Innovation with change: developing a community of practice to help teachers move beyond the ‘honeymoon’ of pedagogical renovation

Is practical subject matter knowledge still important? Examining the Siedentopian perspective on the role of content knowledge in physical education teacher education

“…A focus on content and a prioritisation of content knowledge may lead to de-contextualised teaching which impede the development of more inclusive and pupil-centred approaches to PE and PETE (Enright et al, 2014;Capel 2007;Hayes et al 2008;Velija et al 2009). Hayes et al (2008 contend that PSTs in PETE frequently equate content knowledge with subject knowledge and that the emphasis PSTs and their school-based mentors place on the development of such knowledge is at the expense of the development of more pupil-led pedagogies, such as Cooperative Learning (Goodyear and Casey 2015) and Sport Education (Farias, Hastie and Mesquita, 2015).…”

Cooperative Learning as Formative Approach in Physical Education for All

“…However, a limitation in our understanding is that we know little certain issues relating to the implementation of cooperative learning in Physical Education: teachers' use of this approach and how the school contextual factors constrain or facilitate teachers' use of this approach (Goodyear & Casey, 2015).…”

Risk-Taking and Professional Development: Physical Education Teachers’ Narratives of Experience

“…Armour and Yelling (2007) report on their findings of a two-year investigation suggesting that training teachers highly value informal learning with and from others and so recommend changes to CPD provision which encompasses professional learning communities and networking as central features. Such thoughts are echoed by Goodyear and Casey (2015) where their participatory action research study found communities of practice to be a professional learning strategy that supports pedagogic innovation and the beginnings of sustained change.…”

“…This, alongside social and institutional influences, has been found to detract from PE teachers' engagement with creative, new or innovative practices (Goodyear and Casey, 2015;Goodyear, Casey and Kirk, 2017), which has been described as 'schooling for docility-utility' (Kirk 2004, p. 201). This view considers that a behaviourist learning approach has produced physically educated pupils who reproduce knowledge which has tended to be 'decontextualised and abstracted elements from sport' (Kirk 2004, p. 202) rather than experiment and adapt with new movement and physical activity.…”

“…This view considers that a behaviourist learning approach has produced physically educated pupils who reproduce knowledge which has tended to be 'decontextualised and abstracted elements from sport' (Kirk 2004, p. 202) rather than experiment and adapt with new movement and physical activity. Furthermore, when PE teachers have engaged with innovative practice, this has been found to rarely move beyond the initial implementation stages (Casey, 2014;Goodyear and Casey, 2015) leading to the continuance of teacher-led approaches prioritising skills in the physical learning domain and skills for sport rather than the consideration of learning being positioned in 'multiple domains (physical, cognitive, social and affective)' (Goodyear, Casey and Kirk, 2017, p. 242). The continuance of such teacher-led approaches has been argued to neither meet the aims of PE nor meet the needs of the young people engaging in it (Kirk, 2004).…”