Effects of occupational socialization on United States secondary physical education teachers’ beliefs regarding curriculum design

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of occupational socialization on the development of United States secondary physical education teachers’ beliefs and actions regarding curriculum design. Participants were 10 teachers. Data were collected with six qualitative techniques and analyzed using analytic induction and constant comparison. Three groups of teachers were identified: non-teachers, conservatives, and progressives. Key influences on the teachers’ beliefs and values were their orientations to teaching and coaching. These orientations had been formed during their acculturation and were untouched or reinforced by their physical education teacher education. The cultures in which they worked generally supported the non-teachers’ perspectives. Practical implications of the study focused on the need for careful selection of preservice teachers, ways in which to deliver physical education teacher education, and the need for increased accountability in schools.

‘I am finding my path’: A case study of Swedish novice physical education teachers’ experiences when managing the realities and challenges of their first years in the profession

“…Thus, conflicts in schools, as well as role orientations towards teaching PE, do not connect to Swedish PE teachers’ roles as coaches (e.g. as is shown in the United States; Flory, 2016; Prior and Curtner-Smith, 2020). A strong teacher orientation is further seen in the approach we term ‘socializing into a community of colleagues’.…”

“…The former is characteristic of those pre-service teachers predominantly focused on sport coaching in extracurricular school teams and the latter of those pre-service teachers focused on teaching curricular PE. These two roles are mainly based on studies in the United States, and research has led to the conceptualization of these role orientations as situated along a continuum ranging from highly teaching oriented to highly coach oriented (Prior and Curtner-Smith, 2020; Richards et al, 2013).…”

“My mindset has completely shifted from asking what to asking why and how”: Influence of two effective and expert teachers’ value orientations on their curricula and pedagogies

“…Hudson and Garrett were purposely selected to participate in the study because the PETE faculty from the local university with whom they worked viewed their programme as “high level” and the best in the area. In addition, both graduated from different and well-respected PETE programmes which led to them possessing strong teaching orientations (Prior and Curtner-Smith, 2020a). Specifically, Hudson received his teacher preparation from progressive undergraduate and master’s degree programmes at one institution, and Garrett was certified to teach during a master’s programme focused on sport pedagogy after having studied exercise science at the undergraduate level.…”

“…Findings that were by-products of and extrapolated from studies of the socialization of preservice and in-service teachers and prospective PE teacher education (PETE) faculty also indicated that value orientations influenced the instructional and curriculum models favored by participants (Curtner-Smith et al, 2018). Progressive teachers with beliefs that included elements from the disciplinary mastery, learning process, social responsibility, self-actualization, and social reconstruction orientations taught through a number of models including the multi-activity, movement education, peer teaching, sport education, personal system of instruction, health-related fitness, and teaching games for understanding (TGfU) models (Prior and Curtner-Smith, 2020a, 2020b). Similarly, progressive prospective PETE faculty with beliefs drawn from the same five orientations had employed the multi-activity, sport education, teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR), TGfU, and health-related fitness models (Lee and Curtner-Smith, 2011).…”

“…Similarly, progressive prospective PETE faculty with beliefs drawn from the same five orientations had employed the multi-activity, sport education, teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR), TGfU, and health-related fitness models (Lee and Curtner-Smith, 2011). By comparison, conservative teachers with beliefs that were solely related to the disciplinary mastery value orientation only taught through the more traditional multi-activity and movement education models (Prior and Curtner-Smith, 2020a, 2020b). Moreover, conservative doctoral students with the same exclusive disciplinary mastery focus had only employed the multi-activity model (Lee and Curtner-Smith, 2011).…”