initially felt unchangeable became more malleable the more I got to grips with these untraditional approaches to teaching and the more colleagues saw them working. I also became better at adapting my practices and shifting my aim so that I could achieve change in the spaces I controlled rather than in the more communal spaces of teaching in PE (i.e. whole year group team teaching situations). by modifying my aims and picking my battles (so to speak) I was better able to engender change in my practice and the learning of my students. Yet I was also increasingly less likely (I know realise) to engender change in the pedagogical approaches of my colleagues and my school.

Perhaps I wasn’t prepared to compromise and take the time to help others to change? Perhaps they weren’t prepared to accept an alternative? Perhaps our agendas were too far apart and perhaps we lacked the wisdom to come closer together rather than insisting that ‘we knew best’. It is easier in life being right than being wrong but if we want to make changes and strongly believe they are for the better then someone has to offer an olive branch. If you think something works well do you keep it to yourself or proffer it up to others to try? If we shared our ideas more freely and discussed our feelings and aspirations perhaps pedagogical change wouldn’t be quite so hard.

 

The Paper

Hickey focuses this paper on two aspects of pedagogical change. He starts by exploring his decision to change an extensive unit of work in a physical education teacher education (PETE) programme in Australia and finishes by investigating the impact that this had on the teaching of two of the pre-service teachers on the same course. What he found was that programme change and critical consideration of teaching in PE is not enough to easily facilitate change at an individual teacher level. 

Much of the initial impetus for Hickey’s decision to change had been based on his own inspiration to make change. He wanted, in his words, to “enlighten” his students, as he has been enlightened. He wanted his students to be more aware of critical theory; of what they thought about, what they were concerned about, how they theorized their practices, and how they actually taught PE. As importantly he wanted to bridge the gap between theory and practice (or mend the road between the two) and he sought to frame his work through praxis (theoretically-informed practice). Fundamentally he aspired to move his students away from a technical orientation towards teaching (what Tinning had described as “centring around techniques and strategies that are concerned with the most efficient ways to achieve essentially non-problematic ends”). In other words he wanted his students to be more questioning of their approach to teaching and more aware of issues such as ability, gender, race and class.

What he found was that while different students had different responses to critical theory there were some aspects of both ‘school’ and ‘practice’ that would take considerably more than a unit of work to change – if in fact they were changeable at all (at least in the short term). Using two case studies as a means to explain the ways in which different students approach the ideas of critical theory, praxis and pedagogical change, Hickey showed how past experiences impacted on the students, readiness to make changes.

The first student, ‘James’, was a typical PETE student. He had thrived in PE, got on well with his teachers and had to work hard to obtain his position towards the top of the pecking order. He thought that, like it or not, some kids simply wouldn’t like and/or be good at PE. This didn’t mean that PE teachers should compromise their teaching or their ideals – after all the maths teacher wouldn’t compromise with arithmetic so why should he? He felt that kids should be active in PE and that teachers should set an example in PE by being fit and athletic. Furthermore, he felt that PE should cater for the most able because it gave the weaker children something to aim for. Besides he wouldn’t focus on mediocrity.

The second student, ‘Erin’, was more aware of issues of inequity and oppression in PE. While it took her some time to move beyond a theory of equity (that was just expressed as a belief) and develop a pedagogy that was more inclusive (and which showed up in her practice) she was more willing to try new things than James had been. Yet she also recognised that there were certain things that she had to do in her teaching if she was to be taken seriously and rewarded. That said she was willing to try new possibilities and adapt her practice to “better mediate contextual demands and impediments”.

James, Hickey argued, ‘heard’ the messages from his critical theory classes but he didn’t see them as being relevant. He rejected any pedagogy that didn’t develop skill and was unwilling to try new ideas more than once. Erin on the other hand sought to “limit her sphere of influence to areas of practice that she could practically engage” with. She found, in other words, spaces where she could escape the influence of traditional practice and be more critically in her practice.

This is the key take home message to me. We need, as Hickey suggests and as Erin did, to “reconcile the extent to which [our] critical aspirations [can] be realistically lived-out within the context of [our] practice”. Put more simply we need to find way of circumnavigating the resistance of supervising teachers and colleagues (who might not support our ideas) and continue to be critical practitioners who seek the very best education for the children and young people in our care.

 

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 for her work behind the scene as copy editor and Routledge (part of the Taylor and Francis group) for donating a copy of the Physical Education: Major themes in education series. Their respective help certainly forms a vital part of the production of this blog, and in getting out on time and in a semblance of coherence. 

comment avatar
About me
On Friday 07 March at 16:07 Nalda.wainwright said
Hi Ashley, thanks for continuing this, I confess I have been dipping in and out of reading them, even though I had intended to sit down every week to catch up!! I think the take home message here is very relevant to everyone trying to bring about change in Physical Education, and one I have had to learn over the years doing INSET days with teachers. Often I have been dismayed to meet with body language that clearly says I am here but don't want to be...luckily in these situations these have been the minority, and the enthusiastic response of those who do want to be there has meant that by focussing on the people who are willing to change and working hard to support them and work with them then real change can happen. This is true of so many things in life, and Steven Covey writes about how it is important to focus on what he calls your ' circle of influence' where you can have an effect, rather than waste energy on your 'circle of concern' which all you can do is worry about.....something I constantly have to remind myself about when things in the news or the politics of Higher Education really wind me up!!
comment avatar
About me
On Saturday 08 March at 16:45 Vicky Retter said
We talk a lot of change in Physical Education, of moving away from the 'traditional pedagogy' and of using new methods. But what if the traditional ways work, what if they do present students the opportunity to progress and get results year on year, why do we then need to 'change' the ways we teach? For those on PETE courses there needs to be more of a concern about becoming the type of teacher you want to be, of trying new ideas and focusing on your teaching, whether that be as an advocate of MBP or 'traditional approach' than bringing about change. Pre-service teachers already have the struggles of what universities want them to be, what schools want them to be and what they want to be to contend with, without forcibly trying to change other people’s perceptions. By being the teacher they want to be and changing their classroom there is an opportunity to open discussions and doors to change for others. Indeed, even though change in others may not be readily seen it is not reasonable to suggest they are unwilling to change their practice or develop their classrooms, it could be considered that they do not feel it necessary to label their teaching, as they do not fit into just one category (MBP or traditional). After all teaching is not a one-size fits all approach, the way we teach should respond to the needs and strengths of our students and sometimes that calls for a 'traditional' approach and at times a MBP approach may be appropriate. That being said, in using MBP we need to be aware that is it not just us as teachers that are learning to use a new approach but that we are also asking our students to learn in a new way, which takes time. Change is achievable, it is inevitable but it is the way in which we approach it that needs to be carefully considered.

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

You can login or register here