E XAMINING  THE   S IGNIFICANCE  OF  THE   C URRICULUM   M ODEL

It has been frequently noted, that one of the main challenges for researchers is to link theory and outputs to specific practical recommendations for intervention (Abrams and Christian, 2007). In line with this critique a theoretical conceptualization of inclusion and exclusion processes offered in this thesis, might be argued to have no or only limited impact on day-to-day practice in PE (Williams, 2000). However, this thesis does not end with the theory. Rather, in an attempt to make the thesis relevant and applicable to practice, a main outcome is the development and empirical

examination of a new PE curriculum model in which my theoretical and empirical insights on students’ participation and non-participation are embraced. Thus, as the

ground to inclusion and exclusion processes are to be found in the dynamics within various relationships, so, I argue, are the solutions.

2.2.1 Changing the Multi-curriculum Model of PE

Turning to the literature, studies have shown widespread application of the multi-curriculum model in PE (Ennis, 1999). Questions have been raised from many

quarters regarding the appropriateness of this longstanding activity-based structure as a basis from which to promote inclusion in PE.

First, the multi-curriculum model is characterized by a structure in which students are introduced to a large number of sports in the hope that every student will find interest in at least one of these activities, and will be motivated to sustain their participation in the activity beyond school (Kirk & Kinchin, 2003). The requirement to introduce many activities during a limited number of PE sessions means that only a short amount of time can be spent on each activity. Moreover, the educational sequences across lessons, units and grades are weak and non-existent, the instruction and supervision of game play limited and student ownership and leadership opportunities minimized (Ennis, 1999). This all serves to limit and constrain students’ learning, and hence, many students struggle to ‘develop the necessary appreciation of the activity, the specific movement patterns required in each and an understanding of how these patterns are employed in context’ (Murdoch & Whitehead, 2013: 63). Moreover, the emphasis on offering students a range of physical activity experiences means that to many students PE has become recreational and the educative intent of their

experiences essentially indeterminate (Gard et al. 2013: 111). As such PE has come to be perceived by students as well as teachers as a release from rather than as a part of the academic content of education (see, for example, Cothran and Ennis, 2001;

Flintoff and Scraton, 2001; Green, 2000, 2008).

Second, evidence has been provided that the multi-curriculum model is seldom meaningfully connected to learning in different activity contexts, to learning in PE and other school subjects, and to learning in PE and experiences beyond schools (Penney, 1999; Penney and Chandler, 2000). Hence, exclusion in PE has been attributed to the decontextualized and inauthentic nature of learning typical of the multi-curriculum model, which limits the transfer of knowledge and competence to

other spheres of students’ lives and makes learning seem valueless, irrelevant and meaningless to students (see, for example, Ennis, 1996; Fernández-Balboa, 1997a, 1997b; Kirk 1993; Kirk & MacDonald 1998; Murdoch & Whitehead, 2013; Penney &

Chandler, 2000)

Third, concern has been expressed that the activity-based structure of the multi-curriculum model and the role of PE merely to provide experiences, prompts a focus on students’ performance and achievement in specific sports (Hardman, 2006). The reaffirming of the connection between PE and sport, or what Green (2008) denotes the ‘sportifization of’ PE, serves to narrows students’ images of how physical activity

‘should’ be carried out (Redelius and Larsson, 2010: 698) and to legitimate particular sorts of knowledge (Evans, 1990; Penney, 2013). Thus, the established knowledge boundary reinforced through the multi-curriculum model has been blamed for assigning value to particular learners and hence, to maintaining a particular social order (Evans, 1990; Penney, 2013; Redelius and Larsson, 2010).

As the multi-curriculum model and in particular the dominant practice of PE as sport-techniques, fundamentally limits who can fully access PE and reap its rewards, it has been argued that ‘doing things differently and doing different things in the name of PE’ is the key to extending inclusion in PE (Penney, 2013: 7). However, as argued by Redelius and Larsson (2010: 698) finding forms that cannot easily be associated with competitive sports and which may challenge the hierarchies of knowledge and the social hierarchies, which prevail inside the subject, necessitates that alternative methods of instruction as well as alternative content of teaching are found. However, as stressed by Locke (1992), to do so, require that we replace rather than merely attempt to repair, the dominant models of PE.

For the development of such a replacement, one possibility suggested by a number of researchers within PE is a curriculum model that emphasizes the educational elements of PE (see, for example, Gard et al. 2013; Penney and Chandler, 2000; Tinning et al.

1994). Of particular note is the comment made by Tinning et al. (1994) that ‘physical education needs to be conceptualized as an educational process, positioned within educational discourses and drawing upon educational arguments’ (quoted in MacDonald and Brooker, 1997: 159).

However, arguments in favour of such an approach have been mostly theoretical (for an exception, see MacDonald and Brooker, 1997). This seems to reflect a general trend within curriculum research. Hence, only a few studies have attempted to describe and evaluate curriculum models (Siedentop et al. 1994). More specifically, examination of curriculum change from the students’ perspective has been

emphasized as a research area in need of development (Cothran and Ennis 2001;

Penney, 2006).

Therefore, an important contribution of this thesis is the empirical examination of a mastery-oriented curriculum model that emphasizes the educational objectives of PE.

In particular the thesis explores a) what kind of participation opportunities that this model provides and b) students’ experiences of and responses to such opportunities.