Filling a gap (or just another brick in the wall)

Websites. We see lots of them every day; scores in a week, hundreds in a month (you get the idea) but what makes the good ones stand out? Why do people return to a website? We are supposed to be in an age of web 2.0 where everything is about interaction and yet a lot of websites annoy me still. They about a message – well actually several messages – put rather than refine and concentrate that message websites seem to be web:utations. It’s like powerpoint and keynote presentations where people replicate their entire work into a 20 second presentation. I am put off my poor websites and tend to go somewhere else. Either that or I simply start my whole experience on a downer.

So...imagine my motivation to create a high impact, simple and usable website that actually gets used. Likewise...imagine my trepidation as I now come to unveil the storyboard via my blog.

The idea of this website is that it is simple to look at. It is easy to navigate. It is a place where people want to spend some time. That’s it really. So can I ask for some comments based on three factors:

1) Looks good

2) Looks easy to navigate around

3) Might be somewhere I am interested in visiting more than once.

The images are currently just flats. The links don’t work and are really just images. So as they say ‘the first taste is with the eye’ – what is the first visual impression like?

Homepage

http://www.phlite.co.uk/peprn/index.html

Research Network

http://www.phlite.co.uk/peprn/network.html

Blog

http://www.phlite.co.uk/peprn/blog.html

Research into the use of technology in Physical Education

The dominant discourse in physical education over the last three decades has been focused on the staid pedagogical foundation of the subject. The teaching of physical education seems to have been set and generations of teachers have been content to replicate the practices of their teachers and their teachers' teachers. This traditional, teacher-led embodiment of physical education has been described as 'not fit for purpose' by numerous academics (see Kirk, 2010; Lawson, 2009; Siedentop, 2002 as examples in the last decade alone). In his recent book physical education futures Kirk (2010) described the current and very dominant pedagogy that thrives in the gymnasium and on the sports field around the world as "physical-education-as-sport-techniques." This approach foregrounds the teaching of the isolated techniques of games and activities ahead of understanding and game appreciation. Furthermore, Kirk (2010) believed that the ability to compartmentalise physical education as a technique-based subject into the rigorous time demands of the timetable has further exacerbated the dominance of this approach to teaching. In proffering other approaches, or models of instruction (hereby called models-based practices) Metzler (2005) argued that current instructor-led approaches to teaching in physical education placed content (i.e. the area of activity i.e basketball, athletics, gymnastics etc) at the operating centre of physical education rather than aligning teaching, learning and content. Matters are further confused when considering Lawson's (2009) argument that physical education is not capable of educating in a post-industrial age.

The demands of the 'digital age' prompted Richard Riley, the former United States of America's Secretary for Education, to suggest that we are currently preparing students for jobs that don't yet exist, using technologies that haven't been invented in order to solve problems we don't even know are problems yet. The disparity between this message and the current use of technology in physical education is stark. Up to now, using technology in physical education may have actually reinforced the "physical-education-as-sport-techniques" concept by often focusing on the micro analysis of skill learning, giving the impression that this is the only valid application of technology in physical education. However, the use of technology in schools is expanding at an exponential rate and yet its beneficial use in physical education is barely known. A number of innovative practitioners from around the world have started to incorporate interactive web 2.0 applications (e.g. blogs, wikis, iPads and iPods, flip cameras, online documents and surveys) into their teaching of physical education but do these work? In some reasons technology is seen more than an add on:

In New South Wales we have a multi faceted syllabus designed to explore the individual and their interaction with the world holistically - relationships, sound decision making, individual and community health to name a few. Using technology to complement and enhance our work as teachers seems to be an imperative, not a choice. (Jones, 2010)

In other global discourses mandatory physical education classes have been identified as the key opportunity to 'encourage' school-age children to be involved daily in 60 minutes or more of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (Chow, McKenzie, & Louie, 2009; Strong et al., 2005). Indeed such physical activity engagement is seen as an primary goal of physical education (National Association for Sport and Physical Education, 2004; Puhse & Gerber, 2005; World Health Organization, 2004) in light of growing obesity and type II diabetes epidemics (Chow, McKenzie, & Louie, 2009). In light of the changing health climate is there is a strong increase in technology in schools who are seeking to use technology tools that promote activity engagement.

Despite considerable funding to allow information and communication technology (ICT) to make "a significant contribution to teaching and learning across all subjects" (Department for Education and Skills, 2003, p. 7) physical education was, until the recent national curriculum revamp in 2007, the only subject without a statutory requirement for its use (Tearle & Golder, 2008). Unfortunately, and despite the explicit need for ICT to be used in physical education at Key Stage 3 (11-14 years old), the extent to which it is recommended is for recording and reviewing performance and tracking personal progress (Tearle & Golder, 2008). It must be acknowledged that ICT hardware and software cost money which in terms limits the ability of schools to purchase and maintain up-to-date equipment. Furthermore some physical education teachers see the use of any technology or innovation as detracting from the core purpose of the subject i.e. to get people moving to learning (Casey, 2010). Finally there is as yet little evidence that shows that a) students engage with technology in its many forms and b) how the use of technology in physical education might impact on their i) dispositions to be physically active and ii) their embodied self-identities. Indeed, does such micro-analysis and assessment technology lead to greater involvement in physical activity and does it enhance – or merely reinforce – the staid pedagogies of physical education?

This PhD will critically explore the impact of technology on teaching and learning in physical education in enhancing student understanding and disposition towards the subject. It will be about exploring and discovering what works, what doesn't and what works best. This "will certainly be a question on many PE teachers' lips as they strive to introduce technology into their classroom in a meaningful and valid way. Is it worth it? Should I do it? Will it help?" (Jones, 2010).

References

Casey, A. (2010). Practitioner research in physical education: Teacher transformation through pedagogical and curricular change. Unpublished PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University.

Chow, B.C., McKenzie, T.L., & Louie, L. (2009). Physical activity and environmental influences during secondary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28, 21-37.

Jones, B. (2010, July 21). [Comment to blogpost: research into use of technology in physical education]. Physical education practitioner research network. Retrieved July 21, 2010, from http://www.peprn.com/2010/07/research-into-use-of-technology-in.html#comments

Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London: Routledge.

Lawson, H. A. (2009.) Paradigms, exemplars and social change. Sport, Education & Society, 14(1), 97-119.

Metzler, M.W. (2005). Instructional models for physical education. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathway.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education (2004). Moving into the future: National standards for physical education (2nd ed). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Puhse, U., & Gerber, M. (Eds.). (2005). International comparison of physical education: Concepts, problems, prospects. Oxford, UK: Meyer & Meyer Sport.

Siedentop, D. (2002). Content knowledge for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(4), 368.

Strong, W.D., Malina, R.M., Blimkie, C.J., Daniels, S., Dishman, R., Gutin, B., et al. (2005). Evidence based physical activity for school-age children. The Journal of Pediatrics, 146, 732–737.

Tearle, P., & Golder, G. (2008). The use of ICT in the teaching and learning of physical education in compulsory education: how do we prepare the workforce of the future? European Journal of Teacher Education, 31 (

World Health Organization (2004). Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Geneva: World Health Organization, The Fifty-seventh World Health Assembly.

Being a Piano Player

When I was a young rugby player someone said to me "there are two types of Rugby players: Piano Carriers and Piano Players and you, my son, are a carrier; now let the players' play and the carriers' carry." He was less than subtly telling me that as a forward I should do the heavy lifting and haulage work while those fleeter of foot (and of thought) did the virtuoso stuff. I have always remembered that analogy (and as a back row forward tried to ignore it) but it recently struck me as an apt way of considering my change of direction.

Before I started my further education soiree I was a piano carrier. I was happy doing the work at the coal face: teaching the lessons that I needed to before going outside to shoulder an extra-curricular workload that was worthy of my position as physical education teacher/sports team coach. I didn't baulk at these demands; in fact I embraced them as the most important aspect of my choosen vocation. I loved the role and was happy to carrying the responsibilities of 1^st XV coach and join my peers in other schools in this prestige position among coaches.

It wasn't until I began to look at my role as a teacher of physical education through my master's degree that I began to even acknowledge the role of carrier that I had assumed upon graduating as a physical education teacher. I was happy with my role as a doing, and none thinking (apologies to any piano carriers reading this), teacher who did everything he could to maintain the status quo. However, the more I read and began to understand the more I wanted to play a different role. I didn't just want to be the 'fella' who moved the piano about I wanted to tickle the ivories. The problem was that I didn't know anything but the carrier's role I was taught by my teachers (in other words to teach as they had taught). I needed a new way of thinking if I was going to aspire to be a pedagogical virtuoso (or even just a journeyman). Therefore I had to learn. Indeed I would almost argue that I had to learn a new trade from the ground up and that was where my Master's helped to generate a little momentum and my PhD allowed me to really study – not only a new trade but also the ways in which I started to implement the new tricks and 'ways' of teaching I was undertaking.

So in summary. Further education helped me to see the piano as an instrument to be played in many different ways rather than simply as something to be hauled about in the time honoured way. This was a gift that placed me on a long pathway towards become a better teacher.

Student-designed games

I started working with student-designed games (SDG) last year and was excited by the depth of learning it engendered in my pupils. I have subsequently left secondary education and now work in a university but my interest in SDG has remained. We have started to use snippets of these ideas with our student teachers and I have been exploring the finding from my research on these SDG units but most interestingly I have persuaded and encouraged a school near the university to try it for themselves. This blog has emerged as a result of the interviews I conducted on Tuesday and the response on twitter to my tweet about it by @Darcy1968 who said that this "sounded like a good conversation to share."

Physical education, it seems, is like marmite i.e. you either love it or you hate it. As I have said before the talk about it on twitter is not often positive. The school I am working with had a group of 13-14 year old students who were taking phys ed because they had to and were predominately in the 'hate it' camp (either that or the "I want to be 'busy and happy and then I might be good' category"). In other words they were disaffected. The teachers reported that the pupils in the year above were a similar group and that their attitude to phys ed had crumbled into dissent or an unwillingness even to bring kit. In an effort to avoid the disillusionment of another group of students the phys ed department, after seeing a session on games-making that I had done, wanted to be involved.

This unit has been running for seven weeks now (or twenty-one 45 minute lessons) and the games are now ready to be played. The basic structure of the unit was for the students to design a game, from scratch, that could be played by small groups of their peers. They started the designs of their games on paper and then tried them out on the school's netball/tennis courts. Through cycles of testing, trialling (where other teams played their games and gave feedback) and re-design the students now have a 'new' game. These games will be played, each in turn, in a sport education season next academic year.

I was privileged enough to interview the teachers on Tuesday and I was intrigued by their responses to two questions: 1) How did you perceive the students' responses to the unit? 2) What differences did you find between participation in this unit and their previous games participation?

Both teachers felt that the unit had worked well but that it had been a challenge. This challenge had emerged from a number of significant factors. Firstly their role had changed. They didn't teach in the way they normally did and their voice was no longer dominant. They were taking more of a back seat in terms of classroom management, which in turn allowed them to work more closely with their students. However, this also meant that the relationship between teacher and student changed. It was this change that baffled them at first as they tried to reconsider the language and approach that they should now use in their teaching. Secondly, they felt that they weren't giving enough to these lessons. It was almost as if they felt that they had to work even harder because they were being studies by me (and a colleague) and were also studying their own teaching. They were disappointed that their other teaching responsibilities sometimes got in the way of the work they were doing with these students. This mirrors my PhD findings. Teachers want to succeed and when given the opportunity they want to throw themselves into the enhancement of teaching and, more importantly, student learning. Thirdly, they were delighted by the change in response by some of the most disaffected kids (i.e. those who thrive in the classroom but shy away from the physical nature of phys ed). They were being challenge to think and this appealed to them. Conversely, those in the "I want to just play" group didn't want to think and found that game-design got in the way of playing. Ironically, there was a reversal in the students who were enjoying physical education. However, from the anti-ablest perspective I have argued from earlier, this might not be considered a bad thing (?). Fourthly, the teacher felt that the students' enjoyment and elarning was sustainable and they were looking forward to next year when the games would be played rather than dreading the lessons that the older pupils were experiencing.

New ideas seem to drive enthusiasm. What's more new ideas and practices challenge teachers and students to consider things, in this case physical education, in a different light. The social construction of the subject is changed and with it so is the type and quality of the learning experience.

If you are interested in trying SDG them leave me a message or contact me on twitter at @DrAshCasey and I'll do what I can to help.