Recently, few perennial issues were discussed, mentioned, lamented, etc. concerning Physical Education (PE) and the way we deal with it, in my learning space. The mention of such points may get you going as a teacher or result in a large sigh of exasperation that there are always folks trying to intellectualise the field of PE when it should be dead simple. Let me try elaborate a bit more on some of these recurring themes for me.

• Pedagogy, framework, strategies, theories, underpinnings, models, etc. These are words that practitioners may not have the effort and time bandwidth to differentiate or understand their academic vs literal use. Is it a problem?

For most parts, we can get away without worrying too much about the labels that guides our intervention. Learners will get through our lessons, picking up skills and knowledge, schools have their Physical Education (PE) curriculum delivered and we get our pay cheques. It matters when we acknowledge that the movement is a life-skill and the recipients of our services are differentiated with many needs. We need to be master-chefs in providing that differentiation. Otherwise, we are just plain cooks providing back of envelope recipes for everyone. It doesn’t help sometimes when professional development attempts also use the terms loosely or with not much emphasise on the need to take note of their needed depth of understanding to use their suggested intervention approach well. Perhaps they do but it is us that want a quick fix that zoom immediately to the easy to use part. Below are my own rule of thumb that helps me with the various labels and teaching myths/facts – not the best guide and acknowledging working towards more clarity;

• Pedagogy (sometimes also called an Approach) – Comes with an underpinning theory that needs to be made sense of first. Can come with multi-stage schematics. Will be worried if it needs following linear steps suggestions, as human behaviour is not so straightforward. We present our thoughts to each other linearly but sometimes need to explore the possibility that it is not in practise, e.g. a learner may not want to kick a ball in a particular way because he was taught as such but rather use the learned experience when the context ask for it.

Pedagogy requires a broad understanding. May leverage on a specific context, e.g. the teaching of concepts in an invasion game, to deliver pedagogy ideas better. At times, the vehicle of delivery, e.g. the teaching of concepts in an invasion game, may inevitably take on the main theme.

Deeper exploration of pedagogies may be difficult because of information access abilities due to cost or just effort and time needed. A philosophical stance help in the comprehension of a pedagogy, e.g. learners learn best in experience and thus understand what they are doing as necessary to achieve what is needed. Pedagogy is often misrepresented as strategies and vice versa, losing important insights.

• Framework – Usually depicted visually by more complex tables and schematics, it helps in understanding better a characteristic (e.g. behaviour) process. It is not meant to be direct intervention guide but perhaps as a checklist to guide our interpretation of what is needed in the intervention. Can be used as a broad guide in wanting to be clearer on a more complex idea, e.g. a theory, an approach, etc. For example, my Reinventing the Game framework helps me make intervention sense of all that I come across in skill learning and acquisition sciences.

• Theories (or Underpinning Theories) –   Not literal theories (just guesses) but evidence based research that informs. May be uncomfortable for practitioners to delve into due to academic language use, connection to other complex theories, seemingly unrelated, etc. Further exploration of theories may be difficult because of information access abilities due to cost or just effort and time needed.

• Models – Used often in discussions to describe an approach or pedagogy. It is usually a whole package that comes with theories, perhaps philosophy, implementation examples, easy to understand schematics, etc. Unfortunately, whole models are usually relegated to being aligned to quick and easy examples of implementation as the essence of the model, e.g. Constraints Led Approach is about putting in constraints in lesson design and therefore it is important to get examples of effective constraints for specific skills, forgetting the role of environment and learner.  

• Strategies – Direct translatable step-by-step actions for specific context. It becomes a problem when relied on for every context encountered as a professional development effort. Usually presented in relation to specific game/sport/skill. Very popular for us teachers who need quick, efficient help in teaching skills that we are not familiar with. May inevitably take a life of its own as a Pedagogy, Approach, Theory, etc.

• Model fidelity. Something we drift towards without realising sometimes. Focusing on a teaching model, usually with the suffix pedagogy, approach or model. This focusing is in the hope that lesson designs for a teacher have some consistent theme. Usually a well-meaning attempt to jump on the progressive bandwagon of wanting to look deeper into how to teach more effectively.

• Research. A lot of the incredible work done by researchers requires much academic conditions for it be delivered as original or publishable work. It is unlikely any of them claim to be cure-all solutions to universal problems. However, enthusiastic discourses often results in versus arguments, which mean much more to the researchers than practitioners. We teachers run with what comes to us without the benefit of having the time and space to really delve deep into the underpinnings to make sense of what we need for our context. Professional development practises and policy development have the quickest conclusions by supporting clearly defined linear steps in proprietary or popular models. Unfortunately, the business of developing the young does not follow such neat linear steps.

We sometimes inevitably do not give ourselves credit for the knowledge that is within us, just by doing what we do. We are so generous with this knowledge, that it may have been relegated as plain common sense when it is actually a very unique professional ability to discern, question, advise, etc. whatever that is necessary when it comes to teaching and learning in our field. It is difficult find a doctor or lawyer who will give advice without mentioning per hour cost, yet we freely, and almost as a responsibility, do it wherever and whenever to those in need. This professional advice is priceless and is the incredibly valuable ability we need to leverage on to decide what we use in the classroom.

Research is there to inform our practice and requires our in-depth practical knowledge to make sense of. We need to use information from as many models as needed to help us in our context. It is tempting to go deep into one area. With a philosophical stance and theory appreciation in our experienced roles, we will be attracted to research from the same genre. All of us have the ability to dissect our everyday practise to some level of theory and philosophical depth if given the time and space. We don’t all need to do it at the same time but be open to those amongst us trying to play that role to help us make that connection.

• Questioning skills. Use of questions and the skills necessary for a teacher to have that questioning ability. This usually comes with the caveat that the teacher must be a skilled performer themselves to get the questioning right, through the lens of an expert observer. This might indicate to younger teachers who just come into service that effective questioning is an ‘experienced teacher’ skill only. (A teacher who is skilled in selected sports and an experienced teacher may not be synonymous even though we usually consider them as so.)

• Skilled performers as good teachers. Related closely to above. Teaching models that require teachers to be skilled performers for ‘good’ questioning to take place. These teaching approaches are usually those that involves guided discovery through verbal facilitation or task-environment constraints manipulation.

The two points above points to the teacher as one recognising optimal movement output as a precursor to knowing how to design lessons. This premise assumes that the learner operates with a computational model for cognition, meaning whatever is presented to learners will directly be reflected in the learning outcome. An immediate problem to this assumption is reconciling it to the same teaching models that also do not assume a direct input-output learning model for learning. For example, if we believe that learners learn best by understanding what they are doing but we impose on them optimal teacher-decided movements. A conflict arises with a limited movement experience that cannot feed a broad movement exploration need. A common implicit belief is that a learner will understand good adaptable movement habits by merely introducing to them narrow ideal movements.

So while an understanding approach for example, or even a constraints led one, requires a broad learning landscape that allows exploration through carefully planned lessons that may include questioning, a teacher might struggle with the assumption that it is only possible if specific movement solutions are used. Over here, I will say the teacher needs to know well the learning process rather than optimum movement solutions. However, the later, in conjunction with the teacher’s own realisation how that fits into an explorative or discovery process, is also important.

Can a learning process expert, which I assume what teaching courses serve towards, literally learn a movement/skill together with new learners? For example, if I have never experienced Tchoukball before, can I teach it using guided explorative or discovery processes together with the learners? My powerful advantage over the learners is that I am aware of learning processes and I have a duty to teach.

If questioning is involve in a teaching process, can the teacher who has never played a game/skill before develop good ones that helps in the learning facilitation? The answer is yes if the realisation is that we facilitate the learning process rather than spoon feeding selected  movements. Specific teaching questions is never key to the discovery/understanding process for the learner. In fact, we should work towards learners wanting to ask questions! It is never about the questions but about the intent of asking questions, i.e. to elicit feedback or guide learning for the teacher or to want to find out more for the learners.

Whenever questioning is part of a multi-step teaching approach, e.g. Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), it may take on a live of its own due to it being considered as an independent ability of the teacher that connects directly to their skill level. The best way to build up questioning ‘skills’ is to be explicit about reflecting for the teacher and it goes the same for learners who we wish to seek learning from.  

Using the above as guide, I am attracted to sharing and developmental opportunities that allow me the ability to design my own interventions for my own contexts. This is a challenge that requires time, energy and close community support.