What is recognised as ability in physical education? A systematic appraisal of how ability and ability differences are socially constructed within mainstream secondary school physical education

Abstract

In sport, schools and physical education (PE) ability has invariably been understood as an inherent and relatively immutable capacity, amendable to varying degrees by interventions such as training regimes and education. Differences in achievement are assumed to be an inevitable consequence of natural variations in ability and an indication of motivation or effort. Drawing on the theoretical tools of Pierre Bourdieu, Evans, in 2004, proposed an alternative socially constructed perspective of ability. Evans suggested that an individual’s embodied dispositions can function as capital and thus be ‘perceived as abilities when defined relationally with reference to attitudes, values and mores prevailing within a discursive field’ (e.g. PE). Drawing on the data of existing socially critical research on the social construction of ability, this paper takes the form of a systematic appraisal. Systematic searches were conducted in numerous electronic databases and electronic journals and contact was made with authors to identify relevant studies. Nine studies in total complied with a pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. The data for the studies included in this appraisal are for the most part located in Queensland, Australia and to a lesser extent Sweden. Therefore, importantly, the Australian and Swedish contexts are the focus of this report. The aims of this systematic appraisal are to investigate how ability is socially constructed (conceived of and re/produced) in PE and how conceptualisations of ability in the subject influence students’ learning, experiences and potential achievement. The conclusions of this paper suggest that teachers and the PE curriculum in Queensland, Australia and Sweden play a significant role in (re)producing particular discourses around the body which reward (with ‘high’ ability identification) only those few (mostly male) students whose abilities are consistent with the values prevailing within the field (e.g. being competitive and aggressive). The limited acknowledgement of a ‘range’ of abilities in the subject leads to many students (both male and female) perceiving themselves incapable of being successful, not because they lack ability per se but rather because their abilities are not recognised or transactable for high achievement grades in the field.

The challenges of widening ‘legitimate’ understandings of ability within physical education

“…For example, these 'subversions' may be evidenced in particular contexts in relation to changing and inconsistent attitudes towards gender within PE and sport (Hills, 2006). The concept of habitus has primarily been used to explain and critique the continuity of teaching practices and normative understandings of desirable physical capital within PE in the broader context of Bourdieu's work on reproduction; subsequently, the conceptual and practical considerations involved in changing habitus remain contested (Green, 2002;Hay & MacDonald, 2010a;Wilkinson, Littlefair, & Barlow-Meade, 2013).…”

Sociocultural processes of ability in Physical Education and Physical Education Teacher Education: A systematic review

“…This would involve a reconsi-deration of the personal characteristics -either acquired and/or learned based on individuals' class and culture -that are configured as desirable by powerful agents in the field, and thus, are per-ceived as abilities (Evans, 2004). Wilkinson et al's (2013) findings have made a significant contribution to understandings of ability in PE and the educational consequences of narrow conceptions of ability, and their research has underpinned the development of effective and inclusive practices and equity agendas (Evans and Davies, 2017). However, their work focuses solely on PE, and they only included research informed by the work of Evans (2004).…”

“…In light of the above limitations, this study aims to systematically review the key literature in this area to address the gaps identified in Wilkinson et al's (2013) work, with a particular focus on PETE. The reasons for this are twofold: (a) it is an appropriate context to challenge some of the unquestioned internal beliefs held by many future educators (Brown, 2005); and (b) PETE pro-vides an ideal space for generating critical debate on how future educators might deal with the differences children bring to PE, which is an imperative issue for the successful implementation of inclusion (Evans and Penney, 2008).…”

Exploring the educational landscape of juggling – challenging notions of ability in physical education

“…Narrow and reductionist views typically center on performances in specific activities, often derived from sport and exercise contexts, which are usually measured and valued in relation to explicit or implicit standards of excellence. This perspective of ability tends to privilege certain students and marginalize others, often equating ability with technique-based sport performance (Tidén, Redelius, and Lundvall 2017;Wilkinson, Littlefair, and Barlow-Meade 2013). Marginal attention is put on what there is to know when you can perform a specific movement.…”