Professional Development in How to Deliver Sports Education Model - Assignment Example

Professional development, learning how to deliver Sport Education model Introduction: The use of sport education in schools and colleges is a uniqueexperience in getting the best out of the students of these institutions. There are unique traits and practices observed in students which help them conquer different challenges in life basing on the lessons that they have learnt in these sports education courses. However, while there is extensive study on how sports education has an impact on children, it is also worthwhile to note that there is a definite impact on teachers who deliver the sports education to students in different educational institutions. This study reviews all significant literature that is available in this field of professional development through sports education. Literature Review: The need to understand the impact of sports education on students is incomplete without a thorough understanding of how the education is provided to students in the first place. In a study to understand teaching processes, Curtner-Smith et al (2008), ran an experimental survey by interviewing six American and four British beginner level teachers of sports education. The paper is titled, “Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education”. The theoretical framework used to determine the course of action in the experimental study was the process of teachers engaging in sports education at the beginner’s level and then growing to become senior level instructors in one or more sports. To chart the journey of a teacher as he takes his job as a sports education provider seriously over PETE programmer, the different questions asked during the interview were based on three different phases of professional socialization which were acculturation, professional socialization and organizational socialization. The results found were based on all the here factors and would be considered influenced by organizational factors. The teachers were given individual space and interviewed one by one. Individual opinions were noted down and the data was collected from their comments, replies and observations. The procedures employed in the analysis included constant comparison and analytical induction. Most questions that were asked in the survey were directed towards assessing the level of occupational socialization and mode of teaching of sports education to students, which these teachers adopted. It was found that sports education was imparted to students in one of the three forms, namely, watered down version, cafeteria style and full version. The choice of teaching mode is usually governed by the training in sports education and PETE programs that the teacher has received. Therefore, it was found that those teachers who underwent elementary training at PETE programs chose to adopt full version SE and enjoyed embracing SE at the professional level, while those with full organizational learning adopted to train students using the watered down version of SE. (Curtner-Smith et al, 2008). In 2009, Sinelnikov studied in detail the professional impacts of introducing a new sports education model in his paper titled, “Sport Education for Teachers: Professional Development When Introducing a Novel Curriculum Model”. The main aim of the study was to understand and portray the professional development that introduction of a sports education model was bringing upon Russian teachers as they were being trained to deliver SE to students under the new curriculum. The paper was also created aimed at the objective to find how effective any professional development opportunity SE instructors enjoyed, was in the long run. The study interviewed two Russian teachers with variable SE teaching experience in sixth grades, having past experience tenure of twenty seven and three yeas respectively. Both belonged to the same area in Russia but worked in different schools. The study used semi structured questions and interviews, informal discussions, briefing and debriefing sessions, researcher’s log and intensive observations through audio and video tapes of telephonic conversations, email exchanges and development of lesson and season plans. The main themes that were used to structure the interviews were assessing the requirement of sample lesson observance in training phases, congruency validation of the teaching-to-model used by these teachers, identification of challenges in the using the letting-go-model, and aspects of co-operative learning. The theoretical framework used concentrated on finding factors that brought about personal development and teacher change models. The data was analyzed and subjected to within context triangulation in order to avoid misinterpretations of the data. The study provided all the empirical evidence that supported the understanding of teacher change and also advocated the need to use direct learning on the field from teachers to students and vice versa. SE training was easier on a letting go of charge model, and encouraged more students to turn into coaches for students (Sinelnikov, 2009). In their 2004 paper titled, “Learning to teach sport education: misunderstandings, pedagogical difficulties and resistance”, McCaughtry et al address a more serious concern about how teachers change themselves while imparting SE to students and thereby make a variable impact in inspiring students enjoy the direct impact of SE on their personalities. The study was focused on finding out how teachers learn to instruct SE to students. The cognitive study was directed towards two groups of undergraduate teachers in their pre-service stages. Each group was differentially trained. The first group was trained using secondary methods and their on field training skills were observed and analyzed while the other group was trained using an independent teaching course and their field training skills observed. Data collection happened through ethnographic observations, interviews, and audio/video tapes. The data thus collected was subjected to constant comparison to help the team arrive at conclusions regarding the impact of pre-service training to teachers in sports education mainly understanding the challenges in making the on field transition from classrooms. In both the groups of teachers, it was seen that a huge challenge was to teach students skills and tactics. The main aim of the study was to understand how to address these challenges and which kind of teacher training got lesser number of challenges to face. The study showed that the teachers who underwent secondary training had better chance at making an impact on students while teaching tactics in SE than the teachers who underwent independent training. According to the study, a teacher training pre-service teachers’ scenario is the ideal solution for the success of SE in educational institutions. To further bring in the importance of teacher training in SE models, Curtner-Smith and Stran (2009) conducted a study that was titled, “Influence of Occupational Socialization on Two Preservice Teachers’ Interpretation and Delivery of the Sport Education Model”. The main aim of the study was to understand the interpretation of the SE model in two preservice teachers, and understand what factors governed their understanding and hence, teaching practices while delivering the SE model in schools. The entire study was based on the theoretical interpretation of occupational socialization and data was collected basing on such interactions and other qualitative techniques. The data was standardized and analyzed for key pointers in the direction of the success of the study. The results showed that teachers who have undergone high quality PETE had a better chance of recognizing the true goals of SE in educational institutions and acting towards achieving them. Their interpretation, thus complete, allowed them to address different problems in delivering the model to students in its full version. This involved developing impromptu solutions to student issues on the field that adhered to the goals of the model. On a detailed study of the factors that led to this commitment it was seen that imparting mini-season training to teachers before student teaching, the prediction of conditions to be faced by these teachers during the pre-season training, active interaction with PETE faculty and general occupational socialization skills developed during this training to allow healthy interaction and development and sharing of new on-field practices to bring in the best SE practices in students. In short, teacher preparation is a great way to keep the interpretation of the SE model correct amongst beginner teachers. In an integrated approach, it is easier to develop these skills and commitment to the model. This was proved by Deenihan et al (2011) in their paper titled, “‘Living the curriculum’: Integrating sport education into a Physical Education Teacher Education programme” The study was aimed to giving the supportive evidence of how pre-service teachers of SE develop individual interpretations of the model which is close to the actual goals of the model by not just undergoing pre-season training and secondary education in PETE, but also by adopting an approach that involves living the curriculum approach. The study itself was an experiment in which the pre-service teachers were asked to live the curriculum and experience one SE season on the campus and fields. The data collection process was intensive following weekly observations, individual and group interviews, and reflections by the researcher and the lecturer. This collection of data was subjected to standard cross-checking through focus group interactions between teachers and researchers. The pre-service teachers who lived the curriculum in this experiment turned out to show favorable results to the model. Since the model of instruction had to be dynamic and the lecturers had to ensure that the pre-service teachers got the purport of the message, and given the fact that the teachers were already well versed in the basics of the model, it was seen that the lectures were compromised and more directed in involving the teachers and not just tutoring them. However, since the integration of the curriculum in living style is so natural, a diminishing of SE module by the end of the experiment was seen, which calls for more focus on SE model in the living style in the teacher’s lifestyle to bring about thorough understanding, comprehension and competence on their part. In their paper titled, ”Professional ’development’ and professional ‘learning’: bridging the gap for experienced physical education teachers”, Armourand and Yelling (2004) drew out a definite way of letting the integration of SE model in lifestyle of teachers to stay highly defined, letting the teachers know about the most important aspects of the SE model that they are expected to deliver. This study was undertaken in England and was conducted at that time of the year when government interest in inculcation of SE in educational institutions was a growing factor. It studies 85 physical education (PE) teachers who have been in the industry for a long time. The development of sound interpretation of the SE model is tested against the working efficiency of experienced teachers in this field. The data was collected using a combined approach of semi-structured interviews and open ended profile questionnaires. While around twenty teachers were subjected to the semi-structured interviews, the open ended questionnaires were answered by sixty five teachers. This combined approach not only brought out the major career development patterns in teachers of this field, but also the semi-structured interviews showed why teachers made such decisions. The level of understanding of the model, the kind of experiences they shared with the researchers and suggestions that they had in improving any existing education model were taken into consideration and collected as data. As the presence of CPD in Physical Education is not elaborately known, the suggestions and experienced of these teachers provide the crux of missing elements in the professional learning structure. The study showed that the experiences of teachers lacked coherence and often missed out on relevance. Teachers who have definite aspirations for their pupils are unable to fulfill these aspirations due to lack of professional learning that is appropriate with the sports industry at a given point in time. Also, there is a great need to ensure professional development opportunities that also cater to career long learning needs of the teachers. In this context it would be worthwhile to refer to a study on pre-service teachers who were studied for their conceptions and expectations from within the Sport Education and other models. The paper is titled, “Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching within Sport Education and Multi-activity Units” (2004). The study as focused on the observations, predictions and expectations of fifteen American pre-service teachers who were about to start in the field of Sport Education and was undergoing training to handle the different challenges at work. When questioned about their expectation of professional growth and reflections on what exists, a great amount of analytical information was achieved. The data was collected using such reflective questionnaire and critical incident techniques, wherein teachers’ reactions to different important crucial situations on field were observed and subjected to analytical induction and frequency counts. The paper concluded with results that show that the pre-service teachers have high expectations in terms of career and flexibility at workplace from the Sport Education industry. They consider it a great place that encourages occupational socialization and holds promise for cultural and structural recognition. While perceptions play a major role in determining how a teacher will deliver the model, there are influences and difficulties faced during the course of career development in this field that often determine a preservice teacher’s approach to the work. In their paper titled, “A Preservice Teacher’s Delivery of Sport Education: Influences, Difficulties and Continued Use”, Deenihan and MacPhail (2013) have studied in detail all the above mentioned factors and many more aspects of delivery of the sport education model. The study they conducted focused on the experience of one pre-service teacher and followed his anecdotes, observations, and reflections during and after undergoing a practical SE module, after which he was also questioned and recorded during pre-, mid- and post teaching placement interviews. His delivering SE to students was assessed using weekly reports and surveys. The data thus obtained was analyzed thoroughly using thematic coding and was subjected to triangulation to get rid of discrepancies. It was seen that occupational socialization helped the researchers assess the extent to which the preservice teacher was able to handle day to day problems n the field adeptly. According to the results in this paper, we find that influences on his delivery of sport education involved the teaching orientation, PETE program and the school that he was teaching in, and his experiences in sports. Therefore, this study shows us that personal approach, experiences, and interpretation play a major role in the successful delivery of SE models. This is in line with previous studies by Deenihan et al who propounded an approach of living the curriculum wherein the goals of the SE model and the personal lifestyle coincide to the extent that there is unconscious understanding of the main goals of the Se model and also full version delivery to students. In a parallel study that was titled, “Impact of different types of knowledge on two preservice teachers’ ability to learn and deliver the Sport Education model”, Stran and Curtner-Smith (2010) further dwelled on how different types of knowledge could have an impact on pre-service teachers’ understandings and delivery. The paper focuses on how pre-service teachers used different types of knowledge in delivering their SE duties and from where they gathered this knowledge from. They teachers were teaching SE classes in middle school and this study followed every qualitative aspect of their activities. They were videotaped both in formal sessions and in informal sessions, interviewed on a weekly basis, incident and journal reports were gathered from them every week and stimulated interviews were taken into account as part of the data collected for this study. The computer program QSR was used to analyze the data and knowledge data was then segregated into different sections. The results of this study showed that both the preservice teachers used full version delivery of sport education and was heavily influenced by personal knowledge of sports and their past experiences. Also, trained knowledge was imparted using complete dedication to the students. The teachers picked up on-field knowledge swiftly to adjust to and introduce new practices that improved team performance on the field. The PTs were found to use all forms of knowledge like content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, learner’s knowledge to the decisions that they take on the field. The study concluded that pre-service teachers having high education is not a major requisite in successful delivery of the SE model, instead it is their experiences in sports that decides how well the knowledge will be put to use during teaching SE to students. This finding is further supported by the work of Jenkins (2013) who raised the million dollar question as to whether pre-service students could learn to teach alternative curriculum models only on the basis of book knowledge alone in his paper titled, “Sport Education in a PETE Program”. In his paper he critically discusses the impact of firsthand experience in better delivery of the sport education model. There is no doubt that the experiment leaves behind empirical data to support the above theories and suggestions. The students are going to be teachers in real life scenarios, and are assigned teams which have to take part in real time sports/gymnastics over the period of a preset season. Their performance from start to finish of the season was recorded using video and audio recordings and personal and group interviews. According to his observations, the pre-service teachers performed very well when they were given this first hand exposure to the training they would be imparting to students. What is more? The appropriate developmental mindset was seen growing in the teachers who were better poised to give the sport education model high competence performances. If we run a cross-check with teachers in continents other than American and Europe, we are to come across similar results. This is reflected in the study conducted by Alexander and Luckman, in their paper titled, “Australian teachers’ perceptions and uses of the sport education curriculum model” (2001). The focus of the paper was to find answer to a questionnaire in 377 primary and secondary schools in Australia asking teachers of physical education different aspects of their teaching experience. The paper provides rare insights into challenges and suggestions developed on-field by the teachers who followed the sport education curriculum. Teacher’s expectations showed that after Siedentop’s model was publicly announced, the level of interaction and engagement that the teachers bring or expect depends a lot on how much liberty they have within the model. Their comments and suggestions showed that the sport education model is expected to allow students and teachers to pursue a large number of learning outcomes than physical education programs originally allowed, thereby improving learning and professional life for the teachers. When the same study was undertaken on a preservice teacher in a high school in Ireland, it was evident that the focus of the study, which discusses the influences of high school preservice teacher in imparting sport education to students, was the most appropriate approach to understanding what was short in the model. The data was collected from diary entries and interviews, and occupational socialization was used to check the impact of school culture and teacher education on the quality of services provided by the teacher. It was found that specialists deliver the model better when their experiences are counted in making curricular changes. Conclusion: There are many factors that influence the successful delivery of sport education model by teachers. Study on pre-service teachers reveals the factors that influence delivery and the competence of teachers in the model include school culture, pre-service training and relativity of the model with personal experiences. The above literature review shows all of these factors as important players in different studies conducted in the past decade. References: Armourand, K. M., & Yelling, M. (2004) Professional ëdevelopmentí and Professional ëLearningí: Bridging the Gap for Experienced Physical Education Teachers. European Physical Education Review, Vol. 10, No.1, pp.71-93. Alexander, K., & Luckman, J. (2001), Australian Teachersí Perceptions and Uses of the Sport Education Curriculum Model. European Physical Education Review, Vol.7, No.3, pp.243-267. Curtner-Smith, M., & Sofo, S. (2004). Preservice teachers conceptions of teaching within sport education and multi-activity units. Sport, Education and Society, Vol. 9, No.3, pp.347-377. Curtner-Smith, M. D., Hastie, P. A., & Kinchin, G. D. (2008). Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education and Society, Vol. 13, No.1, pp.97-117. Deenihan, J. T., & MacPhail, A. (2013). A Preservice Teacher’s Delivery of Sport Education: Influences, Difficulties and Continued Use. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Vol.32, No.2, pp.166-185. Deenihan, J. T., McPhail, A., & Young, A. M. (2011). ‘Living the curriculum’: Integrating sport education into a Physical Education Teacher Education programme. European Physical Education Review, Vol.17, No.1, pp.51-68. Jenkins, J. M. (2004). Sport education in a PETE program. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, Vol. 75, No.5, pp.31-36. McCaughtry, N., Sofo, S., Rovegno, I., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2004). Learning to teach sport education: Misunderstandings, pedagogical difficulties, and resistance. European Physical Education Review, Vol. 10, No.2, pp.135-155. McMahon, E., & MacPhail, A. (2007). Learning to teach sport education: The experiences of a pre-service teacher. European Physical Education Review, Vol.13, No.2, pp.229-246. Sinelnikov, O. A. (2009). Sport education for teachers: Professional development when introducing a novel curriculum model. European Physical Education Review, Vol. 15, No.1, pp. 91-114. Stran, M., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2009). “Influence of Occupational Socialization on Two Preservice Teachers’ Interpretation and Delivery of the Sport Education Model”. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Vol. 28, pp.38-53 Stran, M., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2010). Impact of different types of knowledge on two preservice teachers ability to learn and deliver the Sport Education model. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, Vol. 15, No.3, pp.243-256. Read More