Roles of Teachers in Relation to Working with Young People - Assignment Example

COMPARE AND CONTRAST ROLES OF TEACHERS IN RELATION TO WORKING WITH YOUNG PEOPLE In the children development process, both conventional and physical education is fundamental for the holistic growth of a child. Physical education discipline is distinct from normal class work in that it involves physical activity as a prime means of contributing social-effective development in order to achieve quality living (Dyke, 2014). Not only is physical education teaching and coaching beneficial to children and adolescents, it is also beneficial to the whole community as well (Armour, 2011; 2013). Participation of youngsters in P.E has numerous benefits such as adiposity and cardio-metabolic peril factors. Therefore, children who do not undergo such education are likely to be at a risk of re-continuing this process at their late ages (Griffiths et al., 2013). Further, like any other education professional, a PE specialist is required to ensure that the curriculum and laws governing the exercise are adhered to in administering physical education. The main trainer is either a coach or a teacher. Despite both the teacher and coach having same structure in terms of occupation, the two practitioners differ not only on the professional training but also in the manner, in which deliver their services to children. The two terms-coach and teacher can be used interchangeably because both involve imparting knowledge to trainees. However, the two differ in the same measure; a teacher imparts his or her skills to trainees whereas a coach may not necessarily transfer his/her skills, but instructs in a way of pruning or advancing a trainee’s talent (Naul and Hardman, 2002). Several theories of physical education have been conceptualized on how the two fields [coaching and teaching] differ. In this paper I seek to employ such theories on child development, learning, and professional viewpoint to similarities and differences between a coach and a teacher. In that regard, I will concentrate on the distinct differences and similarities existing between the two based on planning, training and instruction, environment setting, challenges facing teachers and coaches, grading method, and objective of involvement among other themes. The planning procedure followed by the two practitioners differs significantly. Generally, planning is often referred to as a decisive settled strategy on how the practitioner can accomplish the teaching or coaching goals. Planning is structured and well-framed in terms of a time-framework that the physical education activity exercise will follow. From the coach’s perspective, the plan is elaborate and specific. The coach’s plan does not necessarily start with elementary training but rather forges directly to a specific game (Light, 2012, p. 22). On the other hand, a teacher’s PE lesson is not explicit and elaborate as that of a coach because, besides training the PE class, the teacher has other subjects to teach. In the a report by Ofsted – Beyond 2012, the researcher notes that most teachers were no specialists in PE, but they used the skills acquired from self-evaluation, to devise plans to raise achievements. The report further states that only a few teachers had sufficient time besides the other commitments to observe PE lessons (Ofsted.gov.uk, 2013). Thus, such scenarios enable teachers to teach only the basic PE principles unlike coaches who have the whole time to dedicate to teaching the pupils (Duncan-Andrade, 2010). The entire profession of training children and adolescents on physical education are undoubtedly demanding and in fact every practitioner can attest. Both teachers and coaches have a duty to meet the needs of their clients: pupils and youthful adolescents. Therefore, one hallmark that symbolizes the similarity between a coach and a teacher is that they have to participate persistently in professional development as a model to sustain the up-to-date contemporary knowledge available (Armour, 2013, p. 230). In shaping-up their training skills, both teachers and coaches often have to comply with the Continuous Professional Development (CPD) policy as a guide to proficient service delivery. According to Kathleen Armour’s book “sports pedagogy” she notes, “Despite teachers and coaches being busy practitioners, for them, continuous professional development is not an option” (Armour, 2013, p. 230). The CPD, therefore, forms a common ground that reconciles the two practitioners. The style of operation and practice of teaching is distinct from that of coaching. With wide acknowledgement, it is apparent that teaching is a no new concept to any individual because in some way in life, one must have been taught something at some stage in life (Hassan, Dowling and McConkey, 2014). Such is not always true with coaching as it is talent-focused and, therefore, might feature specific personalities. In general, teaching comprises of lessons and training of children on the fundamental skills of a particular game and the training of the players on how to participate, rather than on how to run the stage. Additionally, the ultimate endeavor or goal of a teacher and the whole teaching concept is not only winning, but also the elementary development of children in terms of health and their skills’ level of the players taught (From the Field, 2012). Therefore, this whole context demonstrates that, the teacher imparts skills rather than doing drilling as the coach. Further, pupils react differently to both the teachers and the coaches. This can be attributed to the fact that, besides physical education, the pupils spend a lot of time with their teachers while learning other subjects and, therefore, their reaction will be either appreciative or resentful depending on the kind of relationship existing between them. For instance, if there has been a good connection between the children and teachers, then they are likely to maintain the relationship rather than embracing a new figure- the coach. When there is little teacher-pupil connection then, a coach can get a chance of being embraced. Nonetheless, it is paramount to note that most pupils or young kids prefer to stick with their teachers as this is demonstrated in the Ofsted report in which the authors note “coaches had less impact on pupil’s achievement when they did not work with classroom teachers” (Ofsted no. 28). An example within the report indicates, “Lesson observations were varied in terms of growth made by children taught by coaches and teachers” (Ofsted, 2012, no. 28). However, the report also suggests, that when collaboration was created between the teachers and the coaches on shared planning, the pupils made substantial progress. One of the drawbacks of the coaches that the report draws is that they used the “same plans to teach different age-groups” (Ofsted no. 28). This is unlike teachers who adhere strictly to curriculum and, therefore, deliver physical education to pupils that are tailored for specific age-set or groups. According to Bilas, an ESPN.com writer, coaching simply entails children preparation strategies, developing game plan and schemes to defeat opponents (From the Field, 2012). Coaching is simply an immediate-result oriented training whose primary goal is just a win. The coach, therefore, employs tactics that concentrates on different offenses and defenses and putting them forward in the game. Unlike teaching, coaching quality is measured on how well children respond to training and often the coach do not tolerate failure. The coach’s focus is wrapped on winning, and in trying to achieve this, they micromanage and over-coach. While it is apparent that the configuration of coaching as an occupation is somewhat different from that of teaching and undeniably not a "profession" in the conventional thinking, both teachers and coaches share some similar career development apprehension. For example, in Kathleen Armour’s book, she writes that, the top-elite coaches have continually held that their continuous professional development (CPD) is too narrow in scope. They further view it as an ineffective for practice, unable to meet the needs of individual professionals and, therefore, outdated (Armour, 2013, p. 233). The reproach is no different in regard to teachers. Researchers Wallace and Jones found that, teachers too are disenchanted with professional development programmes, which they criticize as proving “fine in theory” that doesn’t address the reality (p. 233). Armour while citing Nelson and Potrac, supplements that, teachers describe the CPD as inadequate system built around traditional setting “derived out of context and devoid of sustained transcribe support” (p. 233). Therefore, despite teaching and coaching operating at varied structures, both practitioners face identical challenges in regards to their professional development. The environment is defined as the ambiance, state of affairs, and atmosphere the teacher or coach works in. The teaching environment in the classrooms is totally different from that in the physical education practices (Bailey and Kirk, 2009). In performing their roles, both the teacher and the coach maintain varied settings, often influenced by their accustomed way of service delivery. A coach’s place of service delivery is mainly in the athletic field in either a stadium or any gymnasium for a particular game. When in open ground such as a football pitch, physical education activities may be faulted in case it rains or scorching as children are likely become unaggressive towards the game. On the other hand, the teacher’s environmental setting is a transition from classroom to the PE field. Therefore, all atmospheric conditions are almost favorable for teachers because they can conduct their training in class or the PE field. Every professional practitioner is committed to taking a certain job because of passion or voluntary decision but in most cases it is all about financial earning at end of the exercise. Moreover, before one is offered any position, there are some requirements taken into consideration and in most cases such considerations are the determinants of the pay one receives. Conventionally, teachers are subjected to some tedious training before being employed because, even if they could be naturally good physical trainers, they have other considerable subjects to teach. Contrary, a coach’s skills either are acquired through a scant course or maybe not educated at all, but all skills are as a result of inborn ability or talent (Hay and Penny, 2013). Such notable differences often determine the remuneration package as teachers are given priority over coaches in most settings. This scenario is evident through several reports. According to a sports coach report in the UK 2004, there were approximately 514,000 individuals working as school sports coaches in major schools, of which majority are not paid (debate). This number included “70,000 PE specialists acting in the role of sports coaches, 250,000 non-specialists teachers; and 65,000 adult teachers; and 85,000 external coaches” (Capel and Whitehead, 2012, p. 175). Another research by same body in 2007, also suggests, most recurrent coaching environment for a full-time coach at school. This is the scenario UK school coaches and the world as a whole are faced with in the provision of Physical education that draws significant differences from their counterpart-teachers. One notable requirement for physical education is observing the curriculum available to provide guidelines. In England, for instance, the department of education has provided a National Curriculum that aims to help both coaches and teaches train pupils. The objective of the curriculum is that pupils will “develop an understanding in a broad range of activities, engage in competitive sports, and lead healthy lives” (DCSM, 2012; Harris 2000). This curriculum reconciles the two practitioners, and, therefore, fruitful results are inevitable as shown by the Ofsted report. (Ofsted, 2012) In this Ofsted report- Beyond 2012 [an outstanding physical education for all] on the quality of Curriculum, it is clear that most schools where coaches and teachers consulted each other had high percentage of satisfaction (Ofsted, 2012). After the physical education lesson is over, a coach or teacher ought to assess pupils and give grading. It is imperative to note that, as classroom reading and writing are important to pupils’ development, physical education is important as well. The same way, pupils learn read words such as dog, girl, and boy is similar as in physical education where skills such as jumping, running, throwing, etc., are learnt (Sportwales.org.uk, 2014). Both coaches and teachers follow similar criteria in grading pupils. Despite physical education being included as a discipline in the curriculum, most teachers and coaches do not hold their students answerable for learning. They do not evaluate nor grade on any standardized system other than participating in the field and putting-on games attire (Shimon, 2011, p. 64). This means that if a biology tutor, for instance, followed the similar practice, an A in biology would suggest that the student was excellent to bring a paper and a ruler or pen and just solve biology queries. Such scant assessing and grading can never exhibit whether the PE program objectives and standards are met or not. In conclusion, it is without doubt that the role of both a teacher and a coach are similar but with some few differences. Both practitioners have a role of training pupils on physical education while adhering to a specific curriculum provided by departments of education. They differ in planning, environmental setting, remuneration, objectives, reaction from pupils, and style of practice. Nonetheless, both teacher and coach share some similarities such as same occupational structure, pupils grading system, and same challenges in terms of career development. In general, teachers and coaches are important figures in the development of young children’s physique and the role immensely evident across board. Bibliography Armour, K., 2011. Sport pedagogy. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall. Armour, K., 2013. Sport pedagogy: An introduction for teaching and coaching. Routledge. Bailey, R. and Kirk, D., (eds). 2009. The Routledge Physical EducationReader. London: Routledge Capel, S. A., & Whitehead, M., (Eds.). 2012. Debates in Physical Education Teaching. Routledge. DCMS, 2012. Creating a sporting habit for life a new youth sportstrategy. London: DCMS Duncan-Andrade, J., 2010. What a coach can teach a teacher. New York: Peter Lang. Dyke, k., 2014. Home Page. [Online] Mun.ca. Available at http://www.mun.ca/educ/courses/ed4361/virtual_academy/campus_a/dykek/index.html [Accessed 24 Oct. 2014] From the Field, 2012. The Difference Between Teaching and Coaching. [Online] Available at http://blog.peaceplayersintl.org/2012/06/25/the-difference-between-teaching-and-coaching/ [Accessed 24 Oct. 2014] Griffiths, L., Cortina-Borja, M., Sera, F., Pouliou, T., Geraci, M., Rich, C., Cole, T., Law, C., Joshi, H., Ness, A., Jebb, S. and Dezateux, C., 2013. How active are our children? Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study. BMJ Open, [online] 3(8), pp.e002893-e002893. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002893 [Accessed 24 Oct. 2014]. Hassan, D., Dowling, S. and McConkey, R., 2014. Sport, Coaching and Intellectual Disability. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Harris, J., 2000. Health-related Exercise in the National Curriculum, Key Stages 1 to 4. Human Kinetics Hay, P. And Penny, D., 2013. Assessment in Physical Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. London: Routledge Light, R., 2012. Game sense: pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment. Routledge. Naul, R. and Hardman, K., 2002. Sport and physical education in Germany. London: Routledge. Ofsted.gov.uk, 2013. Ofsted | Beyond 2012 - outstanding physical education for all. [online] Available at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/beyond-2012-outstanding-physical-education-for-all [Accessed 24 Oct. 2014]. Ofsted, 2012. Primary curriculum satisfaction. [Image] Available at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/beyond-2012-outstanding-physical-education-for-all [Accessed 24 Oct. 2014]. Shimon, J. M., 2011. Introduction to Teaching Physical Education: Principles and Strategies. Human Kinetics. Sportwales.org.uk, 2014. Physical Literacy | Community Sport | Sport Wales - Chwaraeon Cymru. [Online] Available at: http://www.sportwales.org.uk/community-sport/education/physical-literacy.aspx [Accessed 24 Oct. 2014]. Read More