CHAPTER 5: Results
5.5.4 Methodological Limitations to the Evaluation of the Curriculum Model
A methodological aspect important to consider in relation to students’ experiences of the curriculum change, initiated in the study, is the case study research design. Hence, as a case study per definition takes place in a ‘real world context’, contrary to
laboratory research there are things that you cannot control (Yin, 2014). This leaves open at least two important questions in regard to the evaluation and, hence, future implementation of the curriculum model.
First, simultaneous with initiation of the curriculum change, a new PE policy was introduced by the Danish government; one important implication being the introduction of assessment in secondary PE. As a critical aspect of pedagogical practice, it is widely acknowledged that assessments do have a fundamental bearing upon what knowledge and competences come to be valued (see, for example,
Annersted and Larsson, 2010; DinanThompson and Penney, 2015). In the case of this thesis, the students’ awareness that they would at some point be assessed probably did encourage meaningful participation in PE by a few students (perhaps in particular in among the 9th grade students), while it discouraged the participation of others.
Second, to lead the PE sessions and initiate the curriculum change, it was decided to invite an external teacher to run the classes. Although the curriculum change showed promise with regard to the provision of inclusive PE, this decision, unquestionably raises the issue of how PE teachers may or may not respond to and negotiate such a curriculum change within the context of their schools. Repeating Wenger-Trayner’s words ‘we cannot assume teachers will implement our research simply because we have called it ‘evidence-based practice’ (Farnsworth et al., 2016: 158). Supporting this assumption, research examining the impact of attempted innovations has
demonstrated that teachers are often resistant to change (see, for example, Larsson et al., 2016; Mordal-Moen and Green, 2014a; Sparkes, 1991a, 1991b) and that various education reforms and new curricula do not seem to have had a significant impact (see, for example, Annerstedt, 2010; Kirk, 2010; Penney, 2006).
Conclusion and Future Perspectives
This article-based PhD thesis provides detailed insights into students’ participation and non-participation in PE. Insights which can be used for the critical evaluation of existing PE curriculum approaches, as well as to the design of future initiatives, not only in the field of PE but also in related physical activity programmes.
By focusing on students’ participation relative to their legitimacy, their negotiation of meaning and the authenticity of their learning, this PhD thesis makes a significant contribution to the existing PE literature on inclusion and exclusion processes in PE as well as to applied PE curriculum research. Moreover, the thesis adds to
methodological developments within the field of child voice research in PE by raising awareness of student silence.
More concretely, the thesis addresses two major gaps in the literature; firstly,
although research has raised awareness of the complexities of difference and diversity within different groups of students, studies utilizing a social-relational approach as a means to avoid simplistic categorizations of students, are few and far between.
Secondly, PE still has a long way to go in order to embrace the insights that research on students’ participation and non-participation has provided. Reflecting this general gap of research, only limited attention has been given to developing and examining curriculum models specifically designed to facilitate and support students’ meaningful participation in PE.
Utilizing a social-relational approach, the thesis offers a rethinking of how inclusion and exclusion processes play out in PE. Hence, the social-relational perspective on students’ participation and non-participation developed in the thesis, and in particular the focus on student legitimacy and meaningfulness has at least three strengths: First, the thesis challenges the static binary of inclusion and exclusion processes
(MacDonald et al. 2012). Thus, rather than simply differentiating between students who participate and students who do not participate, it focuses on the variety of positions taken up by students in PE under various curriculum models. As such it also acknowledges the dynamic nature of inclusion and exclusion processes in PE. Second, the thesis acknowledges that not all students desire to become central participants in PE. More specifically, it provides for valuable insights into the ways in which
students resist participation and/or opt for non-participation as such expands
prevailing notions of exclusion as something being done to students. Third, the thesis alerts attention on the way different dimensions combine together to generate or diminish exclusion. More specifically it illustrates the broad range of social contexts of school, sports and physical activity to which students relate when they negotiate and evaluate their participation and non-participation in PE.
Moreover, apparent from the thesis is that listening to student voice (and silence) is imperative if we are to create worthwhile and meaningful PE provisions. At least as important, however, the thesis also demonstrates that recognizing the problem of students’ non-participation is one thing, however, offering alternative curriculum construction that all students find relevant and valuable is another.
The curriculum model suggested in this thesis sought to challenge the narrow focus on performance and specific sports disciplines in PE. More specifically, the selected curriculum model was based on the premise, that a mastery oriented approach to PE emphasizing educational objectives would allow for other identities than only those of sport to be expressed, other values and interests than only those of performance to be acknowledged and other competences than only the physical to be recognized.
Apparent from my research is that this particular curriculum construction has the potential to transform the exclusion processes in PE. Yet, providing empirical evidence of students’ experiences of a curriculum change to an educational framework for learning in PE, this thesis shows that not only does the particular vision of what PE as a subject is essentially about, have implications for who are included but also for how we come to view and define what it means to be included.
At this point my research is highly pertinent to the new PE policy introduced by the Danish government in summer 2014, one and a half years into the thesis (Ministry of Education, 2014); a policy that in theory converges partly with the premises of the curriculum approach suggested in this thesis. First, the new PE policy states that in addition to students’ physical skills, the subject should engage with students’ cultural and relational learning. Second, the learning objectives described in the policy specifically relate to students’ skill development and to students’ knowledge production. Third, it stresses that teaching should be practice-oriented, and complemented by theory. However, as the policy has retained a specific focus on
more or less traditional sport ‘disciplines’, one might worry, that teachers will
maintain current didactical and pedagogical approaches inappropriate for meaningful and inclusive PE provisions (Hansen, 2017).
This brings me to the conclusions in regard to the curriculum implementation process.
My research shows that, although the content and organization of the curriculum do have the potential to significantly shape inclusion and exclusion processes in PE, initiating a new practice in PE is far from easy. By focusing on students’ experiences and the subjective meaning that those experiences hold, the thesis points to the fact that different students take different things from the ‘same’ experiences. Thus, not all students appreciated the changes initiated by the curriculum alterations. In particular, this was the case for those students who had extensive experience of organized sport and/or those students whose status among peers were upheld by the connection of PE to the world of sport and its inherent social hierarchies.
With the social-relational insights on inclusion and exclusion processes in PE
provided in this thesis, I hope that my research will bring about understanding and in turn affect and perhaps improve practice not only in the context of PE but also in related contexts in which the goal is to promote inclusion in physical activity.
References
Ames Carole (1992) Achievement goals, motivational climate and motivational processes. In: Roberts GC (ed) Motivation in sport and exercise. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics Books, pp.161–176.
Annerstedt C and Larsson S (2010) ‘I have my own picture of what the demands are…’: Grading in Swedish PEH – problems of validity, comparability and fairness.
European Physical Education Review 16(2): 97–115.
Abrams D and Christian J (2007) A relational analysis of social exclusion. In: Abrams D, Christian J and Gordon D (Eds) Multidisciplinary handbook of social exclusion research. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., p.211-232.
Abrams D, Christian J and Gordon D (Eds) (2007) Multidisciplinary handbook of social exclusion research. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Agergaard S, Dankers S, Munk M, and Elbe A (2017) Understanding implementation and change in complex interventions. From single- to multi-methodological research on the promotion of youths’ participation in physical education. Sport in Society: 1-17.
Arnold P (1979) Meaning in movement, sport and physical education. London:
Heinemann.
Armour K and Jones R (1998) Physical education teachers' lives and careers: PE, sport and educational status. London: Falmer Press
Azzarito L and Solomon MA (2005) A reconceptualization of physical education: The intersection of gender/race/social class. Sport, Education and Society 10(1): 25-47.
Bailey R (2005) Evaluating the relationship between physical education, sport and social Inclusion. Educational Review 57(1): 71–90.
Benn T, Dagkas S and Jawad H (2011) Embodied faith: Islam, religious freedom and educational practices in physical education. Sport, Education and Society 16(1): 17-34.
Carlson TB (1995) We hate gym: Student alienation from physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 14(4): 467-477.
Clapham D (2007) Homelessness and social exclusion. In: Abrams D, Christian J and Gordon D (Eds) Multidisciplinary handbook of social exclusion research. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp.79-94.
Cook-Sather A (2006) Sound, Presence, and Power: ‘Student Voice’ in Educational Research and Reform. Curriculum inquiry 36(4): 359-390.
Cook-Sather A (2009) Introduction: Learning from students’ perspective: Why it’s important, what to expect, and important guidelines. In: Cook-Sather A (ed) Learning from the student's perspective: A sourcebook for effective teaching. London:
Routledge, pp.1-20.
Cothran DJ (2000) Students’ curricula values and experiences. In: O’Sullivan M and MacPhail A (Eds). Young people’s voices in physical education and youth sport.
London: Routledge, pp.49-62.
Cothran D and Ennis CD (2001) ‘Nobody Said Nothing About Learning Stuff’:
Students, Teachers and Curricular Change. The Journal of Classroom Interaction 36(1): 1-5.
Dagkas S and Armour K (eds) (2012) Inclusion and exclusion through youth sport.
London: Routledge.
Dagkas S and Benn T (2006) Young Muslim women's experiences of Islam and physical education in Greece and Britain: a comparative study. Sport, Education and Society 11(1): 21-38.
Dagkas S, Benn T and Jawad H (2011) Multiple voices: improving participation of Muslim girls in physical education and school sport. Sport, Education and Society 16(2), 223-239.
Darbyshire P, MacDougall C and Schiller W (2005) Multiple methods in qualitative research: more insights or just more? Qualitative Research 5(4): 417-436.
Davies B (1982) Life in the classroom and playground: The accounts of primary
school children. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Davis A (2001) Getting Around: Listening to Children’s Views. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer 145(2): 191–4.
Dewey J and Bentley AF (1949) Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press.
Devís -Devís J (2006) Socially critical research perspectives in physical education. In:
Kirk D, MacDonald D and O´Sullivan M (eds) The Handbook of Physical Education.
London: SAGE, pp.37-58.
DinanThompson M and Penney D (2015) Assessment literacy in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review 21(4): 485-503.
Dodds P (1985) Are hunters of the function curriculum seeking quarks or snarks?
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 4(2): 91–99.
Dunn J (2005) Naturalistic observations of children in their camilies. In: Greene S and Hogan D (eds) Researching children’s experience. Approaches and methods. London:
SAGE, pp.87-101.
Dyson A (1999) Inclusion and inclusions: theories and discourses in inclusive education. In: Daniels H and Garner P (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1999:
Inclusive Education. London: Kogan Page, pp.36-53.
Dyson B (2006) Students’ perspectives of physical education. In: Kirk D, MacDonald D and O’Sullivan M (eds) Handbook of physical education. London: SAGE, pp.326-346
Elbæk L (2010) Læring ved intervention med digitale værktøjer i
idrætslæreruddannelsen : der er ikke noget så teoretisk som en udfordret praksis.
PhD Thesis, University of Southern Denmark, DK.
Emirbayer M (1997) Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. The American Journal of Sociology 103(2): 281-317.
Ennis CD (1996) When confrontation leads to avoiding content: disruptive students’
impact on curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 11(2): 145–162.
Ennis CD (1999) Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls. Sport, Education and Society 4(1): 31-49.
Ennis CD (2013) Implementing meaningful, educative curricula, and assessments in complex school environments. Sport, Education and Society 18(1): 115-120.
Erikson E (2013) Formalist and relationalist theory in social network analysis.
Sociological Theory 31(3): 219–242.
Evans J (2004) Making a difference? Education and ‘ability’ in physical education.
European Journal of Physical Education 10(1): 95-108
Evans J and Davies B (1986) Sociology, schooling and physical education. In: Evans J (ed) Physical education, sport and schooling: Studies in the sociology of physical education. London: Falmer Press, pp.11-37.
Evans J and Penney D (2008) Levels on the playing field: the social construction of physical ‘ability’ in the physical education curriculum. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 13(1): 31-47.
Evans J (1990) Defining a Subject: The Rise and Rise of the New PE? British Journal of Sociology of Education 11(2): 155-169.
Evans J and Davies B (2006) Social class and physical education. In: Kirk D,
MacDonald D and O´Sullivan M (eds) The handbook of physical education. London:
SAGE, pp.796-808.
Farnsworth V, Kleanthous I and Wenger-Trayner E (2016) Communities of practice as a social theory of learning: a Conversation with Etienne Wenger. British Journal of Educational Studies 64(2): 139-160.
Fenton-O’Creevy M, Brigham L, Jones S, Smith A (2015) Students at the academic-workplace boundary: Tourists and sojourners in practice-based education. In:
Trayner E, Fenton-O’Creevy M, Hutchinson S, Kubiak C and Wenger-Trayner B (Eds) Learning in landscapes of practice - Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice-based learning. London: Routledge, pp.43-63.
Fernández-Balboa, J-M (1993) Sociocultural Characteristics of the Hidden
Curriculum in Physical Education. Quest 45(2): 230-254.
Fernández-Balboa J-M (Ed) (1997a) Critical postmodernism in human movement, physical education, and sport. Albany (NY): State University of New York Press.
Fernández-Balboa J.-M (1997b) Knowledge base in physical education teacher education: A proposal for a new era. Quest 49(2): 161–181.
Flintoff A and Scraton S (2001) Stepping into active leisure? Young women’s perceptions of active life-styles and their experiences of school physical education.
Sport, Education and Society 6(1): 5-21.
Flintoff A and Scraton S (2006) Girls and physical education. In: Kirk D, MacDonald D and O´Sullivan M (eds) The handbook of physical education. London: SAGE, pp.767-783.
Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219-245.
Freeman M and Mathison S (2009) Researching Children’s experiences. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Gard M, Hickey-Moodey A and Enright E (2013) Youth culture, physical education and the question of relevance: after 20 years, a reply to Tinning and Fitzclarence.
Sport, Education and Society 18(1): 97-114.
Gold RL (1958) Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces 36(3): 217–
223
Green K (2000) Exploring the everyday ‘philosophies’ of physical education teachers from a sociological perspective. Sport, Education and Society 5(2): 109–129.
Green K (2008) Understanding Physical Education. London: SAGE.
Greene S and Hill M (2005) Researching children’s experience: Methods and methodological issues. In: Greene S and Hogan D (Eds) Researching children’s experience. Approaches and methods. London: SAGE, pp.1-21.
Greene S and Hogan D (2005) Researching children’s experience: Methods and
methodological issues. In: Greene S and Hogan D (eds) Researching children’s experience. Approaches and methods. London: SAGE, pp.1-21.
Griffin P 1984. Girls' participation patterns in a middle school team sports unit.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 4(1): 30-38.
Griffin P (1985) Boys' participation styles in a middle school team sport unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 4(2): 100-110.
Grimminger E (2013) Sport motor competencies and the experience of social recognition among peers in physical education: A video-based study. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 18(5): 506-510.
Grimminger E (2014a) The correlation of recognition and non-recognition experiences in physical education with children’s self-concept: Are there really gender differences? Journal of Physical Education and Sport 14(2): 222-231.
Grimminger E (2014b) Getting into teams in physical education and exclusion processes among students. Pedagogies: An international Journal 9(2): 155-171.
Guest G, MacQueen KM and Namey (2012) Applied thematic analysis. London:
SAGE.
Hadfield M and Haw K (2001) ‘Voice’, young people and action research.
Educational Action Research 9(3): 485-499.
Hall A (1996) Feminism and sporting bodies: Essays on theory and practice.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hammershøj LG and Schmidt LH (1999) Dansk forskning i pædagogik og uddannelse. København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut.
Hammersley M and Traianou A (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts. London: SAGE.
Handley K, Sturdy A, Fincham R and Clark T (2006) Within and beyond
communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of Management Studies 43(3): 641-653.
Hansen T (2017) Udskolingen I bevægelse: Et aktionsforskningsprojekt med henblik på udvikling af next practice idrætsundervisning. PhD thesis, University of Southern Denmark, DK.
Hardman K (2006) Current situation and prospect for physical education in the European union. Study requested by the European Parliament (Worcester, University of Worcester).
Harker R (2002) Including children in social research. Highlight No. 193. London:
Children’s Research Bureau.
Harrison L and Belcher D (2006) Race and ethnicity in physical education. In: Kirk D, MacDonald D and O´Sullivan M (Eds) The Handbook of Physical Education.
London: SAGE, pp.740-751.
Hay P (2005) Making judgements – Student ability and assessment in physical education. Journal of physical education New Zealand 38(1): 41-50.
Hay P and Hunter L (2006) ‘Please Mr. Hay, what are my poss(abilities)?’:
Legitimation of ability through physical education practices. Sport, Education and Society 11(3): 293-310.
Hay P and MacDonald D (2010a) Evidence for the social construction of ability in physical education. Sport, Education and Society 15(1): 1-18
Hay P and MacDonald D (2010b) The gendering of abilities in Senior PE. Physical education and sport pedagogy 15(3): 271-285.
Hennessy E and Heary C (2005) Exploring childrens views through focus groups. In:
Greene S and Hogan D (eds) Researching childrens experience: Approaches and methods. London: SAGE, pp.236-252.
Hick P, Visser J and MacNab N (2007) Education and Social Exclusion. In: Abrams D, Christian J and Gordon D (Eds) Multidisciplinary handbook of social exclusion research. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., pp.95-114.
Hill M (2005) Ethical considerations in researching children's experience. In: Greene S and Hogan D (Eds) Researching children’s experience. Approaches and methods.
London: SAGE, pp.61-86.
Hill M (2006) Children’s voices on ways of having a voice. Children’s and young people’s perspectives on methods used in research and consultation. Childhood 13(1):
69–89.
Hills L (2007). Friendship, physicality, and physical education: An exploration of the social and embodied dynamics of girls' physical education experiences. Sport,
Education and Society 12(3): 317-336.
Horgan D (2017) Child participatory research methods: Attempts to go ‘deeper’.
Childhood 24(2): 245-259.
Hunter L (2004) Bourdieu and the social space of the PE class: reproduction of doxa through practice. Sport, Education and Society 9(2): 175– 193.
Hutchinson S, Fenton-O’Creevy M, Goodlife G, Edwards D, Hartnett L, Holti R, MacKay E, McKeogh S, Sansoyer P and Way L (2015) Introduction: An invitation to a conversation In: Wenger-Trayner E, Fenton-O’Creevy M, Hutchinson S, Kubiak C and Wenger-Trayner B (Eds) Learning in landscapes of practice - Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice-based learning. London: Routledge, pp.1-10
Højlund S and Gullø E (2015) Feltarbejde blandt børn - Metodologi og etik i etnografisk børneforskning. København: Gyldendal Uddannelse.
Järvinen M (2013) Pierre Bourdieu. In: Andersen H and Kaspersen LB (Eds) Klassisk og moderne samfundsteori. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag, pp.365-387.
Knez K, Macdonald D, & Abbott R (2012). Challenging stereotypes: Muslim girls talk about physical activity, physical education and sport. Asia-Pacific journal of health, sport and physical education 3(2): 109-122.
Kirk D (1992) Defining physical education: the social construction of a school subject in postwar Britain. London: Falmer Press.
Kirk D (1999) Physical culture, physical education and relational analysis. Sport, Education and Society 4(1): 63-73.
Kirk D (2002) Physical education: a gendered history In: Penney D (Ed) Gender and physical education. Contemporary issues and future directions. London: Routledge, pp.24-37.
Kirk D (2010) Physical Education Futures. London: Routledge.
Kirk D and Kinchin G (2003) Situated learning as a theoretical framework for sport education. European Physical Education Review 9(3): 221- 235.
Kirk D and Macdonald D (1998) Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 17(3): 376-387.
Koca C, Atencia M and Giyassetin D (2009) The place and meaning of the field of PE in Turkish young people’s lives: a study using Bourdieu’s conceptual tools. Sport, education and society 14(1): 55-75.
Krueger RA (1994) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London:
SAGE.
Krueger RA & Casey A (2015) Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research.
London: SAGE.
Larsson L, Linner S and Schenker K (2016) The doxa of physical education teacher education – set in stone? European Physical Education Review: 1-17
Laub TB and Pilgaard M (2013) Danskernes motions- og sportsvaner 2011. Idrættens
Laub TB and Pilgaard M (2013) Danskernes motions- og sportsvaner 2011. Idrættens