Biomechanics, the health and physical education curriculum and Confucius? Considerations for teaching, learning and assessment
Glenn Fyall
https://doi.org/10.18296/cm.0015
Abstract
This article reports on physical education teacher education students’ perceptions of the pedagogies they have recently experienced in senior secondary school biomechanics classes. Despite the plethora of educational research surrounding pedagogical best practice in the wider field of physical education, there is a paucity of research seeking to understand links between pedagogy, assessment, and achievement in relation to the specific area of biomechanics and the curricula in which it is situated.
Analysis of data, gathered from a survey questionnaire (N =57) and a series of semi-structured interviews (N = 11), suggest that there may be misunderstanding and misalignment between pedagogical approaches adopted by senior secondary school physical education teachers who teach biomechanics content and the pedagogical intentions reflected in The New Zealand Curriculum.
Drawing on the literature relating to critically oriented physical education teacher education and aligned notions of critical constructivism and also research on biomechanics and its relationship to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in senior secondary physical education, and physical education teacher education and related tertiary programmes, it is suggested that a greater understanding of critical pedagogy and its relationship to constructivist notions of teaching, learning and assessment may enhance student understanding of biomechanics content within senior secondary school physical education programmes. Furthermore, this may create greater alignment with curriculum notions of “effective” teaching and assessment in the form of NCEA achievement standards. It is hoped that this may provide valuable insight for secondary physical education teachers and also physical education teacher educators who are charged with developing physical education teachers capable of teaching biomechanics within a critically oriented curriculum.
Introduction
Over the past few decades, sport and exercise science courses have developed significantly within senior high school physical education programmes in Aotearoa New Zealand. Tinning (2008) suggests that typically, senior high school physical education and sport-related programmes in Australia and New Zealand include the study of anatomy, biomechanics, motor learning, exercise physiology and sport psychology. Commenting further on the Australian and New Zealand contexts, Tinning (2008) suggests that despite the plethora of educational research surrounding pedagogical best practice in physical education and other curriculum areas, there is little evidence to support a link between the pedagogical practices adopted by sport and exercise science teachers and student achievement.
Firmly embedded within sport and exercise science courses, biomechanics, with its unique relationship to Newtonian physics and mathematics, appears to present many challenges to students (Knudson et al. 2003). Stanley (2007) states that “studying movement from a biomechanical perspective is not something many teachers get excited about, subsequently neither do their students” (p. 25).
This resonates with my own observations as a secondary school physical education teacher, and more recently as a lecturer within a transformative, critically oriented, physical education teacher education (PETE) programme in Aotearoa New Zealand. My interest in this area has arisen through my professional observations of neophyte physical education teachers on teaching practicums. I have noted, for instance, that PETE students often struggle with biomechanical content and have difficulty articulating a clear and coherent conception of biomechanical principles to their students. I also have noted that often PETE students, having just delivered a highly energetic, student-centred session in a gymnasium (or on a sports field), “park” these pedagogical approaches at the door of the classroom, only to pick them up again once they have completed the biomechanics lesson and head back to the gym.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, biomechanics sits firmly in health and physical education within The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) (NZC) and is also reflected in the appropriately aligned National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Specifically, biomechanics concepts are promoted in Achievement Standards (AS) 1.2, 2.2 and 3.2 (for further detail see New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2014). Ostensibly, senior health and physical education teachers who teach biomechanics are guided by, and teach to, the content outlined in the NCEA standards which are derived from the philosophical, pedagogical, and assessment frameworks suggested in NZC. The explanatory notes for achievement standards, including AS 3.2 “Analyse a physical skill performed by self or others”, make reference to the curriculum and underlying concept of the health and physical education learning area, including hauora, socioecological perspective, health promotion, attitudes, and values.
Researching in the Australian context, which has similar curriculum intentions for physical education teaching and learning to those in NZC, Hay and Penney (2009) have argued that assessment in physical education should promote learning and that it be attained through an “authentic, valid and socially just alignment of assessment, curriculum and pedagogy” (p. 390). Similarly, it is argued that assessment as a form of “pedagogical work”, which aligns more appropriately with constructivist principles of teaching and learning, may enhance student learning (Hay, Tinning, & Engstrom, 2015). Alignment of assessment and pedagogy appears to be an important pedagogical intention, and the close alignment between the pedagogical intentions of health and physical education in NZC and NCEA achievement standards in Aotearoa New Zealand as described above can be seen to theoretically go some way towards enhancing students’ learning in physical education.
The purpose of the study
The genesis of this study originates from my concerns about a pedagogical disconnection between practical and classroom-based elements of physical education teaching and learning and also from repeated calls in the literature for a need to develop an understanding of pedagogy, assessment, and achievement as it relates to the sport and exercise science, including biomechanics, and the curriculum in which it is situated (see, for example, Culpan, Draper, & Stevens, 2011; Hay & Penny, 2009; Hay et al., 2015; Tinning, 2008).
The research reported in this article addressed the following two questions: “What are first year PETE students’ perceptions of recently experienced pedagogies in senior secondary school biomechanics classes?” and “What recently experienced pedagogies are perceived to enable, or provide barriers to, effective learning in senior secondary school physical education biomechanics classes?”
The findings of the study enabled an examination and discussion of the participants’ recent senior high school experiences of biomechanics in relation to the pedagogical intentions of health and physical education within NZC and the associated assessment strategies reflected in the NCEA achievement standards. This may provide valuable insight for physical education teachers who teach courses and topics in sport and exercise science, particularly biomechanics, at senior levels. Also, mindful of the economic constraints and realities within current university environments, this may provide valuable information for the (re)conceptualisation and pedagogical modelling that will be reflected in future iterations of the PETE biomechanics course in which the study participants are currently engaged.
The following explicates some key features of health and physical education within NZC and provides an outline of the underpinning philosophical, pedagogical, and epistemological intentions.
Critically oriented PETE programmes
Health and Physical Education Within the NZC (Ministry of Education, 1999) and its subsequent revision within NZC differ markedly from traditional notions of physical education (Burrows & Wright, 2004). As a way of addressing many of the critiques surrounding existing educational philosophies, the curriculum shifted away from the entrenched notions of sport skill acquisition and adopted a more holistic and “educative” perspective (Culpan, 1996/97, 2004). The curriculum was strongly influenced by the work of critical theorists of the time (e.g., Apple, 1990; Freire, 1972), and informed by the notion of critical pedagogy in physical education (e.g., Fernandez-Balboa, 1997; Tinning, 1991; Tinning, Kirk & Evans, 1993).
Critical pedagogy involves students and teachers in a process of “conscientisation”, the outcome of which is the development of a critical consciousness (Freire, 1972). The evolution of critical pedagogy from critical theory consistently demonstrates a passion to expose hegemonic practice and devolve hierarchy within educational settings (Kincheloe, 2008). Essential to the educational success of critical pedagogy is a need to provide students with constructivist learning environments that allow for critical thinking, questioning and discussion within a power neutral classroom (Macdonald, 2003). Critical thinking can be interpreted in several ways (Gillespie & Culpan, 2000). Some consider this a process of problem solving and higher order thinking skills where the focus is on questioning as an analytical tool (Ennis, 1996). According to Culpan and Bruce (2007), this is a limited view that reflects the belief that by using tools such as Bloom’s taxonomy of higher order questioning and simple critique, teachers are subscribing to the principles of critical pedagogy. They suggest, however, that this falls well short of the emancipatory aims of critical pedagogy, and propose that critical thinking, within a critical pedagogy, should also examine and question assumptions around hegemony and inequality in education and a broader societal sense (Culpan & Bruce, 2007; Fernandez-Balboa, 1997; Gillespie & Culpan, 2000). It is important to note that the health and physical education curriculum appears to expand this interpretation to include both definitions and importantly asked teachers to examine, question, evaluate, and challenge their taken for granted assumptions about educational issues and their own pedagogical practices (Culpan, 2004, Culpan & Bruce, 2007).
In adopting this view, teachers are expected to understand the discourse surrounding constructivist, power neutral classrooms and also how this can be implemented in their own teaching contexts. To achieve this position, teachers are also required to critically reflect on their own pedagogical choices through an understanding of the effect that power has on the construction of knowledge (Gillespie & Culpan, 2000).
Richardson (2003) describes constructivism in the following way:
The general sense of constructivism is that it is a theory of learning or meaning making, that individuals create their own new understandings on the basis of an interaction between what they already know and believe and ideas and knowledge with which they come into contact. (p. 1624)
NZC clearly outlines constructivist modes of teaching and learning as a way of implementing effective learning environments across curriculum areas (p. 36). Specifically within the physical education curriculum area, Aotearoa New Zealand scholars have advocated a need to shift from traditional reproductive, teacher-centred styles to more constructivist, student-centred style of teaching (Culpan & Bruce, 2007; Gillespie & Culpan, 2000).
NZC (pp. 34–35) makes clear connections to constructivism when outlining “effective pedagogy” and although pragmatically articulated, clearly the intentions of the curriculum require teachers to have not only an understanding but also knowledge of how to implement constructivist strategies in their classrooms:
Making connections to prior learning and experience
Students learn best when they are able to integrate new learning with what they already understand. When teachers deliberately build on what their students know and have experienced, they maximise the use of learning time, anticipate student learning needs and avoid unnecessary duplication of content. (p. 34)
This emphasis on constructivist pedagogy is in contrast with the traditional notion of education where the teacher enters a didactic relationship with the learner. The role of a constructivist teacher is more dialectic; the teacher acts more as a facilitator, promoting discovery while stimulating problem-solving skills, curiosity, creativity, and originality. Wright, Grenier, and Seaman (2010) suggest that this helps the learner to get to his or her own understanding of the content. It may aid the learner in modifying existing knowledge and allow for creation of new knowledge. The following discussion outlines the discourse surrounding constructivism within a critical pedagogy.
Critical pedagogy and constructivism
Many researchers, including those in the physical education field, have made links between transformative pedagogies such as critical pedagogy and the many forms in which constructivist pedagogy manifests itself (e.g., Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006; Kirk, 2006; Richardson, 2003; Singleton, 2009). Importantly, and relevant to this study and subsequent discussion, Richardson (2003) distinguishes between two forms of constructivism: psychological and sociological (critical). The following discussion draws on Richardson’s (2003) distinctions, which, in my experience, often appear to go unnoticed by many physical education teachers, and by physical education teacher educators and their students.
Psychological constructivism
In Richardson’s (2003) view, psychological constructivism incorporates both cognitive and social constructivist perspectives. Wright et al. (2010) explicate this claim by making a clear distinction between cognitive and social constructivism. They suggest that cognitive constructivism is a dialectic process requiring learners to resolve the conflicts that can arise whenever they endeavour to bring cognitive coherence to new learning activities. Learners are said to have reached coherency once they construct, out of the new learning, new and more adequate cognitive structures. Social constructivists further suggest that the process of meaning making has a close relationship with the social environment and is enhanced when knowledge is constructed collectively and situated in authentic social contexts. Whereas traditional, dominant, behaviourist perspectives of teaching and learning strive for context independence, social constructivists view the student and the context in which the learning occurs as central to the learning itself.
Critical constructivism
According to Richardson (2003), sociological interpretations of constructivism, namely critical constructivism, consider a coming together of critical theory and constructivist notions of teaching and learning. Singleton (2009) contributes further to this definition, contending that constructivist perspectives of learning must consider the historical, social, and political context in which it is situated. In this view, knowledge is constructed and filtered by those who have power and influence over what constitutes validated knowledge. Essentially, those who have power and influence act as gatekeepers where information is “constructed or discarded” (Singleton, 2009, p. 332).
Mindful of this, critical constructivists argue that the purpose of education is “not to transmit a body of validated truths to students for memorization. Instead, critical constructivists argue that a central role of schooling involves engaging students in the knowledge production process” (Kincheloe, 2005, p. 3). In relating this idea more specifically to PETE, it becomes important that critically oriented curriculum and aligned PETE programmes should be “concerned with enabling their students to interrogate, analyse, interpret, and construct a wide variety of knowledges” (Singleton, 2009, p. 332), rather than having knowledge filtered and validated by gatekeepers, such as physical education teachers and teacher educators, who alone decide what constitutes “good pedagogy”.
The next section outlines the relevant research in this area. This is followed by the study methodology, a discussion of the results in relation to the literature presented, and some suggested recommendations for teachers and teacher educators of biomechanics and related sport and exercise science courses.
Relevant research
Research on biomechanics and its relationship to curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in senior secondary physical education, PETE, and related tertiary programmes is scant. However, there does appear to be some general consensus suggesting that many students have difficulty comprehending the content, and lack both long-term and integrated understanding (Darby, 2005; Gulyaev & Stonyer, 2002; Hsieh & Knudson, 2008; Knudson, Bauer, & Bahamonde, 2009; Knudson et al., 2003). International research, predominantly from the United States, states that the reasons for these difficulties vary but tend to revolve around epistemological and pedagogical considerations (May & Etkina, 2002). Darby (2005), for example, considers that in senior high school programmes “the teacher is seen as playing a pivotal role in identifying for the students familiar experiences that will help them to understand the unfamiliar” (p. 429). She suggests that the epistemological understanding and the consequent pedagogical choices made by the teacher are ultimately important in the learning process and unless the learners can identify with what is being taught and discussed then interest and motivation in science-related courses (such as biomechanics) will decrease as early as high school.
Similarly, Rizzolo et al. (2006) propose that pedagogical decisions and teacher behaviours in university kinesiology courses (a term used to describe sport and exercise science courses, particularly in the United States) are important factors in determining student learning and achievement. In discussing appropriate principles for the development of a clinical anatomy course, they propose that unless teachers’ pedagogical choices include constructivist learning environments where material is learned in context, retention and understanding is compromised.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, Culpan, Draper, and Stevens (2011) argue that the pedagogies reflected in tertiary sport and exercise science courses may have “lagged behind” and failed to maintain “currency with pedagogical development” (p. 55). In their study they looked to explore the curriculum content and pedagogical approaches used in PETE sport and exercise science courses and “provide a set of practical recommendations that will assist PETE programmes and their development of pedagogies suitable for the enhancement of learning in the exercise sciences” (p. 56). In essence they propose that these should provide authentic learning contexts and “forge link” between content knowledge, curriculum requirements and pedagogy, by promoting “contemporary pedagogies particularly of a constructivist and critical kind” (p. 61). They further argue that the “lessons learned” from science education provide a valued starting point for pedagogical development. They contend that “for effective pedagogies to be employed, students need to be given opportunities to link existing ideas and beliefs to real experiences in order to develop content knowledge” (p. 55). Intuitively, “forging links” between curriculum desires and pedagogical intentions, namely critical pedagogy, appears to manifest itself in clear understanding and adoption of constructivist teaching and learning perspectives. These matters lie at the heart of effective planning, development and delivery of biomechanics courses in senior secondary school physical education and related PETE programmes in Aotearoa New Zealand.
In Australia, where the physical education curriculum intentions are similar to those in Aotearoa New Zealand, Hay and Penney (2009) and Hay, Tinning, and Engstrom (2015) infer that assessment in both high school and tertiary physical education should promote learning and that it be attained through an authentic, valid, and socially just alignment of assessment, curriculum, and pedagogy. It is suggested that commonly adopted summative assessment strategies, such as the “final theory examinations”, are less authentic and not useful in “the real world” (Hay et al., 2015, p. 32). They further suggest that programme leaders should realise “the potential learning contribution of assessment” and “the formative relationship between assessment and pedagogical work and the merits of recognising assessment as a pedagogical act in itself” (p. 41). They suggest the nature and contexts for learning biomechanical content within high school physical education, physical education teacher education, and related programmes in tertiary education, are better to promote assessment as a form of “intended pedagogical work”, thus situating the learning within an authentic context and aligning with constructivist perspectives of learning.
The methodology of the study
In an attempt to capture the recent senior high school “biomechanics” experiences of a cohort of Year 1 beginning PETE students, a qualitative case study design was employed (Stake, 2003). To provide the detail required in the case descriptions (Stake, 2003), multiple sources of data gathering were used. These were: (1) individual, in-depth, semi-structured interviews, (2) individual participant responses to both closed and open questions from a questionnaire, and (3) electronic follow-ups with the interview participants to clarify information given in both the interview and their individual questionnaire.
Participants
In total, 57 of 63 PETE students who were beginning a compulsory first-year biomechanics course within an undergraduate PETE programme volunteered to participate in phase 1 of the study. In all, 31 of the participants were female and 26 were male. The average age of the participants was 19.7 years (SD = 2.98). Of these 57 participants, 11 were invited and agreed to participate in phase 2 of the study which involved an individual semi-structured interview.
Data collection
The study consisted of two phases of data collection. Phase 1 involved all 57 participants completing a 10-question questionnaire. In Phase 2, students were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview, to explore, in greater depth, the open questions (question 4–10) from the questionnaire.
In Phase 1, the questionnaire began with three closed questions requiring the participants to give a yes or no response. The first question asked participants if they believed that they had a positive learning experience in their senior high school biomechanics classes. The second question asked if they perceived this experience had affected their own learning of the biomechanical course content. The third question asked, given their high school experience with biomechanics, if they would choose biomechanics in their PETE programme, if it were optional. The final seven open-ended questions asked participants to provide detailed written responses on their perceived experiences as learners, and also their perceptions of the pedagogies they experienced, in their senior high school physical education biomechanics classes.
In Phase 2, a semi-structured interview was undertaken with the group of 11 voluntary student participants. The interview schedule was based on the participants’ individual responses to the open questions from the questionnaire and sought to explore all of these responses in greater depth, thus adding richness and detail to the data collected and the subsequent analysis and reporting (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). The interviews lasted between 30 and 40 minutes, were audiotaped verbatim, and transcribed. Follow-up emails clarified any areas of ambiguity and, upon approval by the participant, subsequent alterations were made to the original transcripts.
Data analysis
Data collected from the first three closed questions from the questionnaire were collated, analysed, and organised to convey essential characteristics by arranging the data in a more interpretable form (Creswell, 2008). This information is reported using percentage response rates and these are presented in the findings and discussion section below.
The qualitative data analysis placed a focus on the interview transcripts. The interview questions built on the participants’ questionnaire responses, and captured richer and more nuanced data from the participants. The qualitative data collected were then collated, and a thematic analysis generated the key themes of the study (Mutch, 2005). Final decisions regarding themes were made collaboratively with colleagues.
Reporting the data
Tell me and I will forget;
Show me and I may remember
Involve me and I will understand (Confucius)
Having identified the key themes, I could not help but draw a parallel to a proverb that adorns one of the corridors at the institution in which I work. Attributed to Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, I have adopted this as a mantra for my own teaching. While attempting to adhere to its overriding theme I have often found myself in educational settings where I am subtly manipulated by the social, historical, and often pervasive mechanisms that prevent me from employing student-centred, constructivist perspectives of teaching and learning and ultimately teaching within a critical pedagogy.
Similarly, when the study participants were recalling their senior high school experiences, it appears the three key themes that emerged from the analysis of the data tell a similar story. Firstly, the participants were quick to affirm that their previous senior high school biomechanics experiences were characterised by a traditional teacher-centred style of teaching where the teacher was the expert, and so he or she disseminated knowledge—Tell me and I will forget—while simultaneously denouncing this approach. Secondly, when recalling their personal experiences in senior high school biomechanics classes, the participants invariably saw great value in the use of visual representation to enhance their ability to understand and learn the biomechanical concepts. This ranged from the use of PowerPoint, physical demonstration, and projecting a digital recording of a movement performance for analysis and interpretation of biomechanical concepts and terminology—Show me and I may remember. Thirdly, participants strongly advocated for pedagogical strategies that gave them freedom to explore and gain understanding of biomechanics content in their own way, through their own experiences and (usually) their own sporting passions—Involve me and I will understand.
For the purposes of this article, I will present these three key themes using this proverb and discuss these themes in relation to the relevant research and literature presented above. Quotations from both the interview transcripts and the open questionnaire responses are used to describe the key themes discussed below. Pseudonyms are used to mask participants’ identities.
Findings and discussion
Tell me and I will forget
The first two questions in the questionnaire asked students if they had a positive learning experience in senior high school biomechanics classes and if this perceived experience affected their own learning of biomechanical course content. Seventy-six percent of all participants suggested that they had a negative pedagogical experience in their high school physical education biomechanics classes. Sixty-eight percent of those suggested that this had a negative effect on their high school learning experiences. When asked if biomechanics was a course of choice in their PETE programme, 53 percent of the questionnaire participants suggested that given their high school experiences they would not have chosen biomechanics in their current initial teacher education course if it was not a compulsory course in the programme. These participants produced a clear message about how they had, on the whole, been taught biomechanics and suggested that this contributed to their lack of interest and motivation to pursue this aspect of physical education. The following participant comment reflects this message.
We just looked at the board and got told what to do and [what to] read out of books as well. (Bob, questionnaire)
Stanley’s (2007) commentary on teaching biomechanics proposes that new ways of delivering an old message are required if physical educators, both teachers and teacher educators, are to reignite this subject as an exciting and relevant one (both for themselves and their students). We need, he says, “to make it understandable and exciting for teachers and thereby create a flow on effect to the students” (p. 25). The participants’ responses supported this view. When asked to comment on the pedagogies they had experienced, students appeared to condemn the traditional, didactic, teacher-centred approach and instead advocate for greater inclusion of student-centred approaches that allowed them to interact with content that was positioned in authentic contexts.
[The teacher] should get us involved in activities and problems to give us a better understanding on how these concepts work in real situations. (Cathy, questionnaire)
In Aotearoa New Zealand, evidence and commentary in the literature indicate that the pedagogical approaches in the sport and exercise sciences, including biomechanics courses, generally do not reflect the principles and objectives of the national curriculum or indeed the pedagogical approaches promoted in the physical education literature (Culpan et al., 2011). However, Culpan and Bruce (2007) reinforce the need for both physical education teachers and teacher educators to develop an understanding of critical pedagogy, and in doing so this requires an understanding of both sociological and psychological perspectives of teaching and learning. Unfortunately, as Culpan (2008) suggests, many physical education teachers may have not taken the opportunity to do so.
This appears to be a global concern, as international research suggests that physical educators rarely use the variety of pedagogical approaches available, relying instead on the traditional teacher-centred approach (see, for example, Curtner-Smith 1999; Curtner-Smith, Todorovich, McCaughtry, & Lacon, 2000; Kirk, 2005). As von Glasersfeld (2001) argues, pedagogical practice often continues to be based on long-standing assumptions about the nature of knowledge and its acquisition that are entrenched in society, rather than sound epistemological and pedagogical understanding.
The participants in this study were clear in advocating for a preference for learning environments constructed around student-centred pedagogies within authentic contexts, as is evident in the following participant statement.
[What we experienced was] mostly direct teaching of it; it wasn’t really, um, the students weren’t really given the opportunity to, like, find out information themselves, like research or anything like that. It was pretty direct teaching… she just taught in a classroom situation. (Martin, interview)
The participants in this study consistently referred to constructivist pedagogies that, on the whole, appeared to be, from their comments, uncommonly employed by teachers. Rizzolo et al. (2006) propose that this is potentially problematic and that unless teachers create an environment where material is learned in context, retention and understanding is compromised. The participants’ comments thus support Darby’s (2005) claim that disengagement and lack of understanding from science-related courses, such as biomechanics, typically occurs during students’ secondary education, and often early in that education, because teachers rarely make connections to students’ own experiences and values.
Show me and I may remember
Consistent with their comments tending towards student-centred pedagogies, the students who participated in the study invariably said they wanted to explore the content of biomechanics through practical application. Many saw visual representation of activities to be beneficial and a way of beginning to present the content in a more understandable way.
I like diagrams as well, I don’t just like words. I like diagrams, demonstrations and, like, videos, and stuff like that to help me understand the concepts. I get too bored just writing the words down and stuff and I just don’t get it! She [the teacher] tried to show it on a video or watch a game, which was quite good for me because it kinda related to, you know, what sport I’m doing, and kinda stuck a little bit better… but it didn’t happen often. (Kelly, interview)
Interestingly, the PETE biomechanics programme at the centre of this study is currently taught in large cohort lectures. The large cohort model is a result of consistent institutional pressure to combine small cohorts into larger more economically viable cohorts. In this instance, best efforts are made to deliver the course content through oral presentation, power-points, digital media and other visual representations. However, while at face value this appears compatible with many of the participants calls for visual representation as a better way of delivering content and therefore providing a better learning experience for them, it is noteworthy that this type of large lecture delivery is constantly critiqued as an ineffective form of teaching and learning (for examples, see Cleveland-Innes & Emes 2005; Hrepic, Zollman, & Rebello, 2007; Roselli & Brophy 2006; Zepke, Leach, & Prebble, 2006).
An emphasis on large lectures should not be interpreted to mean that there is a lack of epistemological and pedagogical knowledge on the teacher educators’ part to support alternative pedagogies; nor that all teaching and learning in PETE is lecture-based. It is this author’s experience, though, that lecture-based instruction, with its heavy bias toward content transmission, continues to be employed in universities and teacher education programmes, perhaps increasingly so in these economically straitened times. There is an emphasis on efficient content delivery as a cost-control exercise (my own institution being a case in point). The result of these pressures is that, in essence, preservice and inservice teachers themselves are taught, and have modelled for them, the types of teaching that arguably leads to ineffective learning outcomes for them and their students. While these critiqued modes of content delivery in tertiary education do appear, from the research, to limit this “virtuous” pedagogical cycle, some, including myself, consider that teachers can, even when facing such constraints, deliver content in relatively easy ways that have meaning and relevance for contemporary student teachers and their eventual students.
Zepke et al. (2005), for example, provide valuable insights for tertiary institutions and their teachers when researching retention rates of first-year students across many curriculum areas, who are typically taught lecture-mode in large classes. They found that student learning and achievement and therefore motivation were enhanced when teachers related content and examples to the students in the class and when they used a variety of teaching methods appropriate to the students’ characteristics, needs and assumptions.
Darby (2005) and Rizzolo et al. (2006) also offer guidance through their lists of teacher behaviours that appear to enhance student learning, which can be applied to PETE and physical education teaching in schools. They collectively suggest that teachers in both senior high school and tertiary level science-related courses should be enthusiastic, friendly, non-threatening, encouraging, understandable, and attentive, and that teachers’ epistemological understandings should be manifested through the greater use and implementation of learner-centred pedagogies. Their suggestions include presenting subject content in multiple formats, providing common case studies or examples to drive student enquiry, ensuring problem-oriented pedagogy, promoting group process, emphasising self-assessment over examination performance, and extending course assessment to cover students’ professional practice contexts.
Involve me and I will understand
Data gathered from the questionnaire, and all 11 students interviewed, spoke at some length about their preference for pedagogical strategies that gave them freedom to explore and gain understanding of biomechanics content in their own way, through their own experiences and (usually) their sporting passions. The following interview sequence illustrates the students’ preferences on this matter.
Interviewer: You have said that you are confident in a couple of areas, projectile motion and balance and stability. Why the confidence in these as opposed to the other concepts?
John: Because I play a lot of sports where projectile motion is used, like golf and cricket and things like that, where you have to use it in a practical sense I guess, all the other parts of it come in, but things like projectile motion, because I play a lot of cricket. I guess that was just the one that sort of stuck in my mind a bit more, because I was using it in my sports in a practical sense.
Interviewer: So you made those connections yourself outside of the classroom?
John: Yep … yeah, maybe because when the teacher was teaching projectile motion, she might not have used cricket as an example, so using the knowledge I was taught I could then add it to my sport.
Interviewer: So what you are saying is through your cricketing experiences …?
John: (interrupting the interviewer) I understood the content a lot more.
All of the interviewed participants, and a majority of the questionnaire responses, argued for physical education teachers and PETE lecturers to create more motivating and engaging lessons through greater student involvement, with that involvement allowing them to construct meaning of the content through their own experiences. This is consistent with Roselli and Brophy (2006) who found that students did not achieve deep understanding of biomechanics concepts unless it had personal relevance for them and unless their teachers employed a variety of pedagogical strategies, including active, experiential learning opportunities and providing opportunities for students to make connections to their own lives and experiences.
Many, including myself, see the solution to this problem lying in the teacher’s ability to construct an authentic learning context that draws on students’ prior experiences (Culpan et al., 2011; Darby, 2005; Kirk & McPhail, 2002). This, according to Darby (2005), is vital for students gaining an “understanding [of] the unfamiliar” (p. 429). I would argue that the ability to achieve more authentic learning environments in physical education contexts relies on the educators’ (both physical education teachers and teacher educators) ability to teach within a critical pedagogy. To do this, educators must be equipped to understand and deconstruct the historical, political, and social construction of their existing pedagogical behaviours. This is not an easy task but relies on an abrupt confrontation of existing epistemological and pedagogical assumptions through a deliberate and coherent examination of sociological (critical) constructivist perspectives of teaching and learning. By doing so, physical education teachers and teacher educators may be exposed to the power imbalances associated with traditional teacher-centred pedagogies and be provided with opportunities to develop and change their pedagogical behaviours. As previously discussed, and importantly in the context of this paper, this also needs to be aligned with an understanding of psychological constructivist perspectives of teaching and learning as a means of implementing power neutral classrooms associated with critical pedagogies as reflected in literature relating to the health and physical education learning area of NZC (e.g., see Gillespie & Culpan, 2000; Culpan & Bruce, 2007; Culpan, 2008).
Commentators suggest that physical education classes and sport practices lend themselves well to social (psychological) constructivist pedagogy because they contain environments favouring social interaction and authentic contexts, such as those evident within team sports (Kirk & Macdonald, 1998; Kirk & McPhail 2002). Unlike many other curriculum areas, physical education learning contexts that involve games and sports are often played and learned in highly complex and dynamic social settings, and it seems logical, with respect to the above concerns, that knowledge construction and the teaching and learning processes are best enhanced when declarative and procedural forms of knowledge are explicitly linked to conditional and situated and more authentic forms of knowledge (Kirk & Macdonald, 1998; Kirk & McPhail, 2002). This linking, which is brought about through questioning and discovery, allows learners to draw on past experiences, make meaning from, and gain a better understanding of the content as it is presented. Such authentic contexts ensure that quality teaching and learning environments are reflective of epistemological decisions that blend learning theory with curriculum intentions and an appropriately aligned pedagogical approach.
However, despite the apparent enhancements that physical education courses have gained or might gain through adoption of such approaches, research shows that generally teachers struggle to comprehend let alone implement effective (psychological – cognitive and social) constructivist environments (Windschitl, 2002). Reasons given by some researchers include; a lack of depth in subject content and insufficient knowledge and skills concerning the pedagogy required to provide and support such environments (Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006). Thus, as Windschitl (2002) implies, teachers gain a sense of comfort by defaulting back to the control that the entrenched teacher-centred, direct instruction methodology that traditional preservice teacher education accords them. This has significant implications for PETE providers who espouse something other than the ‘traditional’ methods of preservice teacher education. If critically oriented PETE programmes such as the one at the heart of this study are to equip developing physical education teachers with the necessary skills to provide constructivist learning environments within a critical pedagogy, then all courses within that programme must themselves be epistemologically and pedagogically aligned.
Therefore, in addressing critical pedagogy and accompanying notions of social justice in biomechanics, physical education teachers and teacher educators should engage in pedagogies, namely social and cognitive (psychological) constructivist perspectives of teaching and learning, that empower learners to control the nature, content and production of knowledge and their own learning. Learners generate new knowledge through their own or collective enquiries to explore biomechanical concepts and challenges.
An example of this thinking is evident in the Australian context where Hay and Penney (2009) argued that assessment in physical education should promote learning and that it be attained through an “authentic, valid and socially just alignment of assessment, curriculum and pedagogy” (p. 390). More recently Hay et al. (2015) continue to provide a compelling argument to include assessment as a planned and “intended” form of constructivist pedagogy in the sport and exercise science. They argue that the most common form of assessment practice is summative written tests and examinations of pre-planned content which is framed under a traditional, and arguably archaic, teaching paradigm. (This is also the case in the biomechanics course that the study participants are currently enrolled.) Hay et al. (2015) further contend that these forms of assessment are inauthentic and of little use in “the real world” and propose that assessments that are driven by enquiry and therefore assessment, when viewed as a pedagogical practice in itself, will lead to better learning outcomes for students.
Considering this in an Aotearoa New Zealand context, the NCEA achievement standards relating to biomechanics, which are mostly internally assessed, become the task or focus of enquiry. physical education teachers facilitate learning by providing the students the freedom to explore, enquire, and analyse contexts which are meaningful and relevant to them. This provides the scope for students to work independently or collectively to control the direction of the enquiry and the context in which it is explored, thus providing a far more authentic context than a context predetermined by the teacher. While this would appear to be common sense, it appears from the participants’ responses it is not at all common. Given the close relationship between health and physical education within NZC and the NCEA assessment standards, this would also appear to better align curriculum intentions, pedagogical approaches and assessment in both high school and tertiary ITE environments.
Towards a more pedagogically informed approach to teaching and assessing biomechanics in NZC
In Aotearoa New Zealand, teachers are required to consider and align their pedagogical decisions cognisant of the philosophical intentions of NZC. The literature surrounding health and physical education in NZC suggests that constructivist teaching and learning within critical pedagogy is the intended method of successfully implementing health and physical education but it appears that teachers may still have way to go to achieve this aim. (Gillespie & Culpan, 2000; Culpan & Bruce, 2007; Culpan, 2008; Tinning, 2012).
I have argued, cognisant of Freirean notions of social justice in education where issues of power and control over the content and production of knowledge is contended, that critical pedagogy and notions of criticality in biomechanics are considered. It is contended that physical education teachers and teacher educators should engage with both sociological (critical) and psychological (social and cognitive) perspectives of constructivist teaching and learning, specifically in this case those teaching biomechanics content, if they are to philosophically and pedagogically align with health and education within NZC. This would enable teachers to empower learners to control the nature, content, and production of knowledge and control their own learning. New knowledge is generated through individual or collective enquiries of biomechanical concepts and challenges.
I have also argued that assessment, when promoted as an intended form of “pedagogical work” may have positive effects on student learning in both high school physical education and PETE biomechanics courses. Therefore, it is proposed that a more coherent and intentional alignment of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment may enable high school physical education teachers, PETE educators, and PETE student teachers, upon graduating, to effectively transmit content into meaningful, authentic and more understandable forms.
Mindful of the above discussion, I would contend that physical education teachers, PETE educators, and PETE student teachers may benefit by:
•embracing the body of contemporary knowledge and research on pedagogy that education and specifically teacher education boasts. It appears that with careful planning and reformation, which includes the careful integration of pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment strategies that are cognisant and informed by both sociological (critical) and psychological (cognitive and social) perspectives of teaching and learning and are enquiry-based and student-centred in nature, biomechanics within senior high school physical education programmes and related PETE programmes may be enhanced.
•becoming more knowledgeable of the concepts of cognitive and social (psychological) constructivism and be able to differentiate this from critical (sociological) constructivism. Within NZC, physical education teachers’ knowledge of critical constructivism becomes an important tool for unpacking the historical, social, and political context of knowledge and learning and therefore enabling greater understanding of critical pedagogy and aligned constructivist perspectives of teaching and learning.
•presenting biomechanical concepts in multiple formats, providing common case studies or examples to drive student enquiry, ensuring problem-oriented pedagogy and promoting group process. Specifically, biomechanics content and examples should be authentic and related to the students’ sporting desires and passions. This requires physical education teachers to consider their own practice and engage in self-reflection where resulting pedagogical changes empowers students to take control and direction of their own learning.
•drawing on psychological (social and cognitive) constructivist perspectives of teaching and learning, such as small group work and enquiry tasks that move students away from the large class style learning or in the case of universities, the large lecture cohort model.
•ensuring that course assessments are authentic and meaningful to each individual student, are driven by enquiry that emphasises self-assessment over examination performance, and consider using authentic contexts such as the students’ own sporting interests or, in the case of PETE students, the students’ professional practice environment.
If physical education teachers and teacher educators, specifically those who teach courses in biomechanics, become more transparent, receptive, and adaptive to new pedagogies, their students are likely to gain from the experience. If physical education teachers and teacher educators engage and wrestle with alternative forms of delivery, such as critical pedagogy, opportunities will likely emerge to further develop and enhance a special form of professional understanding and delivery of biomechanics content that is based on constructivist, student-centred pedagogies that simultaneously align with curriculum intentions and assessment structures—in support of student learning and achievement.
References
Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and the curriculum (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203241219
Burrows, L., & Wright, J. (2004). The good life: New Zealand children’s perspectives on health and self, Sport, Education and Society, 9(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357332042000233930
Cleveland-Innes, M., & Emes, C. (2005). Principles of learner-centered curriculum: Responding to the call for change in higher education. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35(4), 85–110.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Culpan, I. (1996/97). Physical education? Liberate it or confine it to the gymnasium? Delta, Vol 48, (2), Vol 49, (1), 203–219.
Culpan, I. (2004). Physical education curriculum development: A humanist positioning. In A. M. O’Neill, J. Clark, & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Reshaping culture, knowledge and learning: Policy and content in the New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Culpan, I. (2008). Physical education and the New Zealand curriculum: Maximising the opportunity. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 41(3), 51–61.
Culpan, I., & Bruce, J. (2007). New Zealand physical education and critical pedagogy: Refocusing the curriculum. International Journal of Sport and Health Sciences, 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5432/ijshs.5.1
Culpan, I., Draper, N., & Stevens, S. (2011). Physical education, exercise science and pedagogy: Forging the links. International Journal of Sport and Health Science, 9, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.5432/ijshs.20100035
Curtner-Smith, M. D. (1999). The more things change the more they stay the same: Factors influencing teachers’ interpretations and delivery of national curriculum physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 4(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357332990040106
Curtner-Smith, M. D., Todorovich, J. R., McCaughtry, N. A., & Lacon, S. A. (2000). Influence of the national curriculum for physical education on inner city teachers’ use of teaching styles. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(1), A-68.
Darby, L. (2005). Science students’ perceptions of engaging pedagogies. Research in Science Education, 35, 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-4488-4
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fernandez-Balboa, J. M. (1997). Physical education teacher preparation in the postmodern era: Towards a critical pedagogy. In J. M. Fernandez-Balboa (Ed.), Critical postmodernism in human movement, physical education, and sport (pp. 121–138). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London, England: Penguin Education.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Gillespie, L., & Culpan, I. (2000). Critical thinking: Ensuring the ‘education’ aspect is evident in physical education. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 33(3), 84–96.
Gulyaev, S. A., & Stonyer, H. R. (2002). Making a map of science: General systems theory as a conceptual framework for tertiary science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 753–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126504
Hastie, P. A., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006). Influence of a hybrid sport education—Teaching Games for Understanding unit on one teacher and his students. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 11(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980500466813
Hay, P. J., & Penney, D. (2009). Proposing conditions for assessment efficacy in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X09364294
Hay, P. J., Tinning, R., & Engstrom, C. (2015). Assessment as pedagogy: A consideration of pedagogical work and the preparation of kinesiology professionals. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(1), 31–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.788145
Hrepic, Z., Zollman, D. A., & Rebello, N. S. (2007). Comparing students’ and experts’ understanding of the content of a lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9048-4
Hsieh, C., & Knudson, D. (2008). Student factors related to learning in biomechanics. Sports Biomechanics, 7(3), 398–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763140802233207
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8224-5
Kirk, D. (2005). Future prospects for teaching games for understanding. In L. L. Griffin & J. I. Butler (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research and practice (pp. 213–227). Champaign, Il.: Human Kinetics.
Kirk, D. (2006). Sport education, critical pedagogy, and learning theory: Towards an intrinsic justification for physical education and youth sport. Quest, 58, 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2006.10491882
Kirk, D., & Macdonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.17.3.376
Kirk, D., & McPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.21.2.177
Knudson, D., Bauer, J., & Bahamonde, R. (2009). Correlates of learning in introductory biomechanics. Perceptual Motor Skills, 108(2), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.108.2.499-504
Knudson, D., Noffal, G., Bauer, J., McGinnis, P., Bird, M., Chow, J. (2003). Development and evaluation of a biomechanics concept inventory. Sports Biomechanics, 2(2), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763140308522823
Macdonald, D. (2003). Curriculum change and the postmodern world: Is the school reform project an anachronism? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270210157605
May, D. B., & Etkina, E. (2002). College physics students’ epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning. American Journal of Physics. 70(9), 1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1503377
Ministry of Education. (1999). Health and physical education in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Mutch, C. (2005). Doing educational research. A practitioner’s guide to getting started. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00303.x
Rizzolo, L. J., Stewart, W. B., O’Brien, M., Haims, A., Rando, W., Abrahams, J. (2006). Design principles for developing an efficient clinical anatomy course. Medical Teacher, 28(2), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500343065
Roselli, R. J., & Brophy, S. P. (2006). Effectiveness of challenge-based instruction in biomechanics. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00906.x
Singleton, E. (2009). From command to constructivism: Canadian secondary school physical education curriculum and teaching games for understanding. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(2), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2009.00445.x
Stake, R. E. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 134–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stanley, S. (2007). Thinking about biomechanics: Why biomechanics? Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 40(3), 25.
Tinning, R. (1991). Teacher education pedagogy: Dominant discourses and the process of problem setting. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11(2), 1–20.
Tinning, R. (2008). Pedagogy, sport pedagogy and the field of kinesiology. Quest, 60, 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483589
Tinning, R. (2012). A socially critical HPE (aka physical education) and the challenge for teacher education. In B. Down & J. Smyth (Eds.), Critical voices in teacher education: Teaching for social justice in conservative times (pp. 223–238). Netherlands: Springer.
Tinning, R., Kirk, D., & Evans, J. (1993). Learning to teach physical education. New York: Prentice Hall.
von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). Radical constructivism and teaching. Perspectives, 31(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03220058
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002131
Wright, S., Grenier, M., & Seaman, J. (2010). An interdisciplinary view of “constructivism” in kinesiology. Quest, 62, 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2010.10483642
Zepke, N., Leach, L., & Prebble, T. (2006). Being learner centred: One way to improve student retention. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600923418
Zepke, N., Leach, L., Prebble, T., Campbell, A., Coltman, D., Dewart, B. (2005). Improving tertiary student outcomes in the first year of study. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
The author
Glenn Fyall is a lecturer in Physical Education and Sport Curriculum and Pedagogy at the College of Education, Health and Human Development at the University of Canterbury. Glenn lectures in the Bachelor of Education (Physical Education) where he prepares students to teach secondary school physical education. Glenn also teaches into the Bachelor of Sport Coaching and the Graduate Certificate of Sport Coaching where he prepares students for many careers related to the sport Industry. Glenn’s current research interests focus upon understanding and developing effective “workplace learning” in relation to physical education teachers and high performance sport coaches.
Email: glenn.fyall@canterbury.ac.nz