Teache her e educators e enactment o of pedagogies t tha hat p - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Teache her e educators’ e enactment o

• f

pedagogies t tha hat p prioritise LEAR ARNING AB ABOUT M MEAN ANINGFUL PHYSICAL AL E EDUCATION

@mea meaningfu gfulpe

BA BACK CKGR GROUND

• Learnin

ing A About M Meanin ingful P l Physica sical l Educa catio ion ( (LAMPE):

• 4

4 Yr Yr s study

• Pre-service t

teache hers ( (PSTs) i in I Ireland a and Ca Canada

This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada

CO CONTE NTEXT XTS S

• Year 1

1 a and 2 2:

– Development of an approach to PETE where the facilitation of meaningful experiences was the prioritized filter for pedagogical decision- making (Kretchmar, 2000; 2001; 2006; 2007; 2008; Blankenship & Ayers,

2010)

FEATURES O OF A M A MEAN ANINGFUL PHYSICAL AL E EDUCATION E EXPERIENCE

(Kretchm hmar, 2 2006; Ben Beni, e et a al., i in p press)

• Social i

interaction

• Cha

hallenge ( (“just r right ht”)

• Fu

Fun

• Increased m

motor c competence

• Delight

ht

• Personally R

Relevant L Learning

PEDAGOGICAL AL P PRINCIPLES O OF Learning Ab About M Meaningful Physical E Education ( (LAM AMPE)

Teacher educators:

• 1. Make the prioritization of meaningful

participation explicit

• 2. Model and discuss learning about meaningful

PE

• 3. Support PSTs’ engagement with meaningful

features as learners and as teachers

• 4. Frame learning activities using features of

meaningful participation

• 5. Support reflection on PE experiences

LAM AMPE p pedagogical p principles

CO CONTE NTEXT XTS

• Year 3

3:

– Focus on student experiences of LAMPE pedagogies – Refinement of pedagogies aligned with LAMPE pedagogical principles

OUR R RESEAR ARCH Q QUESTION:

How can LAMPE pedagogical principles provide direction to teacher educator decision-making in PETE? *Particular focus on decision-making moments in response to PST perspectives

SELF-STUDY I IN P PETE

Cf.

• Cf. Ní

Ní Chr hróinín, F Fletche her & & O O’Sullivan ( (2015). Asia sia-Pacif cific J ic Journal l

• f He

Healt lth, S Sport a and P Physica sical E l Educa catio ion, 6 6(3), 2 273-286.

• Sel

Self- f-orien ented ed

• Im

Impr provement nt-aim

• aimed

d

• Int

Interact ractiv ive

• Multiple q

qualitative metho hods

• Validity b

based i in trustworthi hiness

LaB LaBos

• skey (

(2004)

CRITICAL INCIDENT

• Describe the context/pedagogical strategy

being employed: What happened? How did you feel? What did you think? (TEACHER EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVE)

• How did you access student perspectives?

How did the students feel? What did they think? (STUDENT PERSPECTIVE)

• What did you do in response? What

happened next?

STUDENT SOURCES

• Semi-structured interviews (conducted by RA)
• Observation
• Whole group/ small group questioning and

discussion

• Individual diary/ group written reflections
• Ticket in/ out the door
• Exam questions
• Lab assignments

CRITICAL FRIEND

Reading the account above:

• What resonated with my thinking about adapting in

response to student engagement was…

• The questions that it raised for me about adapting in

response to student engagement are…..

• Thinking about LAMPE and from the outside looking

in I wonder if…

FINAL REFLECTION

• Reflecting on the response above:
• What are you thinking now? What made

your thinking change/ stay the same? What questions have been raised? How might you do differently next time?

• The implications for LAMPE are….

DATA S A SOURCE AP

• APPROX. D

DATA ( A (year 3 3)

Teache her e educator j journal e entries 1 13 = = ~ ~ 5 500-800 wds wds Critical f friend r responses 1 13 = = ~ ~ 3 300-500 wds wds Recorded a audio c conversations with m h meta-critical f friend ~ ~ 1 1.5 hr hrs End o

• f s

semester r reflection docum document nts 4 4 Non-participant o

• bservations

1 12 l lessons = = ~ ~ 2 24 hr hrs PST a artifacts ~ ~ 2 250 i individual s submissions PST i interviews 1 17

FINDINGS

• Modelling and ar,cula,ng how to make

decisions based on the presence (or absence)

• f the features of meaningful physical

educa,on

• Helping PSTs to connect teacher ac,on and

par,cipant experiences using the features of meaningful physical educa,on

Example 1: Hula hooping

Modelling and ar,cula,ng how to make decisions based on the presence (or absence) of the features of meaningful physical educa,on

“So what am I going to do about it?” “You ask them to hurry up” “Ask them to listen and pay attention to instructions” “Sit out the next activity” “Nothing” “Yes, I am probably going to do nothing. But why?” “They were being safe” “No one was hurt” “It was fairly minor” “The reason I would do nothing is because they were having fun and practicing a skill. Other people in their group and the new group were having fun with it too. If we are about encouraging movement and participation in our gyms, then we should celebrate situations where it is clear that students are engaged in things that are meaningful: they are having fun, interacting, challenged, developing skills, and so on”

…the ways thoughts and actions can be so easily misaligned in teaching and making conscious efforts to align them in a LAMPE approach is hard work and not always clear cut. The decisions we make are also contextual and dependent on the situation at hand… I think my discussing the thoughts behind the decision and asking for their assumptions helped us to become aware of some of the decisions we make in teaching. Whether it was a right or wrong decision is almost beside the point – the point is making teaching, inquiry and the underpinning of LAMPE pedagogies explicit (TF, Year 3, Sem 2, Week 3).

• 1. Teacher educators make the prioritization of

meaningful participation explicit

• 2. Teacher educators model and discuss learning

about meaningful PE

• 3. Teacher educators support PSTs’ engagement

with meaningful criteria as learners and as teachers

• 4. Teacher educators support reflection on

physical education experiences

• 5. Frame learning activities using criteria for

meaningful participation

Just be adaptive, and just listen to the people that

you’re working with..... So I think that’s kind of a thing, being able to let the kids/ students/ athletes be social and have fun with it as long as they’re not disrupting anyone else. I think that’s a big thing for it, and I think noticing the difference between, “No, that’s bad. You’re disrupting. Don’t do that,” and, “OK. It’s not that big of a deal. You can go off and play a little bit, but come back in a bit.”... (Kirsten, interview 2, Sem 2, Year 3). … going into this summer as a camp counsellor, I know that now if something’s not effecting me or anyone else negatively, I’m not going to stop it. I’m just going to let them do their own thing until if it is a disruption (Shayla, interview 2, Sem 2, Year 3).

Example 2

FOCUS: ‘JUST RIGHT’ CHALLENGE AND SKILL LEARNING WHAT DID THE TEACHER DO? STUDENT RESPONSE Suppor=ng

• 1. appropriate level of challenge
• 2. prac=ce =me
• 3. feedback
• 4. differen=ated
• 5. ‘just right’ opportuni=es

‘teachers praised students

well and advised them well and encouraged pupils to correct their errors’ and recorded that in response the pupils ‘corrected their

• wn errors well and put

them into prac=ce when they played the game again’ (Year 3, Sem 1, Week 3, Peer observa=on 1).

‘The teachers made sure

that he children were aware of their previous score and encouraged them to make it a goal to beat this score’. They noted in response that the children ‘were more mo=vated and engaged’ (Year 3, Sem 1, Week 9, Peer observa=on 2).

Helping PSTs to connect teacher ac,on and par,cipant experiences using the features of meaningful physical educa,on

• ‘Students seem happy that they have

improved from the previous week and feel better able to manage the pupils and use game centred approaches’ (Non-participant

• bserver, Year 3, Sem 1, Week 4).

• ‘it allowed me to note the students interests so

planning may be more focused’ (Year 3, Sem1, Week 3-4, written reflection, PC).

• ‘just right’ challenge was enhanced by

‘adapting for each child’ (Year 3, Sem1, Week 3-4, written reflection, LS),

• fun was enhanced when one PST ‘split children

into smaller groups’ (Year 3, Sem1, Week 3-4, written reflection, EC).

• social interaction was promoted when another

PST ‘planned for pupils to be engaged with each other and work as a team’ (Year 3, Sem1, Week 3-4, written reflection, JOL).

Overall, framing of the peer observation using the meaningful features made this the language of discussion. LAMPE pedagogies should include opportunities to engage with peers by observing, talking about, planning and teaching with an eye to the meaningful features (DNC, Year 3, Week 4, Sem 1).

• 1. Teacher educators make the prioritization of

meaningful participation explicit

• 2. Teacher educators model and discuss learning

about meaningful PE

• 3. Teacher educators support PSTs’ engagement

with meaningful criteria as learners and as teachers

• 4. Teacher educators support reflection on

physical education experiences

• 5. Frame learning activities using criteria for

meaningful participation

CONCLUSION 1 1

• Value of student perspectives

Provided an important data source to inform teacher educator decision-making to support PST learning about meaningful PE.

CONCLUSION 2 2

• LAMPE pedagogical principles (theory)

guided teacher educator decision-making to support PSTs’ learning how to facilitate meaningful physical education.

• Resulted in consistent and coherent teacher

education practice

CONCLUSION 3 3

• Self-study was valuable in deepening

understanding of how to enact LAMPE pedagogical principles

‘your understanding of what LAMPE is continues to grow in sophistication and your attention to how to design tasks that attend to LAMPE criteria is obvious and has been a significant growth phase this year’ (meta critical friend, end of year 3)

CONCLUSION 4 4

• Kretchmar’s (2001; 2006) features of

meaningful PE provided

• 1. A shared language that can help teacher

educators make their planning, decision- making and learning explicit to others.

• 2. A structure to allow PST’s to articulate what is

important to them as teachers and to identify strategies to support the promotion of meaningful experiences.

THAN ANK Y YOU!

Tim F Fletche her tfletche her@brocku.ca Dé Déirdre irdre Ní Ní Chr hróinín Deirdre.NiChr hroinin@mic.ul.ie Mary O O’Sullivan Mar Mary.OS .OSulliv ullivan@ an@ul.ie ul.ie @mea meaningfu gfulpe mea meaningfu gfulpe.w e.wor

• rdpress.com

ess.com

REFERENC REFERENCES ES

Blankenship, B. & Ayers, S. 2010. The role of PETE in developing joy-oriented physical educators. Quest, 62 (2), 171-183. Bullock, S. M., and J. K. Ritter. 2011. Exploring the transition into academia through collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 7 (2), 171-181. Kretchmar, R. S. 2000. Movement Subcultures: Sites for Meaning. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 71 (5), 19-25. Kretchmar, R. S. 2001. Duty, Habit, and Meaning: Different Faces of Adherence. Quest, 53 (3), 318-325. Kretchmar, R. S. 2006. Ten more reasons for quality physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 77 (9), 6-9. Kretchmar, R. S. 2007. What to Do With Meaning? A Research Conundrum for the 21st Century. Quest, 59 (4), 373-383. Kretchmar, R. S. 2008. The Increasing Utility of Elementary School Physical Education: A Mixed Blessing and Unique

• Challenge. The Elementary School Journal, 108(3), 161-170.

LaBoskey, V. K. 2004. The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In International handbook of self- study of teaching and teacher education practices edited by J.. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey and T. Russell, 817-869. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Loughran, J. 2006. Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. London, UK: Routledge. Metheny, E. 1968. Movement and meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill Ní Chróinín, D., T., Fletcher, M. O’Sullivan. 2015. Using self-study to explore the processes of pedagogical innovation in physical education teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport, and Physical Education, 6 (3), 273- 286. Polanyi, M. & Prosch, H. 1975. Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.