I’m unconvinced that there is one best way to organise and teach physical education. Supporting children to value and find a place for movement in their lives is a complex and dynamic task. I am however convinced that Models-based Practice (MbP) can be a transformational way to organise physical education which can enhance the educational experience for more children and young people within the subject. Not because there is significant evidence in the academic literture on the positive impact that individual pedagogical models have (there is – Dean Dudley and colleagues recent systematic literture review provides a good overview) but because of my own experience with it. That is the focus of this blog post.
A critical incident with an ex-student who gave me honest and critical feedback about my teaching and coaching instigated a radical pedagogical change that still drives much of my practice today. One of those changes was not only to seek out the thoughts of the young people I was responsible for in PE, but to give weight to those thoughts and respond to them (within the confines of my school context). This led to a simple annual survey to Year 7, 9 and 11 of ten questions about their PE experience, followed up with focus group discussions with groups of volunteer students across the year groups.
The initial results in 2012 made for uncomfortable reading. Around half of the pupils felt they did not understand the benefits of movement or were unable to support their peers movement. From the focus groups it was perceived that poor social dynamics, both in the changing room and in lessons, was at the root of pupils lack of confidence and feeling unsafe, along with our constant comparison of performance. A fifth of students (around 150 pupils between Year 7 to 11) didn’t feel like they had made any progress or enjoyed PE at all. This was far too many, things needed to change, and I found some hope in Models-base Practice.
Change of Purpose
Attempting to build the curriculum around pedagogical models highlighted that we as a department did not have shared clarity of the purpose of our subject. We each had different experiences of PE as children and each had come through different routes into teaching. This meant there was ambiguity about what we were trying to achieve in our subject, which was echoed in the feedback we got from the pupil focus groups.
For around 18 months we attempted to use physical literacy as our educational purpose, but this didn’t work out. I don’t think we fully understood it, we overcomplicated it and that impacted on the quality of our message and the pupils understanding, so it was back to the drawing board. In 2013/2014 I came across James MacAllister’s definition of the physical educated person. It resonated with me and others, but it is a complex definition to explain and share with the rest of the school community. However the Head of Department, working with pupils came up with our own version and the tag line Better Movers, Better People was born. Whilst there were ongoing challenges to ensure a shared understanding of what our educational purpose meant, it did give our curriculum a shared direction of travel to which MbP could support.
Change of Curriculum
Whilst the curriculum overview the year before pedagogical models were introduced and the curriculum overview the year I left don’t seem particularly different on paper, in enactment they were miles apart. Firstly we had a shared purpose. Secondly we were clearer about the learning content (knowledge, skills and behaviours) to achieve that purpose. This was done through the 4 learning domains. To begin with we called them the physical, social, cognitive and affective learning domains, but we found similar difficulties that we did with physical literacy. Once again we turned to pupils across the year groups to develop a shared language of movement. We ended up with:
- Physical Domain – learning to improve movement capability
- Cognitive Domain – learning to solve movement problems
- Social Domain – learning to move well with other and helping others to move well
- Affective Domain – learning how emotions, the body and movement are interconnected
Learning to move and moving to learn is a holistic endeavour. Which means all four learning domains are always present and interconnected within a PE lesson. However through the tasks a PE teacher asks their class to participate in and the behaviours they use in explaining, supporting and assessing pupils responses to those tasks, then they begin to prioritise different domains. In my opinion this often happens unconsciously and on the technique of moving, but with our approach it made the work deliberate and on a wider focus. Take for example Year 7 Dance. The priority on this unit of work was developing the social skills needed to perform in front of others (and be a caring audience) and work together in small groups. Learning intentions, task design, demonstrations, feedback, questions, self and peer assessment were all focused on the social domain, with the performance of the dance as a by-product. The curriculum changed from performing in sports and physical activities, to learning to become “Better Movers and Better People” through four learning domains.
Change of Pedagogy
The focus on a learning domain, rather than a sport or physical activity, meant that we needed a variety of pedagogical tools as no one approach can manage all four effectively. This is where individual pedagogical models came in. Over time we ended up with five models we agreed upon to use regularly in our teaching and how best to align them to our prioritised learning domains:
- Direct Instruction mainly for Physical and Cognitive Domains (an instructional model rather than a pedagogical model, but it fit our purposes and curriculum)
- Cooperative Learning mainly for Social Domain, but can easily be used for all
- Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility mainly for Social and Affective Domains
- Game Sense mainly for Cognitive and Physical Domains, but can be used for all
- Sport Education mainly for Social and Cognitive Domains, but can be easily used for all
From the 2018/2019 curriculum overview from above you can see that our Key Stage 3 curriculum was focused on the social domain, with regular use of Cooperative Learning and Teaching Personal Responsibility. This was an intentional decision in an attempt to rectify the issues the survey and focus groups brought up as the potential cause for poor responses on feeling safe in PE, supporting others well in PE and enjoying PE. Some of the issues that were raised were that certain groups of children were treated poorly by peers and teachers. By prioritising learning in the social domain, through evidence informed pedagogical models which have been specifically designed for that purpose, we helped pupils learn to treat each other in a respectful and positive manner. It also meant that I started to take a much more closer look at my own teaching behaviours and modify them so I could model what I was teaching. This experience has led me to believe that learning to move within a secondary school PE context may require sequencing and prioritising the development of social competence before others.
Change of Assessment
Nearing my 25th year in education and I still find effective assessment practice in PE elusive and perplexing . With regards to assessment for our MbP approach, we dropped the grading units of work (we still had to grade in school reports). We moved to a piecemeal ipsative assessment approach, where judgement was not based on performance at the end of the unit, but development in each of the learning domains.
Assessment was an ongoing dialogue between teacher and pupil leading to a judgement about progress and what needed to worked upon next. Each pupil set personal targets for each of the learning domains, and progress was reflected upon and targets updated 2 to 3 times a year. In addition we developed a range of “core tasks” and rubrics for each of the learning domains. For example learning to support others was a core task that was linked the social domain. That could be explored in any of the activities we were doing when social learning was the priority. Either the teacher set a rubric or we co-constructed it with our classes. Self, peer and teacher judgement then was used to triangulate the progress and set targets for further improvement.
In addition we tried to develop some “objective” data to help enhance this process. Firstly it was looking at how each child moved through their own Essential Movement Skills programme (which focused on functional movement and psychological skills). In the final two years we were piloting using an adaptive Athletic Skills Track motor competency test as well (which is designed to be used within the context of a PE class). This allowed both pupil and teacher to judge the learning and development within each learning domain. As pupils progressed from Year 7 to 11, they could reflect on their past performance outcomes, personal and teacher reflections and set new targets. A comparison was made each year with personal progress being made the central feature of the assessment. It was by no means perfect, with lots of extra workload (probably too much), but it did reduce the stress and anxiety many of pupils felt with “assessment lessons”, grading and comparison to peers performance, which ultimately led to a positive effect on their experience in PE.
Change over time and sensitive to context
Changing the purpose, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment so it fit around pedagogical models as a central organising centre took time, effort, practice and care (the last one I should have prioritised more). PE is resistant to change, not just because of constraints such as space, timetabling and school policy, but because many of its stakeholders are resistant, including PE teachers and pupils. In the 8 years I was involved in trying to implement a MbP approach we had only really begun to scratch the surface, and gained an appreciation of it in relation to the context we were in. The implementation journey of a MbP in your context would look very different to mine, as the physical, social, and cultural constraints schools operate in are unique.
There is no simple, quick fix, copy and paste solution to enhancing your PE programme, the children’s learning in it and experience of it. Copying what I have laid out here would probably end up causing more problems than solving them. MbP is only one out of many contemporary approaches to PE that could enhance provision, experience and learning. However, looking at the improvement over time of the responses to the annual survey, embarking on your own personal MbP journey might just be a transformational and educative one for all involved.
drowningintheshallow 