Carnay and Howells (2008) support the views of Blair and Capel (2008) affirming that due to the lack of sine for physical education in initial teacher training, primary school teachers are not trained specialists in PE, This view is supported by Griffiths et al (2009) who claimed 40% of primary
school teachers indicated that the Pt component of their initial teacher training was not effective enough so prepare them for delivery. Is fact Blair and Capel (2008) expand this view further claiming that research has shown that 40% of all newly qualified teachers (NQT) of primary education received a total of only six hours of Pt (subject knowledge) throughout their whole initial teacher training (in). The result is that Pt is often not being taught to the desired and prescribed quality as outlined in the National Curriculum (Sloan, 2010). Sloan’s study found that a ‘lack of personal PE specific subject knowledge was highlighted as a prominent issue in terms of planning effectively across all activity areas (Sloan, 2010), and is unlikely to improve due to current ITE and government proposals. OfSTED (2009) further claimed that this has resulted in primary teacher’s with inadequate subject knowledge, limited understanding of progression and a weak grasp of assessment’. This was not a very endearing endorsement from the body responsible for educational standards, and prompted the plea for ‘a change of the routine and engrained practice and relatively superficial (PE) knowledge base of most primary school teachers’ (Waring et al, 2001).
Keay (2006) further claims that due to the very limited subject knowledge opportunities during ITT, or for CPD thereafter, teachers will tend to make few alterations to their practice, and subsequently maintain ‘a role with which they are comfortable’ (Keay, 2006). Although many primary teachers are uncomfortable teaching PE, it is not claimed that physical activity is not occurring. Rather it in a ‘quality’ not a ‘quantity’ issue, as Doherty and Brennan (2008) contend that the majority of teachers in primary schools simply feel they do not have the subject knowledge required.
Pill (2007) maintains that whilst physical activity is occurring, the quality of what is happening is questionable despite educators in the primary years being uncomfortable with teaching of PE. Furthermore, Morgan and Bourke (2008) claimed that many primary teachers would prefer not to teach Pt at all, hence strategies must be devised to improve training and support for teachers, or the employment of specialist PE teachers needs to be made a priority. Perhaps the resurrection of the CPD element of the PESSCL and the development of local delivery agencies may be a more realistic option.
When considering the primary specialist Pt teacher option, Price (2008) and Carney and Howells (2008) suggested that this ‘specialist’ should not be the teacher of all school PE, but rather a model of good practice who can support other teachers in their development of good practice whilst maintaining an understanding of the education of primary aged children. In addition, Carney and Howells (2008) argue that ‘the primary class teacher cannot and should not be separated from engaging in Pt, as this does not reflect the holistic view of primary education’. Additionally, it is believed that primary teachers would resent being placed on the periphery of teaching PE (Sloan, 2010). Yet Lavin et al’s (2008) article claimed 84% of primary teachers sit in on coaches’ delivery of curriculum Pt to further their own CPD. Thus, implying that primary teachers believed the roaches were more knowledgeable than themselves. A view enhanced by Griggs and Ward (2010) who, from feedback given by a number of PLT’s In a recent research project, indicated their reliance on sports coaches to raise the standards of delivery of PE.
Sloan 2010) also argues that there are those who oppose the idea of a ‘specialist’, believing that ‘the value of primary education lies in the same teacher delivering the curriculum as a whole, making links between different aspects of the curriculum and in knowing children as individuals, with their individual needs’ (Wright, 2002; cited in Sloan, 2010). However, this paper does not recommend an ‘all or nothing’ solution, but rather the primary teacher remains responsible for all subjects other than the three specialist foundation subjects of PE, music and Modern Foreign Languages (MFL), thus maintaining a pastoral vision of primary education. Furthermore, most of this debate has focused on the teacher when perhaps he should focus more on the learning experience of the child. The research throughout this study has highlighted that the specialist primary PE teacher would offer a better learning experience. It could also be argued that this would not remove the holistic nature, and pastoral cart element, of primary education as all other subjects remain as they are, but actually create a far better PE learning experience for the child. PE is distinctive from all other subjects mainly due to its unique organizational setting and the exclusive strategies required to teach this.
Further confusion was originally highlighted by Scraton and Flintoff (2002) who warned of the conflict between the competing interests of PE and sport, and the different respective personnel associated with their delivery. Maraden and Weston (2007) supported these concerns claiming there were clear differences in the discourses of these two practices. They justify their position with the belief that sport be competitive with opportunities for the gifted child to excel, whilst others are left isolated (Marsden and Weston, 2007), whereas P.E should benefit every child equally and purposefully Capel, (1997). All of these are further compounded, claim Blair and Capel (2008), by the confusion of the terms physical education and sport in the primary domain. This is further exacerbated by the current education Secretary (Gove, 2010) who, when recently discussing changes to the P.E Programme of Study, consistently refers to the educational practice of PE as ‘sport’, and specifically focusing on competitive games.
A final point for consideration, which once again supports the use of PE trained specialists for primary schools, is that teachers, who view their own physical activity experiences as positive, art likely so be more effective in promoting physical activity to children than those who dislike physical activity (Sallis and McKenzie, 1991). Furthermore, Carney et al. (1998, cited in Morgan et al 2001) stared that ‘primary student teachers with negative prior experiences held such strong ballets about their abilities that it affected their earning at university’.
It can logically be argued then that teachers’ attitudes and enthusiasm toward P.E will affect outcome attainment of students. Dowse’s (1979) described a situation where teachers tended to replicate their school experiences and may unwittingly perpetuate to students their own negative experience. That is, children are subject to physical education lessons of poor quality and quantity, and in turn may enter the teaching profession to perpetuate the same system. Many scholars believe that teachers’ prior experiences are so powerful that pre-service training may have little effect on their beliefs, particularly it may oppose already held beliefs (Carney at al, 1998). This resistance can become a source of frustration for teacher educators when pre-service teachers’ beliefs, acquired at school, conflict with beliefs imparted or encouraged during teacher training. Anecdotal evidence shows this position could equally be applied to Health Education teachers of primary initial teacher trainees, who have pre-conceived beliefs of the importance or lack of P.E (Morgan, et al, 2001).
No comments:
Post a Comment