Precision in Physical Education (PE) – What is its role?

As usual recently, my thoughts get built up mainly due to professional life impacting experiences that gets me reflecting on our profession. What came up to a bit of an extent recently is the existence of the perception that spending time on understanding theories, sciences, underpinnings, etc. may be considered as being not align to the reality of school business on the ground. Recent encounters very well meaning leaders in the profession suggest that the younger the age group, the more we need to just get about being efficient in daily school life and perhaps not worry too much regards ‘pedagogy’ and such. I can almost understand this view, as I believe there is much misconceptions on the ‘scientific’ treatment of our subject, which seems to merely need good instructing. Understanding in areas like pedagogy, theories, models all take literal instead of the broader conceptual meanings. Example, pedagogy is strategy, theory is wishful thinking, models are blank frameworks, etc. My personal belief is that the younger the age group of learners, the more worthwhile to understand better the physiological processes at work within the learner and the behaviour exhibited in response to task and environment.

Also recently, the strangle hold of fitness testing looms large in my professional life. It is something that once was a mainstay in the country I come from but now a subset of the bigger physical literacy push. Or is it not? You may still find older teachers and school curriculum still clinging to it. It doesn’t help that evaluation process across subjects prefer clear quantitative data to compare teacher performances. Following the fitness theme here, I happen to visit a National uniform-group fitness testing centre where we observed their latest technology in helping test recruits using X-Box technology. This means that precise movements are needed in push-ups and sit-ups to trigger the automatic count. (There was a time where the age group I deal with are supposed to be ready for their enlistment in the uniform-groups via their fitness lessons in schools)

To a large extent, precision also plays a big part of how the fraternity exhibits in delivering PE. From the obvious direct link (of the X-box technology example above) in school’s fitness testing to how we want students to learn skills.

Taking the fitness testing precision example above where we consider expecting a fully extended elbows in a push-up for the push phase for testing, how much does that last bit of range of motion for the elbows and shoulders in a prone push-up position contribute to this proxy indicator of upper body elastic strength. Furthermore, how much does it contribute to the expected functional ability of the learner, and even the older uniform-group personnel, in their day-to-day existence. Insisting on precision takes a fair bit of time in the preparation phase, usually a teacher-centred process which leads to possibly external regulation for most learners (limited intrinsic motivation). This is not easy to talk about on as they are those in the fraternity who take this very seriously and equates it to effective teaching, especially the more experienced teachers.

How about sport/game skills or abilities? How much does insisting on exact range of motion, including replicating accurately examples of proven coordination from higher level performance specific to others, contribute to overall learning from an understanding point of view for the learner? This includes using internal cues (that are mainly diagnostic for the teacher) as teaching cues that directs body and limbs for the execution of different technical and conceptual skills/abilities, e.g. basketball free-throw, volleyball dig, javelin throw, set pieces in team games, etc. Without doubt, such teaching approaches have resulted in successful learning and performances before but how confident are we on the efficiency of it? To what extent does motivation comes in when we start with precision? Using Self-Determination Theory (SDT) terminologies, what is the impact on Autonomy, Relatedness and Competence?

So, you can insist on precision focus in outcome and precision focus in processes, with everything else in between, depending on context of the teaching and learning situation. What role does precision play? Look at the figure below that is usual for me in creating to attempt to seek understanding. This brings to mind also the different learning stages models like Fitts & Postner’s (cognitive, associative and autonomous) and Bernstein (freezing degrees of freedom, freeing degrees of freedom and then selecting most efficient degrees of freedom) for me. The former comes very much from a general motor programme approach and the later from a perception and action behaviour that is very much about the learner, environment and the task. To many on the ground, such distinctions in teacher understanding are worthless and I can understand that view when we consider PE as an activity/event play time. Lately I have been wondering if my own efforts in wanting to know more could be a waste when the organic development of the subject over decades still seems to move towards movement for the sake of moving and little consideration for learning.

This is where I can say that influences from Ecological Dynamics contributes to an opinion. Concepts on emerging behaviour, direct perception, embodied cognition etc. may lay fairly clear but perhaps not complete ideas on the above topic. For this reflection, I will limit direct reference to them all as it does create some jadedness from many who work on experience and gut-feel and who may be too overwhelm by the daily reality of education to find space and time to explore a different view. One main reason why precision is favoured in most teaching and learning situation is the very intuitive and well-rooted believe that we can front load our body with new exact information, in anticipation of its appropriate replication when needed. This approach does not emphasise the impact of the inputs from outside the learner (e.g. the intent of task itself and the environment that the learner works in), other than teacher instructions. Precision also is very clear as an evaluative standard outcome that can easily be comparable. In other, words this is a linear expectation of how we learn. A generic, chronological order that is guided by the decomposition of a task mechanically (not functionally).

Are there times when we feel that a linear approach is needed in a class of up to 40 students? YES, said rather exasperatedly! Should this define the way we teach PE in the present climate of wanting innovative learners and the impact of understanding better how learners operate in each unique context of learning? NO, said rather apprehensively! Apprehensive because it is a very controversial thought at times, even though much progress is made in research and policy guide, in the last one to two decades at least. Constraints to fully embracing this, in my ever changing views, includes teacher acculturation (teaching the way we were taught/coach in Sports or from past practises that have proven to be very comfortable for teachers, despite up to date information availability on contemporary learning sciences, and treating PE as sports instructing classes) and on the ground support for PE to be more activity driven. The latter to fit the various needs of schools to spent time on academic classroom time “recovery” and meet popular expectations of health benefits via clocking miles, creating multiple play opportunities, etc. Also an important reality, the need for precision KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) like obesity direction, sports participation and fitness levels. I say this as part of the system I am critiquing against and also reflecting deeply how much must I shift to fit into something that is “working well”. This after 3 decades of teaching!