By Dr. Michelle Flemons
Have you ever considered why you wanted to become a physical education teacher? Have you ever thought about what innovative pedagogy means to you? Do you consider yourself to be innovative? What does success look like in physical education? How do you facilitate this for all students? This blog aims to prompt you to think about your own physical education story and how it has influenced the way you teach. Are you innovative or are you custodial in your practices, and where did your own beliefs come from?
The term ‘subjective warrant’, originally conceived by Lortie (1975), has been widely used by researchers interested in the occupational socialisation of physical education teachers to identify why an individual chooses to enter the profession. Occupational socialisation is a framework made up of three phases; the anticipatory (pre- PETE) phase, the professional phase (during PETE) and the organisational (in -service teaching) phase. Researchers have used this framework to examine the norms and values within physical education and how each phase impacts teachers’ beliefs and practices. A subjective warrant ‘consists of each person’s perceptions of the requirements for teacher education and for actual teaching in schools’ (Lawson, 1983a, p6). Views are shaped by individual events, experiences, people and processes. Dewar and Lawson (1984) maintain that there is a direct relationship with the conception of one’s beliefs related to perceptions of how physical education should be delivered in schools even before they enter a Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) programme.
Furthermore, Dewar and Lawson (1984) also built a profile for coach orientated and teacher orientated individuals. Given that an individual’s orientation towards teaching is shaped by various phases of their socialisation, in conjunction with the subjective warrant it is important to consider the orientations of pre-service teachers and what motivates them to teach. Based on Lawson’s (1983a) hypothesis that teachers came into PETE with two subjective warrants, Curtner–Smith (2001) identified two clear orientations: coaching and teaching.
The first warrant refers to ones’ desire to coach school teams (in this case teaching was a career contingency that allowed an individual to coach). These particular recruits were most likely to have performed or competed in sports at a higher level and were predominantly male. Curtner-Smith (2001) reported that their PETE programme (professional phase) was unlikely to have much of an impact on their pedagogical practice and beliefs.
The second warrant refers to a teacher orientation. Dewar and Lawson (1984) hypothesised that this type of recruit will have an interest in teaching a variety of physical activities within physical education and has been extensively involved in physical activity rather than the competitive ‘traditional’ approach before joining their PETE programme. Interestingly, they theorised that these recruits were more likely to be female. This is coherent with the suggestion made by Lortie (1975) that girls will foster more of identification with teachers due to the fact that they will experience female teachers throughout their education, whereas boys tend to experience male teachers in the latter years of their schooling, thus providing a clear example of the interdependent and intergenerational links between individuals at different stages of their socialisation. In addition to this, Curtner-Smith, Hastie and Kinchin (2008) suggested that future pre-service teachers were not only influenced by the beliefs, values and skills of their physical education teachers, but also from those with other subject specialisms. This influences their commitment to the teaching profession more generally.
Furthermore, O’Bryant, O’Sullivan and Raudensky (2000) suggest that recruits enrolled on a graduate PETE programme in Ireland tended to be teacher orientated, with a focus on a more inclusive pupil-centred approach. This study found that individuals who had completed a degree, spent time working in another profession and then return to university to complete teacher education were often making a big career change and were therefore more committed to teaching. Their drive to promote enjoyment and achievement for children far outweighed their desire to achieve their teaching qualification. They believed that their role was to be a physically active role model to help students appreciate the importance of lifelong physical activity. The students also appreciated the significance of raising pupil self-esteem, especially those who were not advocates of physical education thus highlighting the apparent shift from a coaching mentality to a teaching one.
Curtner-Smith and Meek (2000) recognised that those students who participated in minor sports and non-competitive activities were more likely to possess a more innovative orientation towards the practices they fostered as opposed to the more custodial approaches used by coach orientated teachers. The longer one spent in coaching, the more likely an individual was to espouse conservative views of physical education (e.g. didactic teaching styles and a traditional curricula) thus creating role conflict (Lee and Curtner- Smith, 2011; Richards and Templin, 2012; Curtner-Smith, Hastie and Kinchin, 2008).
However, there has been some discussion about whether teachers should not merely be categorised as teacher orientated or coach orientated. More recently Richards, Templin and Graber (2014) and Curtner-Smith (2016) suggested that they can be viewed as being positioned on a continuum between the two. The next section of this blog discusses Flemons’ (2018) study that examined the currency of the subjective warrant in 21st century physical education, how it changes over time and how it impacts on teacher behaviour. She argues that by defining an individual’s pedagogical behaviours by their role insinuates that a ‘coach’ cannot be innovative, and a ‘teacher’ should not be custodial. External experiences that contribute to positioning individuals on a pedagogical continuum between a ‘custodial recycler’ broadly informed by behaviourism or a ‘constructivist innovator’, underpinned by more a constructivist approach to develop new knowledge were examined.
Custodial orientated teachers were predominantly early deciders, who espoused positive early experiences in physical education through a mastery of skill. They made a connection between the custodial practices employed and their motivation to enjoy sport and stay physically active. This acted as a facilitator for entering PETE. Additionally, good teaching in physical education was measured by the level of success restricted to mastery of skill as opposed to an innovative pedagogy that places emphasis on the other domains such as affective, social and cognitive; not just physical. They also spent additional hours in physical education during their extra-curricular involvement, therefore increasing their hours of an ‘apprenticeship of observation’ by watching their teachers or coaches. This resonated with previous literature that suggested that the longer one spent in coaching, the more likely an individual was to espouse conservative views of physical education (Lee and Curtner-Smith, 2011; Richards and Templin, 2012; Curtner-Smith, Hastie and Kinchin, 2008). In conjunction with Curtner-Smith (2016), the innovative orientated teachers in Flemons’ (2018) study wanted to promote change by moving away from the type of physical education that marginalised many children or themselves through a traditional curriculum or a skills mastery climate.
Moreover, Newly Qualified Teachers (NQT’s) noted that they did not gain subject knowledge matter for the major games taught in the traditional curriculum during PETE and that the focus was on pedagogical practice such as TGfU. However, the challenge experienced was that without high subject matter knowledge in the activities taught and little input to what activities they could teach, Pre Service Teachers and Newly Qualified Teachers were reliant on ‘experts’ within the physical education departments during placements and in service to develop their teaching of the traditional curriculum. The custodial pedagogies were common and became justified to those who lacked confidence in teaching certain sports. Furthermore, the participants noted that they also relied on coaching courses for continuing professional development. With skills mastery being the central agenda for these courses, the pedagogies employed did not always facilitate innovative practices and reinforced more custodial approaches; consolidating what they had learnt from the custodial ‘experts’ in school. Participants, regardless of career stage noted that coaching courses were perceived to be a desirable requirement for entering PETE. The more innovative orientated participants did not see the relevance of coaching courses to support their teaching and expressed frustration over the emphasis placed on them as a reliable source of developing subject knowledge matter for specific sports. This appears to be consistent with views expressed by Kirk (2010) who suggests that physical education needs to move away from the sport-as-technique approach.
Now, go back to the questions at the beginning of this blog. Why did you want to be a PE teacher? Have you ever thought about what innovative pedagogy means to you? Do you consider yourself to be innovative? What does success look like in physical education? How do you facilitate this for all students? Where do you ‘sit’ on the continuum? Where did your own beliefs come from? More importantly, why is this important? Whether we are in a sports coaching context or a physical education teaching context, there is space to innovate. Additionally, what is the difference between coaching and teaching? Food for thought. Engage with this blog by using #HPEresearch on Twitter.
References
Curtner–Smith, M. D. (2001) ‘The occupational socialization of a first -year physical education teacher with a teaching orientation’ Sport, Education and Society, 6(1), pp.81-105.
Curtner–Smith, M. D. (2016). ‘Acculturation, recruitment and the development of orientations’, in Richards, K. A., and Lux Gaudreault, K. (eds) Teacher Socialization in Physical Education: New Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Curtner–Smith, M. D., Hastie, P. A., and Kinchin, G. D. (2008) ‘Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education’, Sport and Society, 13(1), pp.97-113.
Curtner – Smith, M. D., and Meek, G. A. (2000) ‘teachers’ value orientations and their compatability with the National Curriculum for physical education’, European Physical Education Review, 6, pp.27-45.
Dewar, A. M. and Lawson, H. A. (1984) ‘The subjective warrant and recruitment into physical education’, Quest, 36(1), pp.15-25.
Flemons, M. (2018) ‘Occupational Socialisation and the Subjective Warrant of Physical Education Teachers’ unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bedfordshire, Bedford, UK. Available at: https://uobrep.openrepository.com/handle/10547/623358
Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London, UK: Routledge.
Lawson, H. (1983a) ‘Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: the subjective warrant, recruitment and teacher education’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2(3), pp.3- 16.
Lee, H., and Curtner-Smith, M. (2011) ‘Impact of Occupational Socialization on the Perspectives and Practices of Sport Pedagogy Doctoral Students’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30(3), pp.296-313.
Lortie, D. (1975/2002) Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study (2nd ed.) with a new Preface. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
O’Bryant, C. P. O’Sullivan, M. Raudensky, J (2000) ‘Socialization of Prospective Physical Education Teachers: The Story of New Blood’, Sport, Education and Society, 5(2), pp.177 – 193.
Richards, K. A., and Templin, T. J. (2012) ‘Toward a Multidimensional Perspective on Teacher- Coach Role Conflict’. Quest, 64(3), pp.164 – 176.
Richards. K. A., Templin, T. J., and Graber, K. (2014). ‘The socialization of teachers in physical education: review and recommendations for future work’, Kinesiology Review, 3(2), pp.113-13.