The Perfect Storm of Learning Conditions in Physical Education (PE)

A bit of a long ramble here as I end the year much learned and probably just as confused, if not more, on what are our intentions, objectives, directions, etc. Looking forward to a good rest and a better 2021.

As usual, I try spent time skimming through the world of skill acquisition as best as I can via social media. It is not easy to strike up a face-to-face conversation in this area if you try to do it outside of formal professional development time where even then, it needs strong encouragement to get conversations going. The big assumption I made here (not the best assumption for a holistic picture of PE but adequate for what I want to share here) is that skill acquisition is a big part of our job as PE teachers and it is necessary for us to think about it in order to do better. For us, skills also mean dealing with life competencies, character development, etc. I believe it is important for us to be aware to some extent our role as teachers in general and teachers of skill. The education climate needs to ensure student personal development and sometimes it is easy to take sole responsibility for this in subjects where outcomes are also life affecting, i.e. PE. It is a challenge to see this in perspective. More so in professional development attempts at working towards being a better teacher. Do we spent time on the science and art of skill acquisition (which is broad and also includes affective influencers) or focus more on exploring affective education implementation. Shall we focus on these two broad areas separately? This is  an issue that has been debated for long time, died down and sometimes appearing again as objectives of PE become loosely unraveled. When this happens, instant activities are desired for its affective outcome, i.e. giving fun. Being active is relegated as a proxy to healthy living. It seems like stopgap measures. Times like this, we provide PE that is activity focused, as we work towards learners’ immediate well-being, having fun, getting a break, etc. I won’t be surprised that many education scheduling of programmes in this disruptive COVID times include PE for this specific purpose.

As we head towards the end of the academic year from where I am from, we have an awkward two weeks period where PE resumes before school closes for the holiday. There is some concern on my part as to how we approach this and reflecting my insecurities about how we delivering PE. The main questions for me are;

• Is it possible to work towards an explicit education aim and an implicit immediate aim to send students off on a play high at the end of an academic year (or module, term, etc.)?
• Why is there a tension in needing to choose between these hypothetical extremes when there is the claim that explicit skill acquisition via understanding will build up that fun in learning naturally? Our students differentiate very explicitly play and learning. Why? Where did we go wrong?
• Is this tension between the expectations of instant gratification of play that gets in the way of the longer runway of deliberate learning a good tension or are we barking up the wrong tree totally?

I believe a possible missing link to the above questions is the lack of realisation that sometimes we are forcing direct input-output expectations (I want A from introducing B) with learning processes (In order to achieve B, I need to consider process C which requires specific inputs) and there is a mismatch in expectations. I do believe is possible to have both but it requires a balancing act.

My header suggest a fixation of the perfect condition, or rather a hint to the frustrations of models, theories and everything else laying down their claims that seems difficult to fit in to practise. That is exactly what that got me re-looking at my own issues with the field. Inevitably, I spent a lot of time looking into the mechanics of delivering successful skill acquisition experiences. Much of these involve the sciences of the body in context. I am inspired to go further and try to understand the role of movement within our world. This requires some acknowledgement of the importance of philosophy of existence, i.e. how and why do we behave for survival and recreation. It is a lot to think about in wanting to teach in schools but not surprising when at times we are also expected to take care of the affective.

In a recent PE conference I attended, there was a panel discussion session with successful individuals in the area of coaching, sports administration and academia. As much as I listen and take in to their thoughts of movement provision and education, I also wonder what it will be like to deliberately also listen to failures of our attempts to provide good PE in schools. This will allow us to know better the problems that we want to fix. Then almost immediately I realised that our efforts in fixing generalised problems of others (or even emulating successes of others) results is our own generalisation biasedness. It becomes a potentially flawed inductive process of generalising from specific outcomes, especially when there is not a strong physical literacy consensus.

While at policy and broad decision-making level, it is normal to suss out issues and solutions by first identifying problems of others or common ones, this process at the student-teacher level might result in non-learner centred expectations. Learners do not want to know what they do not know. Therefore, any attempts to force a non-learner problem realisation on them is unidirectional. The concept of decomposing a skill seems to be to about providing a solution for the learner based on a problem they have not experienced. These activities may be decontextualized but are solutions to problems that are yet to be experienced by the learner. There are contemporary approaches that attempts to put some responsibility on the individual learner to create learning by generating an action to overcome an immediate scenario where realisation of what is happening is as important as the next step to overcoming it.

Figure 1

While listening to the presenters and coming away with loads of information, I am very aware that my background understanding of my profession was probably giving me very different perspective than someone else that differs from my views. This contributes to inconsistency amongst us. A big reason for it are the different views of our expectations. The questions put in by attendees were mainly questions that begin with the word “How”. This most of the time points to a problem already identified by a listener or presented by the speaker and the need to find a solution for it. In a particular presentation that included an example of a video of a teacher using a learner centred strategy, one concern that was shared was the lack of proper technique shown. This concern on correct technique may point to a very specific concern in learning which differs from that of the presenter.

A popular view for learning is mechanical linearity, starting from the deconstructed parts and building it up to the whole. For example, technique shapes behaviour and not the other way. It is a challenge to accept that it is possible to be holistic without focusing on the specifics first. If so, we need to accept that not all successful techniques will end up looking exact when they are equally effective in achieving outcome. There is room for both approaches when considering the below.

Linearity in learning discussion seems to focus very much on movement and not so much on the motivation to do it that may not be clearly connected to task and environment. This brings to mind the learner’s emotional state what may contribute to this. Optimal Theory of Motor Learning (Wulf), Optimizing Performance Through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning, brings in this aspect. Cognitive Evaluation Theory, (Deci), looks into motivation in a comprehensive way when considering actions.  

One area of influence that is suggested above is the learner’s need to actualise the teacher’s expectations (see Fig 1). Chances are, when the teacher’s expectations are aligned to neurobiological and affective processes for learning at a particular point of learning, we can expect progress that is more efficient. The centre of Fig 1 suggest a scenario where learner’s in-situ movement problem meets the needs of the expected established movement solution and the teachers creating an environment that supports that solution.

If you look at the Venn diagram in Fig 1, I believe a teaching situation can be effectively initiated at different points on the diagram, reflecting different outcomes to teaching. The goal for some may be working from a mental representational model of cognition, i.e. creating different slices of experience to put together eventually, shifting eventually to the centre perfect storm area. The embodied cognition approach, i.e. authentic actions are about needing to accomplish a need of the moment in a representational (note difference in the use of the idea of representation in the mind and in physical lesson) design, usually begins from conditions represented by the centre of the diagram. Circle (b) represents what I think as very underrated, the learner overcoming the problem at hand. This may not be the textbook solution but a learner dependent adaptation.

There is an article by Raab and Araújo (Raab & Araújo, 2019) to get a background of embodied cognition with and without mental representation and their role in learning (different from discussions that pits embodied cognition vs stand-alone cognition). Embodied cognition assumes that cognition is built into action, as opposed to it being mainly stand alone. The great debate here is how information is arrived at for learning and how knowledge of past learning exist and effects this. It is a rather technical paper and the abstract, introduction and conclusion does well to give a reasonable brief if the whole paper prove too much (I struggle trying to figure out very good intentions written in academic style at times).

The theories behind the perspectives of using mental representation outside of embodied cognition are also vigorously debated and one view originates from how we believe our thoughts process works, direct vs indirect perception, and are seemingly at odds with each other. There is some discussion at the academic level to suggest that it is not possible to do well by combining the two school of thoughts. My take is that there is a difficulty in comparing perspectives from different aspects of the same area of interest. This alludes to the missing link comment I made above concerning my original reflective questions.

At research level, scientist are focusing on the processes, while teachers/coaches are making decisions based on input and their experiences in dealing with it to achieve intended outcomes. As a teacher, I may be at loss when research evidences of a process that meets my intended outcomes does not meet the input  specifications of learners I have to work with in my unique environment (Professional Judgementand Decision Making – PJDM gives some perspective to this). The extrapolations of very good theories for practise are just not getting enough practical attention. This is where we teachers need to be more explicit to complement research.

What do I mean by specifications of my learners in my unique context? Movement solutions are sometimes not all that we are after when we consider the other expectations in an education setting that goes beyond (circle (a) in  Fig 1).These includes administrative, affective, teacher-student rapport building, etc. This requires teacher-student relationship that relies largely on interaction, including communication. What many can agree with is what we do with the interaction is the key. This require an almost herculean task of balancing communication, interaction and pure skill acquisition needs.

Fig 1 also shows dashed arrows to suggest that there may be two broad teaching directions, i.e. moving outwards from the centre or inwards towards the centre. For the former, assumption is that learning must start from a perfect storm of task, environment and individual combination. The latter assumes the possibility that outcomes can be achieved from mutually exclusive individual abilities, task, environment and affective focus. While it is ok to believe that learning processes follow a general lawful route, it is also important to realise that learning also depends on what is the learning objective and the impact of social and teacher expectation to outcome.

Sometimes not being clear about outcomes tend to cloud confirming established learning processes, e.g. two teachers not clear on outcomes trying to compare learning processes that differ.  If I want to be very specific in a seemingly isolated drill, I could also implicitly want learners to be comfortable with a one to one teacher-student interaction to encourage better rapport or discipline or just wanting to create a relationship. The issue for many I believe is our conflating of outcomes, implicit to boot, that may create a mismatch of teaching approach used and it’s expected outcome. For example, I want to improve shot at goal accuracy while actually trying to improve student management issues. We end up accepting a highly controlled environment as an effective skill teaching scenario when it may do with more varied and organic type activities.

It takes much deliberate awareness by the educator, together with experience, to balance these understanding. I think is very difficult and maybe not even practical to have outcomes that area minutely dissected but rather we tend to work on baskets of expectations (combining affective and mechanics), mimicking the complexity of being in any living situation. It may be potentially detrimental to consider outcomes one at a time and on the flipside, just as worrying if we combine everything and not be too aware of this. This may sound like a cope out in needing to have a clear approach for very specific outcomes but my personal view is that it needs to be a broad approach many times.

Are the basics of an expert the same for the beginner, i.e. both having the same objectives? Does the basics of a beginner shift as they become experts? Are we generalising basic drills as similar for everyone?

For example, what works for a beginner in your context? Recently I noticed quite a popular clip of a well-known NBA player doing very specific and basic dribble and shooting drills, presumably for hours. This went viral with advice for beginners to emulate. It is quite common to see this kind of popular guidance for beginners and “Going back to the basics” is an extremely popular mantra. The key here is are the basics for the beginner and for the expert the same or serve a similar purpose? Can the basics of these two groups of expertise be very different, i.e. can it be something in the middle of the diagram in Fig 1 for beginners who need more specifying information to make sense of movement and is it in the outer edges for experts who can afford to spend more time on isolated opportunities? I will not criticise a beginner for emulating a professional in isolated drills and in fact see it as possible motivating. I will think very carefully if my intention is to improve game play.

Teaching approaches are always heading different directions from different starting points.  We are always tweaking them. The perfect storm is not always a fix set of conditions but is very organic and changing to the needs of the learner and almost as important, to that of the expectation of the education environment. The key here is as professionals, we consider learner centeredness and guided by science and art of teaching.

Readings

Raab, M., & Araújo, D. (7 August, 2019). Embodied Cognition With and Without Mental Representations: The Case of Embodied Choices in Sports. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01825

Reflection – Action coupling for teachers in Physical Education (PE)

Some noteworthy situations arise recently. I was taking the last couple of lessons for my classes before exams start and the end of year activities take over. This is usually the point where a whole year’s of effort culminates and everyone sort of wind down from an intense academic calendar. My intention with the class is to allow some autonomy for the students and connecting it to a learning process where I get students to contemplate what they are doing and connecting it to the bigger picture of why certain movements seem more attractive over others. The hope is that this creates more appreciation and understanding of what is happening. Now, the students have an altogether different expectation when involve in a fun physical activity of their choice. Their unpacking desire and abilities of what they are doing goes as far as the limit of their emotional connection for the moment, i.e. they want to have fun through play. It was a challenge. I was trying to facilitate a situation that the students may not be interested in at that moment, as much as I thought they needed it. My reflection questions for this was “What happened?” and “Why it happened?”.

I also happen to relief a couple of classes of my colleagues. For them, my attitude was to hear them out and present activities that was planned for by their original teacher. It was a much more pleasant experience as I tried matching their expectation without the pressure of having taught them a long time, as terrible as this thought sounds! These two experiences are identifiable for many teachers. How do we connect the need (is there really a need? I was reminded recently to stop over-analyzing) to be true to our approach and planned content with what students think they should do in Physical Education (PE) classes. A part of the teacher tension in approaching is exactly that, i.e. the tension created by teachers for themselves in wanting to ‘teach’ in PE and not just present experiences. I also know many who may not have this issue as much due to mainly being convinced that PE is about experiences and that experiences will take care of the learning inherently. I see value in both views.

At every point in a teaching scenario, including before and after, the ideal situation will be a constant questioning of what we doing. We call it reflection, analyzing, brainstorming, etc. Every word used to describe the act of contemplating and coming to a conclusion has probably very comprehensive breakdown of what it means by experts. You will find clever steps and schematics of the reflection process, the brainstorming process, etc. Despite this overwhelming information, we do tend to ignore much of it and use the literal meanings. Both extremes are probably not desirable and we need to find a balance.

We do all this because our main business as teachers seems to be behavior manipulation. In the old days, this is done as quickly as possible, without worrying about regulation, motivation, movement related sciences, etc. processes. The great thing about the learning process within a learner is that it evolved specifically to overcome problems, which means that even if we mess up in teaching approaches, the learners adapt and will learn nonetheless. Because of artificial chronological milestones, e.g. terms, semesters, and school years, we are externally pressured (a good/bad thing?) to be more efficient. Because of better insights to how the body behaves, we are professionally obliged (a good/bad thing?) to be more efficient.

Is the “What works and how to do it?” qualifying rubric sufficient for us to meet the above expectations? Those following will probably guess that the famous why will come next. I bring to attention a schematic I did very long ago on layering Bloom’s Taxanomy language to describe how we as teachers can measure over reflective stages.

Fig 1

Below, I revisited a literature review by Standfel & Moe, (Standal & Moe, 2013) that keeps coming up in my simple searches. Coming clean, I started this article this before I realised that it was a revisit. It was interesting for myself to compare my feelings two years ago and now. Being a reader of convenient research, I am attracted to open sourced and easily available research that appears in my simple online searching. I usually am hooked on the first paper that engages me without going to first source like in academic writing. This paper was done almost a decade ago but still valid in its value. Let me list some of its obvious, but needing that pointing to, findings and quotes that I found extremely aligned to that is similar to my earlier article but with my current insights.

• While everyone agrees on the importance of reflection, it does not have a common understanding amongst all. At research level, it is just as uneven.
  • Own note: We tend to use incredibly important processes like reflection generically, without much attention to what it means in different situations. This goes the same for descriptors like games, drills, discovery, understanding, constraints, pedagogy, etc.

• van Manen (1977) suggested three levels of Technical, Practical and Politico-ethical (or Critical). This 3 levels includes 1) the means rather than the end, 2) the assumptions underpinning practical actions and 3) looking at the ends in light of wider social, political and ethical contexts.
• • Own note: One restriction to more comprehensive reflective practises is the focus on the outcome rather than the means, i.e. what and how it works. Outcomes are narrow and relatively easier to assume completion, as oppose to the broadness of the means, i.e. why it works, where learner centeredness is so vital. Over here, scientific underpinnings need to come in, to complement teacher experience.

• Compare the two reflective statements below. How useful is deepening understanding (multi-level understanding) on behaviour for us teachers?
  • a) “The students seems to react badly (not listening, distracted, etc.) to this activity. Let’s change activity for the next class.”
  • b) “The students seems to react badly to this activity. What about the activity that caused this reaction? Let me see if I can understand why and perhaps tweak it for the next class after considering.”

• Tsangaridou & O’Sullivan (1994) developed a framework called reflective framework for teaching in physical education (RFTPE). The RFTPE consists of two major categories; the first being the focus of reflection and the level of reflection, which is divided into technical, situational or sensitizing, mirroring van Manen’s (1977) model. The second category brings in the levels of description, justification and critique.
  • Own note: I believe for many of us, these levels are not deliberate but rather a consequence of tacit background of taken for granted assumption (see Wackerhausen’s quote below). To make it deliberate means to purposefully seek out knowledge that goes beyond implementation matters, i.e. routines – what and how it works (see Attard’s view below), only.

• Tsangaridou & O’Sullivan also found that reflection research is usually often based on the philosophical and/or political orientation of the scholar.
  • Own note: The biased nature is what makes reflections incredibly rich to our context and needs of students, not necessarily bad. My reflections seems to me to be focus on a certain perspective that sometimes get in the way of my own teaching. This is where it is important to seek more and learn.

• Wackerhausen’s (2008) “anatomical structure of reflection” suggest two levels in the way reflection takes place. There is the foregrounded concepts in which we actively employ and that are explicitly present in our reflections. “ These foreground concepts operate on a tacit background of taken for granted assumptions and knowledge, but the background assumptions implicitly delimit the conceptual boundaries within which the foreground concepts can be unfolded in our reflections…” He also suggest that the reflector is biased by context, interest, motivation, value, etc.
  • Own note: I believe we all engage in reflective practises, whether we are aware of it or not. The moment we delve deeper to professional development knowledge, our awareness of what we do goes up and we start creating our own reflective practises that works for us. The big push for departments is to see consistency in this practises and to benefit from this awareness collectively, as well as the initial individual purpose. Formalised reflective practises potentially creates loads of data and the challenge is to leverage on this systematically within a workable reflective structure for self and department. The “taken for granted” comment is a very real situation where we potentially stop learning as teachers and operate on surface knowledge. This is where the different levels of reflections occur like mentioned above. Background assumptions may range from the practical input-output perspective, i.e. what and how it works, to the more complex what happens between input and output, i.e. why it works.

• “…Attard argues that critical reflections on his own experiences enabled learning, and that reflection is best understood by engaging in reflection (Attard & Armour, 2006). More specifically, Attard (2007) states that “examining past experiences to understand and change present and future practices is a stronghold of reflective practice, but this is hard work… as it goes against the natural tendency of creating routines” (p. 155)…”
  • Own note: This almost gives me the name for something that I observe often, routines! A wonderful habit, well exhorted for learners, that sometimes creates a self-directing practice of complacency within departments and individuals.

• “…Tsangaridou & O’Sullivan (1997) aimed to understand teachers’ reflection from a descriptive rather than prescriptive perspective (i.e. what reflection is, rather than what it ought to be). The authors distinguished between micro- and macro-reflection, with the former being “reflection that gives meaning to… day-to-day practice” (p. 7) and the latter being reflection in professional development over time…”
  • Own note: Not all reflections are equal and it does not help to force certain type of reflections onto teachers who have not buy in. Rather it should be about what works for the teachers, currently and in the long term. However, we do need to be aware of reflective practises and that requires a bit of positive peer encouragement at times. My current approach I am struggling with is how to get the realisation for those around me that the whys of teaching has very satisfying and successful outcomes for the whats and how.

• “…Keay (2006) also found that although newly qualified teachers (NQTs) were educated to become reflective practitioners, more experienced colleagues who were unfamiliar with reflective practice actually influenced some of the participants to become less reflective…”
  • Own note: Is this a survival strategy? It is common to see NQTs coming in with amazing practises. It can all quickly level down if departments are not deliberate about leveraging on this professional enthusiasm.

This review carries on looking at pre-service, and to some extent in-service, reflective habits and suggestions for future focuses. I wrote more about it in my previous article. The above derived from the paper should be easily understood, observable and appreciated, I think. We are creatures of routines. The planning and implementation of routines takes over our professional life. In a recent discussion with fellow management level colleagues on the what and how of teaching as indicated in a typical unit-plan, there was negligible interest to the why of what we are doing. For academic subjects, this is almost permissible as much structures of certification and moving up the levels has given that why question an implicit response of just needing to do well in school. However, the day-to-day strategy implementation and facilitation for learning requires that awareness to make learning deliberately effective, as opposed to it taking place in spite of our presence. Even more so for PE, where formal levels of desired outcomes are not as observable and therefore easily dismissed as not a priority.  Luckily for us, PE is aligned to a basic need of all humans needing to move recreationally for quality of life and this is what we can leveraged on to get learners to move with our educational intention, implicitly or explicitly.

References

Standal, Ø., & Moe, V. (2013). Reflective Practice in Physical Education and Physical Education Teacher Education: A Review of the Literature Since 1995. Quest (00336297), 220-240. doi:DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2013.77353

The Fundamentals (some) of Physical Education (PE) teaching.

• 

We are like storytellers. We are experts at telling stories. We get excited when we hear new stories and are eager to search for them. We take new stories and sometimes modify them for our use, if not using them wholesale, based on evidence that it works for others (we sometimes call this evidence based strategies when what we mean is that it has been proven to work for someone else). Sometimes, we create novel ways to share such stories. We speak louder, we use special equipment, we dress up our stories, etc. Sometimes we get frustrated because we do not have a story for a specific occasion and we seek harder. In developing as a storyteller, we share stories, plenty of them. The more effective they are for others, the better.

On occasions, we storytellers become storywriters. It is not easy to hear from the storyteller who tries to explain why their stories were created the way it was. In this mode, these storytellers spent much time trying to figure out the what, how and why of stories. They do this in order to cope with their differentiated listeners as they create and design stories specifically for unique listeners. They seek good stories out but mainly to figure out why they work so well and what about these stories that connects to the listener.

Lately, I have been evaluating myself on what I have achieved after 25 years of teaching. There was a period when I thought that being a good teacher is about climbing the leadership ladder. With this, comes the needed skills in many things that are not directly related to teaching, e.g. event organizational skills, people management skills, etc. For a while, I felt that being good also meant collecting coaching credentials and experience. For a long time, the need to do more in teaching than instructing did gnaw at me but it was easily buried as the other distractions were stronger. There was also a period I felt I might need to get higher academic qualifications to quench my uneasiness of not doing enough for PE teaching, which was without any fixed formal assessment standards that needed to be reported, other than fitness testing. Depending on schools and department, assessment and teaching standards can differ from having pedagogical innovations to organizing physical activities for fitness and games requirements. Lately, I have again revisited what I have been doing and influencing in my teaching career. I have to confess, I get overly reactionary when I see our subject being relegated to popular culture interpretation. One of the biggest interpretation I see problems with is that PE time is activity time that does not need the educational element. This perspective is not explicit but can be seen sometimes in the way we have to juggle resources for our craft because of competing needs from the more established academic subjects. The professional development sites I sometimes frequent are heavy on anecdotes of outliers or entertainment choreography and light on underpinning theories and sciences. At times, we are driven by well meaning policies to ensure adequate physical movement instead of educating to ensure that fitness habits are developed for life.  

What exactly do we need to be aware of as teachers to do our job better? Is there some basic fundamental areas of expert thinking processes that we should engage in to allow a more comprehensive reflective process of our teaching and outcomes? Recently, a paper on Fundamental Motor Skills (FMS) (Newell K. M., 2020) was brought to my grateful attention online and it was a good reminder to always be questioning what we think we know and are doing. It discussed, amongst much more stuff, the re-looking at what we might think of being fundamental in motor skills and deepening that understanding by cross-referencing it to the meaning of terms in research such as fundamental, movement, motor, etc.

The lesson for me here is the need to step back and reflect if what we are doing fits our intentions. If our intentions are unclear or not forward looking enough, then to reflect on our intentions to decide if indeed they are adequate. How do we evaluate adequateness? For example, if we focus on a series of perceived fundamental motor skills with the expectation that they are precedent to more specialized motor skills, or more realistically giving the confidence to explore, it might help to take the time to be sure that the skills are indeed fundamental or we lose an expected avenue of growth for more specialized skills. The organic process of thinking, adapting and carrying out recreational movement does ensure that whatever we do, the young will develop habits good and bad. It is just how much good habits we want encourage in the most efficient way, given our privilege position in having access to learners the moment they enter school.

Going back to the example above, to decide if it is fundamental, we might even have to take a reflective view of why such skills are even considered fundamental in the broader perspective of living. We usually only do it for the games we hope to teach. Is our understanding of the word “fundamental” based on the game/activity we hope to achieve for the learner or is it for fundamental motor skills for life? The question for me here as a teacher, do we look ahead to what we want teach only or do we have to figure out what, how and why our learners even want to move ahead in being taught whatever it is that we think they should be taught?

Carrying on, are such basic sets of movements even finite enough to be categorized into groups? If yes as broad groups only, how do we ensure a facilitation/teaching strategy that allows that broad-to-specific varied experience to solving a fundamental movement problem that allows future adaptations that are seemingly unique yet have roots in the fundamental motor skills. Many questions and definitely not a case of looking at a diagram or list and introducing all the gross identified fundamental skills of a known model as it is, with the implicit hope that one day it morphs into something skillful.

So recently on social media, I came across the work of Basil Bernstein mentioned with respect to classification and framing in education (Sadovnik, 2001). Bernstein  was an eminent sociologist who looked into the relation between the social classes and education. He was known for his code theory, amongst other things. He defined collection and integrated codes. This is a kind classification of content and knowledge in school that either restricts learning in silos base on subjects, i.e. collection, or allows integration, i.e. integrated. He went on further to talk about framing, the way content is transmitted, the pedagogical aspect of schooling. Framing refers to refers to the “…degree of control teacher and pupil possess over the selection, organization, pacing and timing of the knowledge transmitted and received in the pedagogical relationship…” There is strong framing that implies limited degree of freedom between teachers and students and weak framing, where there is more freedom. Now, I gather all these from a sole introduction of Bernstein by Sadovnik and am in no way even remotely know enough of his complex area of expertise to comment more but nonetheless very attracted to his idea of classification and framing and impact on social classes. I see it somewhat aligned to what I think of existing strong boundaries within and between the on-goings of academia and practice.

This is where I will pause and stop pretending that I know much about the above scientist or his field, as much as it interest me tremendously in the way I see teaching. Specifically, why do people need and want to be taught. This awareness came to me very late in my career and as I attempt to connect with fellow practitioners in this area, it becomes very obvious that sociology, add to that philosophy and the mere mention of the word ‘theory’ connected to any fields of science, are difficult areas to connect with for many.  

In a recent posting by a very enthusiastic teacher, he lamented how his contact from outside the PE field commented on the need to teach during Physical Education sessions when his own experience in PE was free-for-all activity sessions.  This is a rather common comment (we seem to be known as storytellers rather than story writers) and it gets me back again to looking at what exactly is the need of PE and why is this need vital as part of life. This is where I find much help from the observation lenses made clear by sociologist like Bernstein above that allows that systematic understanding of how, what and why we behave and operate the way we do. Another one I like is by Pierre Bourdieu, i.e. the Bourdieusian lens of capital available (expertise available out there), habits (how the different stakeholders in the scene operate within their influence) and field (how different stakeholders in practise, research, academia, policy, etc. interact).

This is where I pause again to reflect from a very practical own lens. Sometimes, PE in the eyes of our stakeholders, including maybe even teachers themselves, is very physical movement outcome dependent. On social media, whenever there is an entertaining eye-catching clip of movements being captured, immediately it might be connected to the provision, or lack, of PE in schools. This video and pictorial insights shared that brings forth the perceived PE connection can include anything from images of senior people executing movements to young people doing incredible action choreography. We tend to ground what we see with what needs to be delivered as oppose to grounding the delivery to what is needed for survival (to some extent) and recreation (to large extent) in life.  

The above can be considered as a very top-down approach to analyzing what is missing in PE and is a problem when even as teachers we get caught up in the fray to provide what could be temporary popular expectations of the observers of our very public subject. To be fair, at times, we may take cue from popular culture and its public viewpoint for PE but we need to consider it from a bottom-up perspective. Meaning, we need to consider what, how and the why of what we want to do and cross-referencing it to the needs of the learners.

For example, I want to teach students how to manipulate a football to a scoring advantage in a small side football game versus I want to teach students how move with an implement in an environment which needs them to go against an opposition to execute a scoring action. For both, the teaching activity can be very similar except that the later might have a perspective that allows the teacher opportunity to connect to further types of movements that are part of living better or at times for survival, e.g. needing to stay healthy. Therefore, when I see, for example, a large group of young people executing synchronous ball handling on social media, I will not think I want my own classes to be executing such skills but will reflect what is it that allows such a group, e.g. their social and cultural make up perhaps, to deliver what is a disciplined and skilled choreography. The intention being not to replicate but to figure what I can do in my own context to deliver my own context outcomes. My thinking process might seem far off from what we sometimes spent hours in teacher training and our own sporting experience, i.e. understanding the straightforward mechanics of movement through study and practice. 

Again, there is a pause in my flow here as I ask myself why describe and burdening it along the way, what should be a simple action to something so layered and abstract. For example, in teaching for understanding methods, the teaching of concepts getting into the way of reproduction teaching suffers from this perception also to some extent. Some might strongly recommend the later (direct teaching) preceding the former (conceptual guided discovery) or vice-versa. Which is the outcome and which is the intention? Does there need to be a clear chronological existence?  Does clarity in learner intention help in better execution?

My personal insights is realizing that these are not only technical questions but also social and philosophical ones. Immediately, I might have fallen into the boundaries (or out of it?) mentioned by Bernstein above regards classification and framing that may be potentially blindsiding me (or facilitating?) better understanding of what it needs to have good teaching awareness. In order to be an enlighten storyteller, I need to be able to know how stories are written.

References

Newell, K. M. (2020). What are Fundamental Motor Skills and What is Fundamental About Them? Journal of Motor Learning and Development(8), 280 – 314. doi:https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2020-0013

Sadovnik, A. R. (2001). BASIL BERNSTEIN (1924 – 2000). Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education, XXXI(4), 687 – 703. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/bernsteine.pdf

Reconciling externally regulated teaching approaches with more efficient self-regulated learning processes in Physical Education (PE)

So lately, we successfully manage to squeeze in face-to-face lessons for Physical Education (PE) as normal lessons resume with strict safe management measures in place. This includes group activities limited to five per group, an odd number that is unfortunate for small-sided games that loves even numbers. Odd numbers does however provides opportunities for under and over loading potential of game representation in activities. As I get into the groove of such conditions (tempted to say constraints but am observing a self-imposed writing rule to use the word constraint to mean a feature that facilitates rather than being an obstacle), I got more than a few exclamations from my students that goes along the line of “What are we doing today?  I am sick of PT (Physical Training). Can we do something fun.”. It is very difficult to hear these comments. Like or not, I probably have done a great injustice by i) making PE/PT/PA (Physical Activities) unwelcoming and ii) linking much effort put into creating that personal responsibility in fitness and movement knowledge to something that is not so positive.

Some context. In the age group and system that I teach in, physical training is an important aspect even in the best of time. This is due mainly to getting the boys in shape for military conscription (conscription duration is cut by up to two months for those who attain a certain standard) and for the girls to be aware of their responsibility to have a healthy routine for present and future. We do our best to intertwine all these with a typical Physical Education (PE) syllabus that includes elements of recreational movement and knowledge with its impact on personal development. We also have a very strong leadership development flavour where we identify students for formal leadership training and eventual position in the area of outside classroom physical related activity provision within the school.

It is times like this when all the time spent looking at theories, models, approaches, etc. seems to go out of the window. At times like these, you have a bunch of students looking forward to PE, the play opportunity. This brings to mind the importance of always realising that recreational movement is more than just motor learning, skill acquisition, technique enhancing, etc. It is part of life and requires much deliberation from teachers than expected biomechanical realisation. I remember recent situations when I seek help from student experts for skills that I struggle with and even envy when I see young kids performing. One was from an Ultimate player who was also the captain of my school team and the other two were Calisthenics fanatics.

From the former, I sought out more information on Ultimate throws and the latter, tips on doing the muscle-up move (where you raise yourself from a pull-up to above the bar). It was a revelation to observe how they go about trying to teach me. While I can notice them using cue words direct from available expert information, they also spent quite a bit of time trying to describe what the movement feels like. For the Ultimate throw, my student attempt to reiterate the main skill identification cues of how to hold the disc for the forearm and backhand throws with a few suggested variation, putting emphasis on how the disc should feel like on a good hold, i.e. very firm. He went on to describe the pull (a throw to start the game) as almost willing the disc to move out before coming in by ensuring release angle commensurate with the preferred disc initial flight path. It may be just my own bias in interpretation but I was listening to very good external cues being mentioned.

For the muscle up move on the pull-up bar, I have asked a couple of students how they manage it. First impression seems that it is just about brut strength. They described a feeling that is possible with the appropriate over-hand grip on the bar that allows the quick transition to over the bar at the right moment with appropriate technique. The rest needs to be shown to me according to them. Obviously, they have difficulty in verbalising what exactly needs to be done in the usual linear way. I appreciated and learned a lot in what relates well to effective learning from these little interactions. Note: I still can’t do either well at all!

Is this their attempt to share their successful proprioceptive (feelings reflecting how their limbs and body felt like in a successful attempt) interpretations that is imbued self-regulation that matter more to them than the usual teaching cues that they may have encountered? All of them acquired their skills through fellow students and available instructions, not adult coaches. Can we learn more about teaching by listening to these young competent movers?

The OPTIMAL, Optimizing Performance through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning model (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016) is an interesting area of work that brings together motivation, external focus and motor learning. Part of the theory suggest that motivation is not just a by-product of successful movement but can actually enhance the acquisition of it. Autonomy is also discussed here as a biological necessity that needs to exist for motivation in successful motor learning. Autonomy can include some learner control over practise conditions and the use of instructional language that supports autonomy perception. Reasons for this includes better processing of relevant information, better error detection and better use of self-regulation strategies. A very interesting sharing in this paper is that even incidental choices have value, e.g. choice of colour of ball and choice of unrelated task after main task, in increasing success factors of skills, e.g. accuracy, velocity, etc.

All these goes towards “…strengthening the coupling of performers’ goals to their movement actions, presumably operating in complementary ways…” What I like about this paper is the table of predictions (see Table 1 below taken from the paper) that is easy to understand for a teacher like me that also sort of summaries the whole paper.

Table 1 (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016)

Schematic 1 (Otte, Davids, Millar, & Klatt, 2020)

Schematic 2 (Otte, Davids, Millar, & Klatt, 2020)

Another work that shares self-regulatory strategies are the related  PoST (Periodisation of Skill Training) framework and the Skill Training  Communication Model (Otte, Davids, Millar, & Klatt, 2020). A easy to understand summary is given in a paper by Otte et al. PoST refers to the need to recognize the stages of an athlete’s development, i.e. Coordination Training stage, Skill Adaptability Training stage or Performance Training stage. The Skill Training Communication Model is an extension of leveraging on PoST by being more focused on the type of augmented feedback (e.g. feedback given by teachers/coaches) given to an athlete that complements ecological dynamics understanding of constraints. See Schematics 2 & 3. This model sought of guide the coach/teacher who uses a Constraint Led Approach (CLA) to use instructions as a form of external (to the action environment) constraints. I like that very well know work, together with their eminent academics, make attempt to bring it all together for the man on the ground. My only worry is that the necessary scientific need to categorize in both discussion and practice examples may confuse actual experience on the ground. The above papers used for discussion attempts to combine the unavoidable need to recognize the complex environment in which a learner exist in that cuts across typical specific areas of sciences, making it more palatable for use on the ground. This is not easy, as academic work sometimes exist in research silos for the sake of robust research methods that tries to control for extraneous factors. It is great to see established researchers go beyond sole expertise areas to make better sense for practitioner use. I always look out for such crossover attempts.

If a strategy is pegged to very distinct categories, it might create confusion for those who may not have full understanding of more insights. The other issue is the assumed chronological existence of categories that may not be so neat in reality. Maybe it is good to start looking more into the linear structures and development strategies for coaches/teachers vis-à-vis non-linear learner development in learners. Even though the same word development is used both for teachers and learners, their implication can be vastly different.

It is about reconciling externally regulated teaching approaches with more efficient self-regulated learning processes. This comes to mind for me when looking at insights via teaching models. How do they relate to the idea of skills emerging as a consequence of needs, i.e. a dynamic system perspective and effectively self-regulated for the learner. This needs to be put  side by side to the fact that as part of teacher development we need to understand processes systematically, i.e. in a logical step-by-step fashion that is externally regulated to the learner.

A good example of potential confusion can perhaps be seen in the concept of Fundamental Movement Skills, FMS. Is it a linear and distinct implementation strategy for the teacher or does it contribute to the understanding of non-linear development of the learner? We might be tempted to think this differentiation does not matter but I believe that it influences very evidently on how we use such concepts in the classroom. This goes the same for the numerous teaching models that we encounter. My personal simple classification is that pure implementation strategies are usually linear structures and development strategies for coaches/teachers and I always endeavor to seek those strategies that allow me the hybrid structure to understand more about potential non-linear learner development in learners. It mirrors almost exactly how we want our students to learn the why, together with the what and how.

References

Otte, F., Davids, K., Millar, S.-K., & Klatt, S. (2020). When and How to Provide Feedback and Instructions to Athletes? – How Sport Psychology and Pedagogy Insights Can Imporve Coaching Interventions to Enhance Self-Regulation in Training. Frontiers in Psychology; Hypothesis And Theory. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01444

 Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review(23), 1382-1414. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9

Expected Norm and Individualised Norm in Physical Education (PE)

Are there big issues coming out of teaching for PE? Some on the ground might say that everything is OK and that only those that want will make mountains out of molehills. Coming slowly out of this worldwide pandemic, PE teaching has been dissected quite a bit on its role and relevance. Admittedly, and obviously, there is no issue for those who are not looking. The isolated learning environment for students has revealed much about what we have to offer when all initially thought relevant factors are taken away, including those that are assumed non-negotiable to PE before, e.g. social interaction, teacher-student interaction, etc. In this climate, my thoughts stray more into what PE teaching should be like when we eventually resume normality. (Many might say I should think more about what to do right now but admittedly, I think I am one of those who is just hiding from current challenges and hoping for normalcy as soon as possible.)

In the calm of the void of face-to-face teaching, my thoughts go back again to what exactly do we want students to achieve right now, immediate future and long term. These statements have evolved for me;

• When teaching an open skill (where context feedback loop informs maintenance of movement, e.g. a continuous movement like attacking and defending in invasion games), do we teach from the norm and expect moving away from it (Individualised Norm) or do we teach to the norm (Expected Norm), ensuring all achieve a similar standard. (expected norm vs individualised norm – see Fig 1)
• When teaching a close skill (where feedback is still required but perhaps assumed from within the body mainly, e.g. discrete skills like taking a penalty, a sprint take-off, etc.), do we teach from the norm or to the norm.

I will add here that I do not think there exist a close skill as defined by our popular view that such skills do not need knowledge of outcome/result to be executed or maintained. Our practise might assume that for convenience but closer study will show that there is always an interaction within a learner and the context. All actions need that close loop for feedback (note the word close here is used in different perspective to open and close skill, i.e. an open skill needs a close feedback loop and a close skill might be assumed to not need a feedback loop). We need to consider this loop more carefully to realised the role that information in the context plays. There is a strong chance this feedback flow of information can lead in activity design. Understanding it opens up interesting possibilities.

The reflections on the above might be able to get us thinking a bit more about what underpins teaching processes within learners that will help us understand better effective learning and teaching.

• Why do we need to teach from the norm or to the norm (expected norm vs individualised norm)?
• What happens in the learning process when we teach from the norm or to the norm?
• How do our understanding of cognitive processes involve in learning relates to teaching from the norm or to the norm?
• Lastly, does being learner centred or skill centred affect the way we see the above?

The word cognition has taken on many meanings. I am not referring here to the cognitive development of learners that we expect as a result of learning (that is also hugely popular as an outcome of education) but rather the cognition involve in the process of learning. For teaching and learning strategies, like it or not, the way we teach makes many implicit assumptions about how we think learners learn and therefore what cognition looks like. This is a mainstay for much of my thoughts as I try to understand the strong lobby that is looking into the look and role of cognition that might differ from the traditional understanding that our brains does the central control for everything.

One common practise is that we create a learning environment in its full representation, or partial, for learners to lock in and replicate when needed. The teaching for understanding perspective goes a bit deeper in expecting deliberate cognitive involvement by expecting learners to think about what they are doing, why they doing it and as a consequence, how to go about it in the future when face with something similar. The ecological camp goes deep into a theoretical view of how cognition works by suggesting that learning takes place as a result of reacting to a series of needs directly which preps the learner for a repertoire of future responses due to this calibration experience, different from traditional cognition understanding of information processing.

Calibration here means an internal information processing mechanism sorts of learn of its abilities and limitations through experience, e.g. how far can I reach, how fast can I move to a point, how to throw an implement to a base accuracy level, etc. When faced with a task that requires the convergence of a few similar expectations, the body reacts accordingly, i.e. the interplay of affordances (reaction possibilities) provided by a task in an action environment. Rereading the preceding sentence, as best as I could have written it, makes me realise why not more practitioners want to look deeper into this. It seems very abstract and seems to say the usual in a confusing way when all teachers might want to do is get a learner to kick a ball in one direction!

The key here is the calibration process and how it is locked in for future adaptation. Example, if I go through an expected norm biomechanical process using a substitute sock ball or a plastic bag full of air and expect it to go towards learning when an actual implement is use, I may not be aligned to how we acquire skills. It is a fun activity and if indeed that is all that is available, I will do it with the expectations for students to respond in anyway as long as task outcome is achieved, e.g. keeping modified ball in the air. This is allowing the learner to calibrate response to needs of the task and environment which will adapt better when eventual implement is used.

I seem to be harping on my same old mantra of considering what happens within the learner when the teacher intervenes and the student respond, other than “the student will listen and do what I want”. This present rehashing seems apt for me to reflect on with the rise of PE discussion in present climate.

Story time – an analogy

“There exist a robot that was designed to respond to walk and stop via pressing a remote control button. A programmer build the programme for the robot’s movement. A user uses the control and manipulate the robot’s behaviour quite effectively via the control. One day, the user wanted the robot to run. He tried his best to jab at the buttons as quickly as possible to reflect the fast rhythm of a running gait. It did not work. The programmer got to know of this need and was able to easily get the robot to run because he knew exactly how to programme the remote-robot interaction such that the correct motors in the robot respond at the appropriate time to initiate a run. However, he needed some help from the user to understand the correct movement rhythm! The programmer knew the interactions between creating a signal and causing a movement. The user was an expert in using the robot to meet the needs of his use.”

We as teachers, are we the user or do we want to be the programmer or a bit of both? (Caveat: At times, we do think we are working with machines and choreograph elaborate reproduction plans. The programmer understand and writes codes for a complex information processing mechanism and do not just input a picture!).

I am trying to put all my thoughts, represented quite a bit by my written reflections, together to re-look and re-fine my own personal mission and vision of teaching PE related skills and knowledge. Fig 1 is a busy visual that attempts to consolidate some of my own learning experience in the area.

One of my biggest observation is our fraternity’s preference to use problem identification (or movement parts identification) cues directly as teaching cues. I remember one of my teacher training lecturers (one of the founders of TGfU) emphasising to us that beginners usually can cope with only one or two cues at a time effectively. A very simple advice that I believe you will notice immediately with your beginner learners if you make a deliberate observation. Many times I find myself giving very elaborate internal cues (e.g. angles, body positions, gaze direction, etc.) to satisfy my own desire of wanting to go through the skill and not realising it does not help in learning for my listeners. They initiate my instructions by picking up the easiest to follow cues. This teacher habit comes together with the breaking up of complex skills to simpler component parts (try looking into the ideas of Decomposition and Degeneracy). This comes with cues that are the representation of the smaller parts. We hope that these cues that when put together represents a picture of the total movement.

This may not be the best framework to expect learning because at any one time, the action needed (we want it to be the action expected) depends on the immediate next phase and not the end outcome. Example, an exercise in an isolated Javelin throw run up will not be the same in natural body calibrating and wanting to adapt best as compared to holding a Javelin and going into the next phase of beginning the release. We can force a sub response to be perfect in its broken up form but that might go against the best learning process within the learner.

We tend to carve out close skills that are discrete and decomposed from continuous movements, e.g. passing drills that mimics part of a bigger movement. This may be a problem. Main reason is while the mechanism within us that facilitates learning across types of skills is similar, the inputs into this mechanism do differ, i.e. continuous, open movement information coming into our learning mechanism will probably differ quite a bit form those of close, discrete movements. Therefore, teaching might not be effective if we do not consider such differences in inputs.

This results in a non-linear development that needs careful consideration from all parts of a progression. Cutting in into parts creates its own outcomes that may not contribute neatly as expected. This is where representational activity outcome needs to be carefully designed to ensure relevancy to eventual outcome.

This is where the whole ecological dynamics perspective, and even the learning for understanding practises, can offer some insights. Is it fair to say that ignoring this might result in the convenient strategy of breaking up complex movements into exact observable parts for practise that inadvertently result in a mismatch of information needed for the eventual expected response between the whole and part activities? I will add that there are three broad ways to dissect a complex skill, 1) by its observable parts, 2) by it’s assume stimulus-response needs at different points and 2) combination of the two. One good reminder from a recent discussion on the matter with some colleagues is that while working in parts, we need to ensure there is always a valid transition in not only mechanical progression but also stimulus (information) relevance to eventual context.

Even the type of cues matters. Beginners respond best to external cues that facilitates an ecological (requiring context-learner interaction consideration) respond to a need, e.g. “get under the ball” activates a movement that automatically scales (movement that takes into consideration learners spatial-temporal interaction abilities, given a task) learners’ abilities to the task as opposed to “bend your legs and move forward”. Cues that we use as experts to identify good and bad movements may not be the best teaching cues if translated directly without taking in to consideration learner’s skill level, physiological processes of learning, etc. Higher ability levels come with better self-understanding that may allow the use of more internal cues for learners. Of course, a good balance of internal and external cues requires the teacher’s expert deliberation on the type of skill/movement in consideration.

What will happen if we do not look deeper here? I believe learning will still take place but with a bigger reliance of learner’s own adaptive mechanism for that learning, i.e. learning takes place despite us and very linted. What will happen if we do consider deeper and are more aware of learning processes within learners, other than replication expectations? I believe our lesson designs will gradually shift towards a direction where our expectations of what we offer and its actual learning impact becomes more aligned.

Degrees of Freedom & Degrees of Consideration in Physical Education (PE)

A perhaps conflated and simplistic reflection amidst much forced rest. Still trying to figure out.

Recently I went through a Newell paper and listen to a whole bunch of episodes of a podcast, the Perception the Action Podcast by Rob Gray. This is indeed a self-declared commendable effort for me as I went through them with much more attention than I will usually do such sources of valuable information. The reason for my usual brief scanning is the difficulty I find in understanding such research foundations. I can clearly see glimpses of why I should persevere, as there is an incredible amount of effort put in the academic level that will clearly benefit even PE teachers providing the first opportunity for knowledge and skill acquisition in the area of health, fitness, games, etc.

This brings to mind something I sometimes encounter from the fraternity, i.e. if it is too complicated to share; chances are we do not need it and it is too complicated for learners. We sometimes associate our complex job to learners finding it complex when it is two separate things. This attitude comes probably because we see learning as a two-step process where the first input step just mimics the second output step. We provide knowledge and skill directly. In pedagogical sciences, this may be similar in implementation to direct teaching, reproduction style, etc. While they are many other variations we can work towards to better teaching, we spent little time in trying to figure out what actually happens within the learners when they react to our intervention. So even the more progressive styles of teaching that supposedly puts more autonomy for learning on learners have that element of them just being expected to do what teachers expects of them. In a broad sense, we still have some hint of learners reproducing what we want of them, albeit in a more roundabout way that may not involve the teacher fully realising or understanding their strategy. We use our gut sense quite a bit, putting our experience to drive this. I see this as offering information (knowledge and skills) directly from teacher’s experience, i.e. a one way process. How often have I heard that as a PE teacher, you need to role model the physical life you expect of students. It is a good lifestyle advise but very little to do with teaching well.

At times, we may think any deeper efforts are only necessary for some higher domains and not in school where we do not have much time for PE anyway and it does not help that the idea of PE as a respite to daily classroom room lessons still persist. We need a PE approach to understand better what is happening, leveraging on the best of the sciences and art of learning!

Going back to the article and podcast mentioned above; how will I position perspectives there for PE. Let me express a few points raised that sparked some PE thoughts.

Degrees of freedom has been on my mind ever since I listened to a podcast episode that looked into Bernstein’s stages of learning that refers to the freezing and unfreezing phases in degrees of freedom, i.e. the number of independent biomechanical configuration to execute a movement. This is also a metaphor for me on the complexity (not difficulty but the layeredness) of learning. For anyone who does not know, Nikolia Bernstein was a Russian (Soviet Union back then) scientist who was a pioneer looking at movement from the early 1900s. This means that this stuff has been around a very long time and the western world only got interested in it during the 60s. His work is in Russian and obviously needed to be translated. Repetition without repetition was one of his well-known translated saying and sought of encapsulate the idea of how there exist a many to one relationship when looking at movement. The redundant degrees of freedom problem (maybe not the best translated words from Russian but roughly meaning how we need to consider the variation in our coordination that allows our ability to adapt – so not really a problem) is the other closely related concept that is also a metaphor for me of how layered all aspects of learning can be. Constraints Led Approach and Non-Linear Pedagogy has some of its important fundamentals coming from Bernstein’s work.

Newell and Vaillancourt, (Newell & Vaillancourt, 2001) put forward the notion that while Bernstein’s hypothesise of a 3 stage learning process can be seen in some skill acquisition, it does not translate to a generic leaning process but rather a consequence of the type of task. The 3 stages are (1) freezing degrees of freedom, (2) gradual allowing more degrees of freedom and finally (3) exploiting reactive phenomena, i.e. I gather it as the combined passive benefits as a result of multiple active forces working together in various possible combinations. Steps (1) and (2) chronology depends on the type of task and not fixed for all learning.

This is when the paper talks about degrees of freedom and its relationship to constraints of the activity context. The degrees of freedom issue is also discussed not just from the learner biomechanical movement perspective but also in the attractor state (the stimulus that warrants the response of interest) that requires the response. This is called the dynamical degrees of freedom or the dimension of the movement system. This is also defined as what is required of the movement solution in terms of the variables, or parameters, which describes the organization of the movement of interest, e.g. the dimensions involved in delivering a ball to a target from stationary is less than doing it on the go. Whole body movement will require more complex calculations of dimensions that are mainly theoretical and estimates, i.e. I do not know enough to say more.

For PE;

In PE, we are very cognisant of the need to approach a teaching situation based on the kind of learning we looking for. In understanding and discovery approaches, depending on task, it is possible that we design activities that requires a narrow bandwidth of solution movements through direct instructions and at other times allowing a broader approach in solution expectation and teacher facilitation. The overall objective could be an attempt to get learners to be at least somewhere on the learning path rather than starting completely lost. When it comes to deciding on the expectation of movement solutions to type of teaching approach, we could do better to understand the benefits of allowing more learner searching and discovery of solution. In one of the discussions in the podcast, a study involving looking at a juggling task suggest the need to allow a more varied experience in order to expect more creative outcomes latter on.

The simple and seemingly non-PE related juggling study is an example to me as a teacher the degrees of consideration (label obviously inspired by topic in discussion) that we go through in teaching. I will label them as longitudinal and cross-sectional degrees of consideration. Longitudinal because we have many paths to the same outcome. Cross-sectional because at every stage of learning, we analyse the different possibilities to it and how to proceed to the next milestone. They are interdependent and the moment we consider them separately, we lose a whole family of considerations that potentially gets in the way of effective learning

In another discussion, the difference in allowing varied levels of controlled practise (where coordination is expected to be precise) for task accuracy or task speed (also continuous and discrete task) is acknowledged. Typically, task like stationary target kicking might result in lesser degree of freedom eventually, starting with more initially, while passing a ball while on the move will require a range of degrees of freedom control, starting with freezing of degrees of freedom at the beginning of learning and building up repertoire by unfreezing. It is not always about freezing to unfreezing. Not all task can be easily categorised into neat boxes of what is necessary. There are a lot of considerations. One aspect which I think is quite mistreated are cases where we split up a continuous task to discrete parts and control its learning path tightly in the expectations of its successful continuous existence when put together.

One perspective in the podcast was a very strong differentiation between allowing self-organisation in skill acquisition, using constraints as Constraint Led Approach (CLA) suggest, and the allowing of specific movement pattern to develop through manipulation of parameter conditions (popularly also referred to as constraints). This is also a reflection of many CLA proponents trying to clarify why it is just not a rebranding of condition manipulations for many other teaching approaches already in existence. I appreciate this clarification but the role of teacher/coach confirmation of learning outcomes, either through self-organisation or explicit manipulation, is vital as part of needed communication in any social group. The part of the discourse that differentiates CLA by excluding this verbal convergence may not help teachers/coaches embrace it deeper.

It is tempting to say that the initial freezing of degrees of freedom suggested by Bernstein theory of motor learning is about giving very specific instructions. That is not so, based on my understanding. In order to release the degrees of freedom, the first stage suggested will need the close facilitation of a teacher/coach to ensure that constrained movements have the possibility to expand to different variations, i.e. repetition without repetition. This is different from sticking to one possible solution and teaching it accordingly. In another discussion on the podcast, the confusion over the word constraint was discussed, that is using constraints to constraint, i.e. wanting to encourage a specific movement pattern, and using constraints for self-organisation of movement solution, i.e. where movement coordination are facilitated and not dictated. This is where I was glad to hear another opinion, host Rob Gray’s, also lamenting on the unfortunate focus on the literally word constraint ever since Newell made it well known. He suggested the word informative boundary, i.e. enough information from an element of a context to allow that coordination solution to emerge. I find the same issue with the word pedagogy and approach in Non-Linear Pedagogy and Constraint Led Approach. It suggest a layman educational implementation perspective of fixed strategies when I think it is more a learner development theory driving customised strategies. There is a confusion over the literal and theoretical meaning of familiar words in scientific concepts.

I come back to the dimension of the movement system or the dynamical degree of freedom. It is definitely true that as practitioners, we encounter degrees of freedom issues at many levels, not just biomechanical, knowingly or otherwise. For us, all the various levels of control issue solutions sometimes morph into a function of experience and gut feel. For teachers, this implicit teacher/coach awareness of what is needed in the successful execution of a skill seems to be aligned with the dynamical degree of freedom concept mentioned above but without the depth and explicitness. Thus, this possibly loses the benefits of understanding processes that explicitly connects the learner, and the context, to what is considered as necessary by the teacher to benefit teaching.

It was reminded very aptly in one of the podcast episodes that coaches do not have the time to spend hours in libraries and research that academics do. Same for teachers. One of the biggest frustration I experience is seemingly very good ideas being presented only behind paywalls and academic language when I have the time and energy to indulge in such search. One opinion is that keen interest is sufficient to break these barriers but I not too sure that is a fair statement. At the moment, even with access to such information, it is up to the practitioner to sieve through very difficult territory and decide how to put things together. I am thinking should it also be the other way around, where research put things together and practitioners focus on application while both having a close relationship.

References for this reflection

Newell, K., & Vaillancourt, D. (2001). Dimensional change in motor learning. Human Movement Science, 695 – 715.

The Perception & Action Podcast, https://perceptionaction.com/

Sock Balls, the Virus and Physical Education (PE) – Part 2 Reflections

Part 1 Reflections

At the current point in time, I am feeling a bit uncomfortable. For a long time, I thought I knew the direction that Physical Education (PE) should be going and then this home-based learning (HBL) kicks in with the rearing of the ugly head of a pandemic. I have always consider recreational movement as an important factor of why PE is needed and therefore influencing its intervention in the quality and quantity of it. I consider recreational movement, with games being a vital part of it, as something that is very natural and will occur regardless of our PE efforts, putting into realisation of the natural occurrence of recreational movement, i.e. it is part of life on top of what we do to survive. Part of our job, briefly, is to enhance that experience. Main reason being that recreational movement can also be left to its own devices, to the possible detriment of an individual, if no deliberate effort is taken.

The problem with assuming close association of any kind of movement (or any action) to the way we live or to the need of it being part of life is that there is an implicit assumption that life is led in a certain way and we are aware of what that is like, i.e. we don’t think much about it. Now, everything has change, albeit temporary. It puts into clear perspective the potential of what we consider as important and part of the environment in which we exist in daily can be totally be made redundant by circumstances. A very generic kind of statement that sounds vague and obvious but not taken seriously until a potentially extreme situation occurs like a pandemic.

Questions that arises for me;

• If an activity (part of recreational movement) is considered interesting because of autonomy, relatedness and competence (using Self Determination Theory as a rough guide), then what happens when fundamental aspects of the environment changes to give very different perspectives to autonomy, association and competence?

The environment has changed! Albeit temporary and the concern for me is that while we are meeting the needs of the changed climate, do we need to keep in view the next shift to normalcy that I hope we all expect and will happen real soon.

For many, space is very limited and our students may not have lying around typical sports resources, i.e. equipment and space. We rely a lot on the ability to go to the nearest facilities for such equipment and space. Two possible options for us during home base learning is workout routines for replications or emulating versus zero drills with homemade implements that represents the real ones. There is also the group of very Information Technology (IT) savvy teachers who will create online lessons in its various iteration. Everyone do all these in good faith and expect very implicitly, i.e. we may or may not think about it, that the needs of PE is somewhat taken care of. I say implicitly because we may not know how to, have the time or even consider contemplating about something that may be already muddled in the first place, i.e. where is PE heading. The popular impression might be that now may not the best time to worry about things like these when we are very urgently tasked to provide something for students at home. I will say most of us are very apt in meeting the needs of autonomy, relatedness (which is a moot point as association is extremely constrained at the moment) and competence under present condition by the activities specially designed for it. It may put emphasis on the dominance of games/activities in PE, to the detriment of all other aspects of the subject.

The important question for us may be what kind of competence and autonomy are we providing. Is it standalone for the period or is it something that can translate to when the environment opens up again. This question alludes to deeper and lasting development of original PE content.

• Do we still focus on the old environment, the present environment or the most stable and consistent environment? If it is not the present environment, then how do we ensure that skills taught connect to an environment we want to eventually focus on?

PE is an applied subject to a large extent, meaning part of its characteristic is its need to be applied by learners to real life situations in whatever environment they are in. (As oppose to, for example, Mathematics, where regardless of environment, they are still taught the same skills and given same knowledge.) We never expected just a drastic change to the environment but nonetheless are we providing opportunities for learners to cope with the present situation and because of the extreme situation, we scramble to do that job. We provide activities that learners can do and based on feedback, tweak it to something that interest them.

These needs are quite different, or at least will be very different, once the climate opens up towards normalcy. What do we do next then? Do we attempt to connect any learnings, for those who have taught explicitly, or do we change again to the needs of the new more stable environment, which we can safely say is back to what it was. For the former, there probably was a conscious attempt to have that educating element and for the latter, probably just physical activities provision. Of course, there is a whole spectrum of in-betweens but for the sake of discussion here, will only mention the outliers.

• Is it wise to succumb to present environment circumstances for the sake of ease while taking our eyes off the most consistent and stable environment, i.e. normality?

I put it here that I am struggling to cope with the confined conditions for PE. All I manage to do was mainly replication type sessions with hardly any attempts at educating. This immediate reaction was all I could muster and it really was a humbling time to think that after two decades of teaching, this was the best I could do. It was especially glaring when compared to the other departments who also struggle but because their needs are still the same and very structured, they have much more stability in terms of direction with comprehensive teaching packages.

Do policy influencers and professional development specialist have a role here to ensure that while we are doing our best to accommodate present environment, we still need to think long term when able? Being a strong learner-centred advocate (including physiologically), does it mean we need strong reminders of what we are doing as instant activities or educational activities, and everything else in between, i.e. understanding the nuances of the different types of influences. These reminders are not to stop us from doing but to start us in thinking how we best can manage activities and education. In order to do this, clarity of what our role is will be great but I do not see that as a priority at this difficult moment, mainly due to the already complicated position that PE is in even during the best of times. Therefore, it is down to individual teachers/departments and their respective PE mission and vision.

One possible repercussion of keeping our eyes off the round ball and getting very excited with our home made sock balls is that PE will come out of this episode with many new content and delivery abilities for teachers but with possibly more confusion of PE direction.

• Last question: Are such questions even necessary? Can we just go with the flow as a profession, i.e. meaning we just provide what is needed for the time being?

I am still struggling to carry on with this home based learning for PE if climate still persist and am wondering why do I even bother to wonder what it will be like in the future when things go back to normal. The scramble at the moment for many PE teachers is creating sessions, regardless of educational depth, to take care of the physical of locked down kids, albeit very limited to the time we have in the schedule with the kids, e.g. once or twice a week.

In these times, one important need for people confined to homes is the need to be active and healthy. Many looking at a school system working from home will immediately allocate this responsibility for health in confinement to the PE curriculum. This may be fair as Physical Health and Fitness is within our radar. The question for me is do we fully take on this responsibility or do we need to share it with society, or at with the other domains in education, as a whole. I ask this because taking on the responsibility means we fundamentally shift the education in PE to activity provision for home bound health. This has consequences, as there are many now advocating the success of such health based activities as the future of PE. The fact is the time spent by students on such activities during home-based lessons are not even enough in quantity or quality to have that overall health impact. We are a convenient first point of contact to have this responsibility and what we might potentially end up with is limited success (or total lack of) in both educating and activity provision for daily health benefits. What we do get is tons of ‘success’ stories in media showing learners replicating movement that are probably only a shadow of what is really needed for both aims of educating and its health application.

Square Balls, the Virus and Physical Education (PE)

I finished off my last post with “…Suddenly, with an environmental constraint that prevents socialising and reducing space considerably, we need to re-visit the relationship between physical activity and physical education. Fodder for next discussion!..”. How true this is. There is a lot of discussion on the way Physical Education seems to be evolving now and what it means for the future. We have social media PE stars who are leading whole nations in exercising while they are at home. A particular one call himself ‘PE teacher of the nation’ and this got many practitioners who have been advocating the educative aspect of PE very ruffled. An exciting exercise session on Youtube followed by the young seems to hark back to the days of regimental PE when direct movement instructions were expected from teachers, albeit with the modern advantage of snazzy music and much privacy in the homes of followers through the latest information technology interfaces.

On the ground, there is a tremendous effort put in by teachers as they rush to create effective online lessons. For countries that are already deep into home based learning, the quandary of needing to be educative also is coming into discussion, other than creating step-by-step instructional packages. So what do I make of all these? I will start off by saying that I am myself struggling to initiate a home based learning programme that I have never encountered before and am envious of those who seems to take all these in very confortably.

I notice many of us now put a lot of effort into considering space and time factors of performance space available to our learners at home. This is interesting as during normal circumstances, we usually assume a universal availability of resources for all and do not let such considerations lead activity design. You begin to see teachers actually learning together with their students as they figure out how best to introduce what they want to, given the limited resources. This is indeed an enforced lesson in activity design that is doing many of us great service.

I notice much skill related activities online take a decomposed ‘complex skill broken to its sub-parts’ approach. Indeed, much has been said by me and many from the ecological perspective of the dissonance to physiological skill acquisition reality that comes with expecting sum of the minor parts to equal to the whole. I still believe in looking at skills from an approach of generating complex skills via working systematically on creating affordances opportunities of desired responses that is difficult to be cut up to pieces from the complete skill. A mouthful but basically saying every learner have their own way of reaching a common (generally across people) goal that may not be exactly the same for all learners.

With this perspective, does it help to teach decompose skills online? My reflection on this is positive. Let me explain. Affordances created by task and environment hinged heavily on what the learner feels is expected and normal as being part of the environment they are in, i.e. in this case in a recreational movement context. Another way of saying it is that all wants must match needs. All needs are a result of being within an environment and interacting with it through a task. All task then makes sense to the learner. The task and environment have to be a major influence to learner action. E.g. imagine there is a square ball. We want to teach the learner to pass this strange ball. We start by making stationary learners just pass the ball to each other. For the learner, this activity will not have enough purpose to create motivation to want to do it well. I use the example of a square ball because this novel description will probably also create a need to want to find out more for the reader. If I do not carry on to complete a full description of a square ball game, even a reader of this might lose a bit of excitement as compared to when first hearing about a potentially new game! Passing of a netball or a rugby ball carries baggage for most learners who have encountered it before. Motivation dwindles when a learner either believes he knows quite a bit of it or nothing at all and the activity involving it not helping alleviate either states. I.e. it is too irrelevant to maintain motivation and adherence.

This is what makes it possible for learners facing a context to want to solve movement problems willingly and with efficiency. E.g. if a learner sees a defender closing down on him, he will want to pass the ball he is carrying towards the direction of scoring zone or a teammate nearby. This is a natural reaction and ingrained in a learner since young as a result of being involved in invasion games and maybe even an evolutionary reaction to running away from an aggressor or getting rid of the object of desire of that aggressor. All the elements of personal experience, abilities, the act of handling the ball, the environment, etc. is within the preceding sentences. There is a lot effort needed if we enforced that same quality passing of ball without considering the need to do it.

For all these time, the de facto expected recreational movement game environment is one where we play with others and constraints like space, equipment, time, type of game, etc. are all implicitly not given much thought of in the sense that  we work towards what we want in a climate that gives us full choice. Now, suddenly, that is not true anymore and I will never in a million years thought that this eventuality will be conceivable just a few weeks back! Now the de facto recreational movement environment is one that is very limited without much choice. Suddenly, a PE teacher of the nation seems very apt appearing on the screen in the safe comfort of locked down learners’ homes. Skills to be taught start converging to match the new expectations of recreational movement that needs to happen in limited space.

So, does that mean we don’t aim to teach normal complex skills of team games or traditional games that require specialise space, etc. that may not be physically experienced in the near future? That is the challenge now. Do we focus on end recreational movement products that is possible (in a very limited space) and accepted now, e.g. aerobic movements led by on-screen instructors, broken up complex skills, isolated fundamental movements, etc.? I am not sure about this but I do feel that both type of experience for learners are positive. E.g. I highly suspect a single learner at home will be happy to hit a tennis ball against a blanket in their living room continuously now when just a few weeks back this activity will be considered as boring and will be lacking motivation if forced onto a learner. The climate has fundamentally shifted not only our understanding of what is normal but also influence physiological needs for wanting to move recreationally in a very confined environment.

Is there a need to start thinking of what we are doing now and how it will influence the future when things go back to normal? It definitely does if we are thinking we have achieved new PE realisation with potentially exciting, albeit in a constraint space type of excitement, physical activities (PA). We fought long and hard to differentiate PA and PE. I suspect we will come out of these unfortunate times with many abilities in moving the young and the dilemma will be in what way. With this, we must be very aware of our past knowledge and ensure we don’t put to waste the great effort from the last few decades in refining education of the physical.

Learners creating movements or Movements creating learners – in Physical Education

 

The purpose of physical education is to enable students to demonstrate individually and with others, the physical skills, practices and values to enjoy a lifetime of active, healthy living.

– Ministry of Education, Singapore PE Curriculum

Physical Education is “education through the physical”. It aims to develop students’ physical competence and knowledge of movement and safety, and their ability to use these to perform in a wide range of activities associated with the development of an active and healthy lifestyle. It also develops students’ confidence and generic skills, especially those of collaboration, communication, creativity, critical thinking and aesthetic appreciation. These, together with the nurturing of positive values and attitudes in PE, provide a good foundation for students’ lifelong and life-wide learning.

– Education Bureau, Hong Kong

To pursue a lifetime of healthful physical activity, a physically literate individual:

• Has learned the skills necessary to participate in a variety of physical activities.
• Knows the implications and the benefits of involvement in various types of physical activities.
• Participates regularly in physical activity.
• Is physically active.
• Values physical activity and its contributions to a healthful lifestyle

– SHAPE America

All the above requires a full reading at the cited sites to comprehend full expectations of the various bodies.

Table 1 – A perspective by @Sporticus citing prominent academics  (shared on Twitter)

Table 2

What sits the heaviest with me at the moment is the role we play as a teacher to students of various abilities, interest, motivation, etc. to health, fitness and interest through physical activities. To add to this quandary, I have been reading a lot of views recently on what exactly are we, as Physical Education (PE) teachers, responsible for and what exactly does PE do for learners (see above)? The latter is very enthusiastically looked into by academics and the former is implicitly embedded in pedagogical discussions. I feel there is an implicit belief that settling either one will sort out both and that the link between them need to be stronger and more explicit.

In my last article, I shared an observation of a little kid and his mother toe-kicking a ball between themselves. I see often in my mixed classes, students manipulating balls (round and oval) differently with their hands or feet that reflects their experience with ball handling. What I am interested in is what exactly is our role if all the above are expecting an intervention from an educational professional like us? If there is this clarity in our roles somehow, does it help in the age-old issues of do we teach, instruct, present, etc.? Does this clarity comes explicitly from the role of PE for learners?

Games are one (a big one!) part of what we do in PE. Is the offering of games a secondary responsibility for us that many times feel like our main job? You can observe this when you have very competent sports individuals coming into PE teaching very naturally as an extension to their playing experience. You can observe this when stakeholders expectations of effective PE are students being active and with game playing as the preferred activity. You can observe this when assessment revolving around game play takes on the main focus for PE.  You can observe this when games teaching focuses on the need to display correct movement without looping it back to learner understanding.

Recently, I was observing a group of kids being taught the back pass in rugby. Cones were laid out in neat rows and as the kids run down the line, they pass the ball to the next person as they move up the practise lane. The back pass involves a very counter intuitive throwing direction for beginners. The big question for me now is do we want ‘learners creating movements’ or ‘movements creating learners’, i.e. do we want potential learners to develop through appropriate movements or do we want the context, and its appropriate movements, to create that willing learner?

As I continue my observation of the young ruggers, it was evident that the passing drill was not a highlight of their morning but taken very seriously by the coaches. The next drill they went through was passes within a square as kids wait in line at the corners for their turn to run across to receive and pass a ball. Disclaimer: It so much easier to comment and critic then being in the trenches with kids!

The traditional teacher will say to correct all non-template movements to optimum ones. Optimum being what is common among top performers, with very narrow margin for variation. These optimum movements are readily available through teachers’ own experience and the multitude available resources on the area. The teacher as a facilitator for movement creating learners might not be so direct but rather find out first what makes a learner want to perform in any specific context. Therefore, if a learner’s desire of needing to pass a ball is more wanting to be a useful contributor to the group they are in, as oppose to wanting to make a perfect throw, focus can be on encouraging that. This may involve strategies to create more such opportunities. If a learner’s motivation moves from useful contributor to an efficient one, technique instructions may come in. I agree that many times, I just want efficient movers before useful contributors! The preceding sentences are over simplified but is attempting to show possibilities on what we PE teachers might endeavour for in activity design, coming from different role perspectives.

In seeking clarity in this, I believe we also are inadvertently on the road to better understand the overall concept of the need for Physical Literacy, the role of student and movement centred teaching approaches, the role of the environment and task we live in engaging us in our outcomes, the role of the learner in perceiving all these, etc. All these are topics of reflections that have taken up quite a bit of my time recently.

 The next big question for me, are the above accepted for a teacher on the ground to spend time reflecting on? On the contrary, is it more prudent that more effort needs to be put into discovering new implementation strategies, exploring tools, getting students to better meet standardised fitness testing, etc.? I have encountered many comments on needing to be very direct in sharing teaching strategies and not be too overtly “academic” in developing them, i.e. nuts and bolts over thinking about what makes things works.

My simple conclusion is that all the above is needed and that is incredible difficult for any single teacher to be this broad in teaching readiness or even awareness.

Just recently, I took over a class for a colleague for a day. It was raining and indoor venues were lacking. I decided to show the class of 18 year olds who don’t know me too well a video on the 2 hour marathon attempt by Eliud Kipchoge. My intention was the lofty aim to discuss energy systems and physical possibilities of the human body. It started out terribly, expected on hindsight – only a very specific group of running aficionados can appreciate lengthy constant running by crazed super-humans. I carried on with the video watching session by interjecting about the pacing system, the hi-tech laser lights on the ground to follow, controversial performance enhancing running shoes, choosing a flat route in a cool climate, equating the running pace to the timings expected for the students’ own 2.4 km fitness testing expectations, etc.  What happen next was incredible to me. The kids was watching a very unfamiliar movement with snippets of information relating to them at some level. They started being drawn in to the video as I fast-forwarded it to the end. They were caught up by what they were watching, aided by the simple story I was providing for it. That short session ended with all being excited as Eliud celebrated on the video after hitting the end just short of two hours. After the video, it was a breeze to add the bits I intended about the energy systems and I finished it off while I was ahead. I now need to think how to better capture the need to learn with appropriate movements next lesson for my own class!

Coming back to ‘learners creating movements’ or ‘movements creating learners’, it is more than semantics if we consider it just a bit deeper (see Table 2). One needs specificity and the other, variation. One skill centred and the other learner centred. One motivates teachers to design strategies and tools mechanically (considering pre-determined optimum solutions first) and the other uses research like strategies for innovations (looking at why the problem occurs first).  Here, it is worth bringing attention to the considerable difference in considering a problem at face value and considering why a problem occurs. Both are necessary and feeds off each. Read https://altis.world/articles/stop-dragging-your-toes/ for a fairly easy to read article of the toe-drag in sprinting and the role of considering a problem identification cue by looking at the reason behind a it. Sometimes we use problem identification cues as teaching cues.

One is for quick-fix consideration and the other looks into more layered problem solving. Of course, then there is also the non-facilitated movement that hopes to create implicit learning that many may also subscribe to, i.e. movement is learning. In some quarters, this is the ideal learning design, a Zen moment when everything is one. Movement is learning and learning is movement! In the current home based learning environment, a lot has been said how movement at home impacts Physical Education when only uni-directional movement replication strategies are used. Suddenly, with an environmental constraint that prevents socialising and reducing space considerably, we need to re-visit the relationship between physical activity and physical education. Fodder for next discussion!

References

• Education Bureau, Hong Kong (https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/kla/physical-education/index.html)
• Ministry of Education, Singapore PE Curriculum, (https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/physical-sports-education/files/physical_education_syllabus_2014.pdf)
• SHAPE America , (https://www.shapeamerica.org/uploads/pdfs/TheEssentialComponentsOfPhysicalEducation.pdf)
• Stop Dragging Your Toes!, https://altis.world/articles/stop-dragging-your-toes/

Physical Literacy and Physical Education

“According to Whitehead (2013), physical literacy can be described as a disposition to capitalize on the human embodied capability wherein the individual has the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for maintaining purposeful physical pursuits/activities throughout the life course.” (Whitehead & Capel, 2013)

At a playground, I observed a mother and child kicking a ball to each other. They both are using their front of foot, i.e. a toe kick. I see the ball not always moving in intended direction. The teacher in me was tempted to suggest a correction. Then I assume that the toe pointing kicking movement is probably an automatic response to wanting the ball go the pointed direction. It will probably take a bit more expertise for the child or inexperienced mother to do a lateral positioning of the leg in order to use the side of the foot, probably an uncomfortable changing of body and leg position away from intended ball direction for a child and a beginner. It was just a natural movement to use the toes. It was ok! What happened next was quite a revelation. The mother rolled the ball back with the toes (toes always leading in ball manipulation this afternoon) and tried to balanced ball on top of her foot. The child followed suite! It was an act that I usually associate with much more proficient players but it happened here very naturally within a pure moment of play between mother and child. Physical literacy in progress?

As I explore my thoughts, I am drawn to the continuous debate occurring with regards to the idea of Physical Literacy (PL). Where I come from, the focus at the moment is on Assessment Literacy. PL is not a mainstay explicitly and my own introduction to it as a concept was very late and very rudimentary. My self-understanding at the moment is that the concept of PL is ambiguous to Physical Education (PE) at the research level (more clear evidence is needed, e.g. how PL relates to PE) but makes a lot of sense at the research-practise level of understanding from those who are keen to look at it. As for the on-the-ground practitioner level, thoughts on PL may not even exist. For me, I wonder about the continuous emphasis on progressing sub-parts, e.g. assessment, content, pedagogy; with a much lower focus on overall literacy, e.g. relationship between existing well in this world and its implications on Physical Education (PE) content, pedagogy and assessment. This is not an operational question but rather making sense of what is our purpose in schools if it is not instructing and providing breaks for classroom lessons. Perhaps, hinting at a re-look of the Education in Physical Education. This could very well be what I have been seeking clarity on for a long time without knowing that there is a phrase for it and a whole bunch of work being done for the past two decades at least!

Mark O’Sullivan wrote a useful blog summary of where PL can head towards (read it also for a sense of what is happening in the world of PL discussions) and the view that perhaps we need to shift focus to an individual-environment relationship understanding. This will be less about common milestones and levels to be met and more about how an individual reacts to context when it comes to recreational movement and exploring PL through this relationship via a theoretical framework like ecological dynamics.

One thought that comes to mind with regards to definitions and thus understanding of these process layers, e.g. PL position statements, pedagogy, curriculum, etc., for us in teaching is the conflicting needs of the different stakeholders who drive the overall education scene. To teachers, we are keen on immediate needs clarity on processes like teaching strategies, lesson packages, immediate evaluation processes, clear categorisation of skills to teach, etc. Policy makers will prefer to look for definitions that are overarching influencers of outcome deliverables, e.g. number of activities delivered, obesity level, class sizes, etc. Researchers want ontological and epistemological backing (well researched) of why we need to do what we do, e.g. academic literacy descriptors, philosophical and scientific understanding of skill acquisition, movement needs, etc. All these create much exciting separate conversations that range from the very interesting to the non-existent amongst the various sub-groups of recreational movement stakeholders. It is a big challenge. At the ground level which I identify myself closest to, you might also have professional development entities and strategies that promotes programmes and products that is hugely based on the reproduction learning process, for whom a more elaborate understanding of why we need PL clarity may not be significant enough. Take for example the excitement that comes with data collection tools that supposed to aid students’ learning. Not all data may be appropriate data unless it reflects the way we want learning to take place, e.g. electronic gadgets, tallies of touches or hits may reflect an outcome based approach if it stops at that. Will this trend differ if there is clarity in PL that is picked up by the curriculum? Will our content and assessment behaviour change with PL statements? Last but not least, how much will our pedagogical approach (not just teaching strategies but also how we want learners to learn) change if we have clear PL position statements?

By the way, PL positions are meant for society as a whole and shouldn’t just be about what happens in schools. The lack of accepted PL position statements may result in a potential gap when we strive for an outcome in school but somewhat incongruent with what happens outside school.

One big question for practise in schools may be why the need for such clarity when we are already guided by curriculum. Do we need literacy clarity as an enabler, as a central tenet, for better processes and is it enough to consider it as an outcome only, which means it is already alluded to by the various objectives of a PE programme via its curriculum. This alone probably reflects the big differences in the way we treat PL amongst the different stakeholders. I believe in the need to use PL clarity as an enabler for us to do better. In the PE syllabus in my own professional context, the intend of an effective PE programme is clearly laid out. It suggest a common expectation for all, e.g. movement competencies, health awareness, movement appreciation, lifestyle choices, etc. The expectation of all these will be the acquisition of fundamental competencies which is expected to lead to more complex competencies that will snowball to the expected outcomes of a healthy present and future life aided by recreation movement or physical activities. Whilst all these make good guides to where we should eventually be at, it may not tell us much about how we should arrive at our goals that is person centred, i.e. considering the way we are as individuals and what will makes us move towards these goals. The curriculum can play this role if indeed it is guided by overarching clarity on the need to do so, i.e. maybe via a clear PL position statement. Otherwise, it is back to nuts and bolts of instant gratification.

If you look at the often used definition of PL from Whitehead above, it reflects competencies that are person dependent (different people experience it differently) and this might suggest a need to understand fully the internal rules (scientific, social-cultural, philosophical, etc.) that explains the build-up of such competencies in a person. This might mean that a position statement on PL can only at best describe the philosophical, social, physical what of how we operate in this world in relation to recreation movement. The why and how might need the understanding of theoretical underpinnings of the different mechanisms within us interacting with our context, something which can be easily ignored if we develop statements (PL, PE, Curriculum, etc) literally as prescriptive guides.

Take for example the role of Fundamental Movement Skills (FMS) or any set of sub-needs believed as significant for PL to guide PE programmes. If we focus too much at specific universal milestones for all, a lot of effort will be put into introducing such sub programmes in isolation, given that it is supposed to be building blocks for better outcome eventually. If we consider learner-environment interaction as important (not separating us from our environment), sub-parts will then be considered as active and organic parts of more complex needs. On its own, it is just independent efforts with little impact. In the same vein, my previous post explore primary abilities in movement skills as very much ingrained in context. It is only much later in matured movement education should more isolated practises (something that is merely theoretical due to the nature of being in an environment; you can never be isolated) make an appearance. I will go as far as to say that otherwise literacy takes place in spite of the teacher, a constraint that is literal rather than facilitative.

Consider the position statement recently put out by Sports Australia (www.sportaus.gov.au/physical_literacy) or from Canada (https://physicalliteracy.ca/physical-literacy/consensus-statement/). These are valuable pieces of direction that movement related stakeholders in that country can seek some kind of clarity by. These are also commitments written down formally to ensure that aspects of living well is always in consideration when moving forward in areas relating to access to recreational movement, its impact and healthy living for all.

If I need to re-look my PE role based on a literacy statement like those mentioned above, I will want to know the bigger picture of how, what and why of the key attributes described, e.g. psychological, social and cognitive health; well-being benefits; movement skills, fitness, attitudes, etc. It is important that we realise that such competencies need an experience and that there cannot be too distinct from each other, i.e. that each competency occurs in seclusion. It may seem a like a no-brainer reminder but I feel we do have a tendency to want to always put faith in working on the small bits in isolation before building up the whole picture. This sounds very much like how we sometimes unfortunately also breakdown a complex skill for teaching in isolated small parts. Experience can either be dictated or generated. We either present an experience via replication or deliberately allow responses to stimulus to start off the generating of a learner dependent experience. This will bring into the discussion the differences in our beliefs of movement or competency acquisition. Perhaps that is why it is important to have some theoretical underpinning influence at all stages of recreational movement offering, starting from PL statements and all the way to implementation strategies.

Readings

Whitehead, M. E., & Capel, S. (2013). What is physical literacy and how does it impact on physical education? (Routledge, Ed.) Debates in Physical Education, 37 – 52.

www.sportaus.gov.au/physical_literacy

https://physicalliteracy.ca/physical-literacy/consensus-statement/

https://footblogball.wordpress.com/