The teacher-as-researcher and the future survival of physical education

Birçok araştırmacı, sınaî öğretim modelinin (yani yıllar boyu 'eğitilmiş' öğrenciler üzerine yoğunlaşan modelin) sanayi sonrası eğitim sistemi için artık uygun olmadığını ileri sürmüştür. Bu düşünceyi ve Kirk'ün (2010) Physical Education Futures adlı kitabında tanımladığı üç muhtemel geleceği göz önüne alan bu çalışma, öğretmenlerin beden eğitiminin gelecekte de devam etmesi konusunda kilit rol oynadıklarını ileri sürmektedir. Beden eğitiminin sınaî modeli, öğretmenlik için spor tekniklerinin (en çok da takım oyunlarının) anlama ve akıllı performans pahasına gelişmesini ön planda tutan bir yaklaşım oluşmasına neden olmuştur. Muhtemel geleceklerden biri (ve şu anda en muhtemel gözüken) Kirk'ün 'sürekli aynı' olarak tanımladığı gelecektir. Bu cevapla beden eğitimi, oyunları ve oyun tekniklerini ön plana çıkaracak ve bu yaklaşım için gittikçe artan memnuniyetsizliği de göz ardı edecektir. Hiç bir şeyi değiştirmemeye yönelik böylesine kesin bir karar, er ya da geç Kirk'ün (2010) ikinci gelecek tahminiyle sonuçlanacaktır: yok olma. Böyle bir son, konumuzun eğitimsiz profesyoneller tarafından belki de Wii gibi bilgisayar konsolları aracılığıyla yönetilen günlük fiziksel aktivitelerin yerini aldığına ya da konunun tekrar gündeme geldiğine şahit olabilir. Üçüncü gelecek 'radikal reform'dur ve bu çalışma, böyle bir değişimin sınıflarda öğretmenlerin uzmanlığında yürütülmesi gerektiğini ileri sürmektedir. Böylece, beden eğitimini kurtarıp canlandırmak için gerekli olan değişikliklerin uygulanabilmesini sağlayan bir araç olarak, eylem araştırması adı altında uygulama araştırması yapılmasını tavsiye ediyoruz.

Araştırmacı öğretmen ve beden eğitiminin gelecekte hayatta kalışı

Many have suggested that the industrial model of schooling (i.e. one that concentrates on the year-on-year production of 'educated' students) is no longer suitable for a post-industrial education system. With this in mind, and in considering the three possible futures described by Kirk (2010) in his book Physical Education Futures, this paper suggests that teachers hold the key to the future survival of physical education. The industrial model of physical education has led to the evolution of an approach to teaching that foregrounds the development of sport-techniques (most especially in team games) at the expensive of understanding and intelligent performance. One possible future (and the one that looks most likely at this time) is what Kirk called 'more of the same.' With this response physical education will continue to foreground games and their techniques and ignore the growing dissatisfaction around this approach. Such a resolute decision to change nothing will lead - either quickly or slowly - to the second of Kirk's (2010 futures: extinction. Such an end might see our subject replaced with daily physical activity overseen by untrained professionals, perhaps on computer consoles such as the wii, or the eradica tion of the subject altogether. The third future is 'radical reform' and this paper suggests that such change needs to be driven by teachers with their expertise in classrooms. In doing this we recommend practitioner research, under the guise of action research, as the means through which to discover and then enact the changes needed to save and rejuvenate physical education.

PDF

___

1. Barthes R. (1977). Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill and Wang.
2. Brookfield S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
3. Brookfield S. (1997). On the certainty of public shaming: working with students 'who just don't get it', Improving Student Learning, Symposium, 17-31.
4. Carter K. (1998). Action research in partnership: Establishing teachers as key players on the school effectiveness stage. Educational Action Research, 6 (2), 275-303.
5. Casey A, Dyson B, Campbell A. (2009). Action research in physical education: focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning. Educational Action Research, 17 (3), 407-423.
6. Casey A, Dyson B. (2009). One teacher's attempts, through action research, to use models-based practice. European Physical Education Review, 15 (2), 175-199.
7. Casey A. (2010a). Educational action research: a means of coping with the systemic demands for continual professional development in physical education?. Paper to be presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Warwick.
8. Casey A. (2010b). Moving my own goal posts: reflective practice as a means of pedagogical change in physical education. Paper presented to the 16th International Reflective Practice Conference, University of Bedfordshire, UK.
9. Casey A. (2010c) Practitioner research in physical education: Teacher transformation through pedagogical and curricular change. (Unpublished PhD). Leeds Metropolitan University.
10. Cochran-Smith M, Lytle SL. (2007). Everything's ethics. (A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-Smith,Ed.), An ethical approach to practitioner research: Dealing with issues and dilemmas in action research (p. 24-41). London: Routledge.
11. Collier J. (1945/2005). The Institute of Ethnic Affairs. (B. Cooke & J.W. Cox, Ed.), Fundamentals of Action Research: Volume 1. The Early Years (p. 57-67). London: Sage.
12. Dewey J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed, School Journal, 54: 77-80 (accessed from: http://dewey.pragmatism. org/creed.htm on 25/3/09)
13. Doyle D. (2007).Transdisciplinaryenquiry: Researching with rather than on. (A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-Smith, Ed.), An ethical approach to practitioner research (p. 75-87). New York: Routledge.
14. Elliott J. (1976-1977/2007). Developing hypotheses about classrooms from teachers' practical constructs: An account of the work of the Ford Teaching Project. (J. Elliott, Ed.), Reflecting where the action is: The selected Works of John Elliottip. 30-61). London: Routledge.
15. Elliott J. (1983/2007). A curriculum for the study of human affairs: The contribution of Lawrence Stenhouse. (J. Elliott, Ed.), Reflecting where the action is: The selected works of John Elliott, (p. 15-29). London: Routledge. .
16. Elliot J. (1991). A model of professionalism and its implications for teacher. British Educational Research Journal, 17 (4), 309-318
17. Foucault M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Allen and Unwin.
18. Fullan M. (1999). Change Forces: The Seguel. London: Falmer.
19. Graham G. (1981). Research on teaching physical education: A discussion with Larry Locke and Daryl Siedentop. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1(1), 3-15.
20. Groundwater-Smith S, Mockler N. (2005). Practitioner research in education: Beyond celebration. British Educational Research Association Conference, Liverpool Hope University, UK.
21. Hamilton D. (1990). Learning about education: An Unfinished Curriculum, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
22. Hargreaves A. (1982). The Rhetoric of School-Centred Innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies,14 (3), 251-266.
23. Hargreaves A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers' Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. New York: Teachers College Press.
24. Kirk D. (1995). Action Research and Educational Reform in Physical Education. Pedagogy in Practice, 1, 4-21.
25. Kirk D. (2010). Physical Education Futures. London: Routledge
26. Lawson H.A. (2009). Paradigms, exemplars and social change, Sport, Education and Society, 14,77-100.
27. Lewin K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34-46.
28. Locke L. (1992). Changing Secondary School Physical Education. Quest, 44, 361-372.
29. Lundgren U. (1983). Curriculum theory, between hope and happening: Text and context in curriculum. Geelong: Deakin University.
30. Martinek TJ, Butt K. (1988). An application of an action research model for changing instructional practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 214-220.
31. McKay J, Gore J, Kirk D. (1990). Beyond the limits of technocratic physical education, Quest, 42 (1), 52-75.
32.McKenna J, Dunstan-Lewis N. (2004). An action research approach to supporting elite student-athletes in higher education. European Physical Education-Review, 10,179-198.
33. McNiff J. (2002). Action research for teachers: A practical guide. London: David Fulton Publishers.
34. Medina J. (2008). Brain Rules: 12 principles of surviving and thriving at work, home and school. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
35. Meyer H, Hamilton B, Kroeger S, Stewart S, Brydon-Miller M. (2004). The unexpected journey: Renewing our commitment to students through educational action research. Educational Action Research, 12 (4), 557-573.
36. Rolfe G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53 (3), 304-310.
37. Schempp P. (1987). Research on teaching in physical education: Beyond the limits of natural science. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 6,111-121.
38.Siedentop D. (2002). Content knowledge for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 368-377.
39. Smith A, Thurston M, Lamb K, Green K. (2007). Young people's participation in National Curriculum Physical Education: A study of 15-16 year olds in Northwest England and North-East Wales. European Physical Education Review, 13,165-194.
40. Somekh B, Zeichner K. (2009). Action research for educational reform: Remodelling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17 (1), 5-21.
41. Stenhouse L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.
42. Stringer E. (1996). Action research: A guide for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Tinning Rl. (1987). Beyond the development of a utilitarian teaching perspective: An Australian case study of action research. (G.T. Barrette, R.S. Feingold, C.R. Rees, & M. Pieron, Ed.), Myths, models and methods in sport pedagogy (p.113 - 122). Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
44. Zeichner K. (2001). Educational action research. (P. Reason & H. Bradbury, Ed.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (p. 273-283). London: Sage.