A Critical Review and Comparison of Physical Education Studies - Essay Example

A Critical Review and Comparison of Physical Education Studies This paper is a critical review of sports education studies. It compares different physical education models and analyzes why they work in certain institutes. The methodology used is consulting books, peer-reviewed journals, scholarly articles and general information provided on the website of various universities about physical education. The debate starts with understanding how sports season start and how the environment changes in which the students and teachers roles are modified. The purpose is not to criticize a model or to promote one. The purpose is to understand why a certain model works when the other does not. Different models have been discussed regarding their unique characteristics. The cooperative learning model is specifically discussed because of its popularity and effectiveness. The paper also looks into the reason why this model is popular among the teachers as well as students. The holistic approach of this paper is to analyse physical education in general terms. And try to see how it has contributed towards better literate athletes. Towards the end, a brief discussion of pros and cons of certain models clears the situation and summarizes the whole debate. There are certain recommendations given in the conclusion based on the whole debate. The recommendations are not definite because there is no one-size-fits-all model. Critical Review Sport education or SE has been the focus of attention for an increasing number of physical education (PE) teachers. Sport or physical education is crucial as sometimes there are children who cannot perform certain skills in the classroom but they shine at the sports ground (Doherty & Brennan, 2007). For adults, it is equally important. The teacher educators in the United Kingdom and the United States are considering this very seriously as a regular part of student learning. The primary goal of SE is to produce athletes that are competent, enthusiastic and most importantly, literate. To reach this goal, teachers communicate units as sports seasons. These sports seasons are usually longer than education semesters or traditional blocks of work. When a student keeps playing with a certain team for the whole season he or she develops an affiliation. Sometimes this affiliation lasts for many seasons and it is not necessary that the player is confined to only one sport. Immense energy goes into creating a festal atmosphere. Sports education puts a strong emphasis on making students learn so they can manage their own seasons (Siedentop, 2011). The general approach is to make the students more responsible by giving them more responsibility. The sports education model system allows modifications to suit the students’ age and skill level (Davidson et al. 2006). The player evaluation system is very organized, even the seasons are scheduled as formal competition that involve in-depth recordkeeping, which eventually leads to a crowning event. The format of the season is not very rigid, it is flexible and regularly modified. The learning through a sport season is not only limited to sports activities. Students perform many roles other than being athletes. Even the teachers have to take on different roles as they work really hard in switching their job roles from teacher-centred methodology to an unorthodox style of teaching that is more indirect and student-centred. The objective on the ground is to give the students more responsibility, hence the teacher turns into a facilitator that does not supervise but coaches the pupils. The overall impact of sports education is very good on both the students and the teachers as there is sufficient research that backs this argument. Nevertheless, little research is available on the teachers’ methodology in delivering SE. And more importantly on what the teachers learn and interpret from teacher education programs such as Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) (Smith et al. 2008). Without assessment of literacy in physical education, PETE is incomplete (Hay & Penney, 2013). Any program without assessment is a waste of time. This emphasis on assessment has also been highlighted in Oleg A. Sinelnikov’s article (2009). Teachers cannot be left on their own in pursuit of professional growth as they are unlikely to change their classroom habits on their own (Sinelnikov, 2009). To gauge and measure teacher performance in physical education a number of assessment techniques are employed. Each technique offers its unique pros and cons. For instance, course assessment would be done through curriculum philosophy paper, acute observation of exercise, chart sequence, an annual scope, and a unit plan (Smith et al., 2008). Such assessment techniques might seem trivial or ordinary. The majority of PE teachers have had no initial training in assessment techniques (Carroll, 2003). Therefore, such a schedule is more than sufficient. There is also the issue of assessing the pupils engaging in sports or physical activities. The age difference and level of experience dictates the terms of assessment. A study suggested 30 different procedures for assessing physical education but also acknowledges that only a handful were effective in assessing young people (Williams, 2012). Similarly, many assessment programs exist for the teachers, one commonly used method for creating the curriculum is through PASE (Pedagogical Approach to Sport Education) guidelines (Bulger et al., 2007). It is a complete system that plans, implements and assesses sports education seasons. There is no perfect education model that can be implemented to every region or age group. Sometimes even the best looking model serves for a certain period of time and then it expires making room for a better and more effective model. However, there is a general rule that an assessment should be based on needs analysis, including the views of the coach, the science staff as well as the players (Carling et al. 2008). A research conducted on introducing sport education to Korea in 1997 studied the model of physical education where students were made responsible by delegating them the authority (Hastie, 2011). The general presumption was this model gained immense popularity in Korea. But without modification, such a model cannot be applied to other regions. Each one has different system and seasons. One should not be confused about the system and schedule of sports seasons. Sports coaches operate in a wide range of contexts and at different levels; elite, recreational, junior, developmental etc. (Tinning, 2009). Some coaches operate on individual training bases and some have to coach the teams. However the recent popular trend is inclusion of human movement studies (HMS) which is an anticipated form of PE. Such an approach is helpful because it educates the students about their body in terms of the biophysical ‘thing’ (Tinning, 2009). More often, a lot of time is focused on actual teaching as opposed to creating a relevant design (Ciccomascolo & Sullivan, 2011). With the HMS teaching strategy both the theory and application can be encompassed. Researchers have identified a problem in sports education regardless of its model. This problem is general in nature because it applies to all models, territories, sports seasons and geographies. A research in England suggest that sports education is very healthy and has had positive outcome about the future of youth sports in England however, a problem arises when education partners have to compete with the demands of elite sport . An increasing interest in sports education in the last 30 years has contributed towards this conflict. It is as if this growth has made sports education too strong that now it is impacting the policy implementation and turning it into a tool for addressing broader government agendas (Houlihan & Green, 2010). These agendas include tackling obesity, producing future Olympic medallists as well as improving academic standards in schools (Houlihan & Green, 2010). And the process is not slowing down. As explained earlier, there is no perfect approach or model. Each offers its benefits and drawbacks. According to research schools are always looking for more accredited courses for enhancing opportunities for students and finding effective and meaningful models for assessing pupil attainment so they can reinforce the value of physical education (Capel, 2004). Such an approach is not only confined to sports it also pushes them to expand opportunities and grade standards. But one thing is certain that colleges are not the regular business institutes. There is a difference between sports industry dynamics and how the college coaches operate. Generally speaking, sports management has two types of decision-making models in use; the classical rational model and the administrative-behavioural. Under this model sports managers have to decide in an economically rational way (Bar-Eli et al., 2011), usually measured by measuring the impact of their decisions. This can include hiring a player for a football team or firing a basketball player based on under average performance. Assessment of sports education teachers and professional coaches of the commercial sports industry has unique traits. If the behaviour of the coaches needs to be measured then a simple way of doing that is asking the coaches how they operate, then observing while they operate, and analysing the difference (Nelson et al. 2014). It is not always that coaches and physical education experts need to employ a model to educate the pupils. Sometimes the basic modelling or copying can be very helpful. For instance whenever there is a season in progress coaches and players spend a lot of quality time together. When the coaches are around the students they trigger certain amount of modelling. The youngsters can be impressed and easily influenced when they see a role model, and coaches can use this to their advantage. Most of the coaches care (nurturing) about the players and dress the same as the players (similarity) (Rao, 2008). But there is only so much a student can learn through modelling. It is the job of coaches to educate pupils as well as assess them because their assessment is based on the performance of their pupils. In general test design used for testing the performance of students is validity. It is to make sure that the test measures what it is supposed to measure (Sharkey & Gaskill, 2006). Assessment means purposeful, systematic and continuous collection of information (Cassidy et al. 2008). The second part of this test design is reliability. It means that the test consistently measures what it is supposed to measure. For example; a coach asks the performers to complete a food log over a three-day period. It will help measure the nutrition of the players. The advantage of such a model is it pushes the coaches to apply their knowledge and understanding in real situations, plus it is easily tailored to individual sports (McQuade & Weare, 2005). There is also another model for measuring both aspects of sports education. This model engages with the coaches as well as the athletes at the same time to understand how the training of the coach is impacting the athlete. For instance comparing one persons direct perspective (e.g. the coach) with the other’s direct perspective (e.g. the athlete) simultaneously will indicate a coach at the dyad’s level of agreement or disagreement (Taylor & Wilson, 2005). Another model similar to this is the cooperative learning model of instruction. This model is conceptual, curricular, structural and complex (Dyson & Cassey, 2012). In this model responsibility, individual accountability, and social skills are taught (Hall et al. 2008). The model developed along these four separate lines, but inherently it is a pedagogical model. In a casual way, if the tasks are set up appropriately in the cooperative learning model then the pupils “sink or swim together” (Butler, 2005). Partly because positive interdependence is an essential element of cooperative learning model (Hardman & Green, 2011). Other than being effective, this model is popular too. Students prefer cooperative learning model over competitive or individualistic ones (Halbert & Murphy, 2013). This reflects how important peer relationships are to the young people. Not only students but the teachers also prefer this approach over others. A research suggests that teacher preparation experience in socially conscious learning environment encouraged developing heightened consciousness of cooperation and competition (Cohen et al. 2004). This form of education also encourages teachers of physical training to switch to this model in case a competitive model is not giving the desired output. Cooperative learning is similar to interaction pattern in many ways; it requires social skills, grouping, interdependence and accountability (Kelly & Melograno, 2004). Sports education should not be confined to one or two models. What works should be considered and what is not working should be dropped from the season training. The research does not intend to support cooperative learning. There is no single study that creates a complete knowledge base (Smith et al. 2008). But the pros and cons offered by this model makes it a favourite among teachers and students. Physical education thrives well in cooperative learning; this approach encourages psychological, social and personal development (Glover, 1992). It develops social skills while augmenting learning (Mohnsen, 2008). It almost sounds perfect for offering a win-win situation but it is only the theory that makes it seem that way. Implementing it is a great challenge as pointed out in a research that the most time-consuming portion of professional development program was developing a positive connection of theory to practice through Reflective Framework for Teaching in Physical Education (Sinelnikov, 2009). Another approach close to cooperative learning model is the service-learning that is effectively used in physical education and other related fields. It encourages pupils to engage in meaningful and personally relevant service activities (Maybeth & Mendel, 2010). This model involves the pupils in assessment process. The assessment system is designed with the input of the students, hence, the pupils are aware of assessment process and how they can score better. Professional Development School, Programs Assistance and Research Bonded models are also among other highly recommended models for sport education (Mawer, 1996). Program assistance models are very technical in nature in evaluative assistance. They can be modified by incorporating collaborative endeavours. However, fundamental characteristics of SE remain the same, i-e; seasons, affiliation, formal competition, culminating event, multiple roles, record keeping and festivity (Griffey & Housner, 2007). To conclude, there are many models that can be incorporated in sports education. As time progresses and with the advancement in technology there will be better and more effective models in the future. Be it the cooperative learning model or formal old school model, the inherent goal of making the students think independently and make better decisions is the key. From the debate it is evident that any model or curriculum design that promotes social-based learning is more successful than competitive ones, especially in sports education. However, more research is needed to figure out how the teachers interpret the sports education and how they teach through a curriculum model. References 1. Bar-Eli et al. 2011. Judgment, decision-making and success in sport. John Wiley & Sons. 2. Bulger et al. 2007. Sport Education Seasons. Human Kinetics. 3. Butler, J. 2005. Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice. Human Kinetics. 4. Capel, S. A. 2004. Learning to Teach Physical Education in the Secondary School: Companion to School Experience. Psychology Press. 5. Carling et al. 2008. Performance Assessment for Field Sports. London: Routledge. 6. Carroll, B. 2003. Assessment in Physical Education: a Teachers Guide to the Issues. London: Routledge. 7. Cassidy et al. 2008. Understanding Sports Coaching: the Social, Cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice. Abingdon: Routledge. 8. Ciccomascolo, L. E. & Sullivan, E. C. 2011. The Dimension of Physical Education. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. 9. Cohen et al. 2004. Teaching Cooperative Learning: The Challenge for Teacher Education. SUNY Press. 10. Davidson et al. 2006. Accessing the General Physical Education Curriculum for Students with Sensory Deficits. NY: Nova Publishers. 11. Doherty, J. & Brennan, P. 2007. Physical Education and Development 3-11: A Guide for Teachers. London: Routledge. 12. Dyson, B. & Cassey, A. 2012. Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: A Research Based Approach. NY: Routledge. 13. Glover, D. R. 1992. Team Building Through Physical Challenges. Leeds: Human Kinetics. 14. Griffey, D. C. Housner, L. D. 2007. Designing Effective Instructional Tasks for Physical Education and Sports. Leeds: Human Kinetics. 15. Halbert, G. & Murphy, F. 2013. Research and Practice in Physical Education. NY: Routledge. 16. Hall et al. 2008. Kaplan TExEs. Kaplan Publishing. 17. Hardman, K. & Green, K. 2011. Contemporary Issues in Physical Education: International Perspectives. Meyer & Meyer Verlag. 18. Hay, P. & Penney, D. 2013. Assessment in Physical Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. London: Routledge. 19. Hastie, P. 2011. Sport Education: International Perspective. London: Routledge. 20. Houlihan, B. & Green, M. 2010. Routledge Handbook of Sports Development. London: Routledge. 21. Maybeth, P. M. & Nendel, J. 2010. Service Learning in Physical Education and Other Related Professions: A Global Perspective. Jones & Bartlett Learning. 22. Mawer, M. 1996. Mentoring in Physical Education: Issues and Insights. Psychology Press. 23. McCaughtry, N. 2004. Learning to teach sport education: misunderstandings, pedagogical difficulties, and resistance. European Physical Education Review. 10(2). p. 135-155. 24. McQuade, S. & Weare, N. 2005. Assessing in sport. Leeds: Coachwise. 25. Mohnsen, B. S. 2008. Teaching Middle School Physical Education: A Standards-based Approach for Grades 5-8. Leeds: Human Kinetics. 26. Kelly, L. & Melograno, V. 2004. Developing the Physical Education Curriculum: An Achievement Based Approach. Human Kinetics. 27. Nelson et al. 2014. Research Methods in Sports Coaching. NY: Routledge. 28. Rao, V. K. 2008. Sports Education. New Delhi: APH Books. 29. Siedentop et al. 2011. Complete Guide to Sport Education. Human Kinetics. 30. Sinelnikov, O. A. 2009. Sport education for teachers: professional development when introducing a novel curriculum model. European Physical Education Review. 15(1). p. 91-114. 31. Smith et al. 2008. Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers into perdition and brutal sport education. Sport, Education and Society. 13(1). p. 97-117. 32. Sharkey, B. J. & Gaskill, S. E. 2008. Sport Physiology for Coaches. Human Kinetics. 33. Taylor, J. & Wilson, G. S. 2005. Applying Sport Psychology: Four Perspectives. Windsor: Human Kinetics. 34. Tinning, R. 2009. Pedagogy Human Movement: Theory, Practice, Research. London: Routledge. 35. Williams, A. 2012. Primary School Physical Education. London: Routledge. Read More