A blog by Dr. Michelle Flemons
Nearly four decades of research into physical education has highlighted that the subject has resisted in moving forward. ‘Innovative’ and ‘new’ pedagogical practises from more than 30 years ago have still not become valued as the norm within physical education teaching.
Physical education is largely made up of a traditional curricula dominated by games; a sport- as- technique, skills / drills approach that has become ‘the way’ of teaching over short units with little development year on year (Kirk, 2010). Additionally, there is a wide body of research surrounding the marginalisation of children within physical education. Often, physical education ‘culture’ is highlighted as the cause; however, if we recognise this, why hasn’t anything changed? Green (2002) suggested that this is a result of physical education being based on ideology rather than philosophy caused by the passing on of norms and values from teacher to teacher and across generations. Furthermore, the physical education field holds a ‘group habitus’, meaning that PE teacher share the same norms and values within the field relating to how and what they teach. (Bourdieu, 1984, cited in lisahunter, Smith and Emerald, 2015)
Each teacher arrives with thoughts, feelings, and perceptions surrounding their occupational choice. In this case, physical education teaching. Lortie (1975) coined this term the subjective warrant. The subjective warrant has been further explored by Dewar and Lawson (1984) specifically for physical education. 15,000 hours of watching your teacher day in, day out, having opportunity to ‘try before you buy’ through coaching and supporting younger teams and the perception of lower academic entry requirements led researchers to believe that entry into physical education was relatively easy and therefore permissive. If this was the case, then why do we appear to have the same ‘type’ of recruit arriving on day 1 of Physical Education Teacher Education, and are we that ‘type’? (predominantly white, middle class games players).
Flemons (2018) investigated the thoughts, feelings and perceptions of PE teachers towards their chosen profession, how this changed over time and the impact these changes had on their behaviours. Life story semi structured interviews were conducted with 27 physical education teachers at different points in their career (pre- PETE, first year of teaching and 5+years of teaching) to identify a) if the subjective warrant still had currency in 21st century physical education, b) what changes teachers identified over time, and c) what impact the beliefs had on teacher behaviour. Interestingly, the subjective warrant for teaching physical education still has currency; although there are some subtle changes to the concept that help to explain why physical education is slow to change, and why the profession predominantly recruits a certain ‘type’ of individual.
Doolittle, Placek and Dodds (1993) categorised PETE entrants into two groups; early deciders and late deciders. Early deciders often made their decision to enter the profession whilst they were still at school. For late deciders, the decision often came as an after- thought after possibly pursuing or considering other professions first. There were distinct differences for the two groups in terms of how the profession announced itself to them. Both groups noted that careers advice for physical education was poor; noting that their ‘careers advisor didn’t have a clue!’
Woods, Richards and Ayres (2016) noted careers advice often came from the PE teachers themselves. Subsequently, those who did not have a great relationship with their PE teacher often struggled to get information and often became late deciders/ late entrants. Although PE teachers are a great source of information and a facilitator of those wanting to enter the profession, Flemons (2018) highlighted that the teachers themselves also act as the recruiters and were central to the selection process. Furthermore, they have their own criteria; those who demonstrate physical competence, effort and enthusiasm within the boundaries of the traditional curricula have a better chance of being selected. Additionally, if potential recruits identified by their PE teacher fit the group habitus, they were welcomed into the PE community beyond the classroom; providing further opportunities for socialisation in other social spaces such as the PE office and provided opportunity to build their conception of occupational choice through coaching sports teams and helping with fixtures/ events etc. Their love of working with children, shared love of sport and perceived good interpersonal skills became a solid foundation for the belief that PE teaching was not only permissible (recruits often felt that they were already in the profession, and just had to ‘get the badge’ to be able to teach) but also contributed to the group habitus.
This posed a new question. Was the subjective warrant actually permissible as previously suggested by Lortie (1975)? It was only permissible for those who had a great relationship with their PE teacher. What happened to the others that may have been interested in sport and physical activity that wasn’t part of the traditional curricula? Did their PE teachers notice them? In the classroom, did we notice them? If not, how did they a) get information if careers advice was poor generally, and what happened if they had a poor relationship with their PE teacher. This is a story for another day, however in conclusion, the subjective warrant for teaching physical education is not as permissible as previously thought. PE teachers themselves are the gatekeepers of the profession, and therefore it can be argued that the subjective warrant is stringent.
The story doesn’t end there. The stringency of the subjective warrant for teaching physical education, even for those who were early deciders, had great relationships with their PE teachers and up to this point had a straight forward journey into the profession could still become late entrants. Reality shock set in much earlier at the point of entry into PETE. Although their PE teachers may have told them about the challenges of teaching physical education, teacher education and the entry requirements, the potential recruits belief system often filtered this information. After all, they had already been accepted as part of the PE community, right? Other than having the right ‘badge’ to teach, they were practically doing the job and they were good at it, so what could possibly go wrong? For some early deciders, the harsh reality of needing a good academic profile to enter PETE and passing the QTS skills test in the UK burst their bubble. It wasn’t enough to love working with children, have good interpersonal skills and a love of sport. To them, this was reality shock; the system was all wrong, how could a minor detail like how academic they were matter if they wanted to teach PE? Some persevered, went back to the drawing board and became more determined to enter the profession. Others, on the other hand, would consider other options; uniformed services such as the police/ military and coaching being the top pick.
After listening to the stories of teachers’ journeys into the profession, I felt I had more questions surrounding this. Firstly, the PE curriculum itself contributed and shaped potential entrants. Those who didn’t share the same group habitus that derived from this didn’t stand a chance. Secondly, would better careers advice allow PE teaching to become more permissible at school? Would those who were not fulfilling the teacher recruitment criteria of effort, enthusiasm and physical competence limited to the traditional curricula be given more opportunity for the profession to announce itself to them? Thirdly, if the recruits changed, how would this impact on PE culture and would the group habitus change?
Further opportunity to explore what school aged children think about this, and further study around the ones that chose not to enter PETE would make an interesting read; however, that’s another story for another day!
References:
Dewar, A. M. and Lawson, H. A. (1984) ‘The subjective warrant and recruitment into physical education’, Quest, 36(1), pp.15-25.
Doolittle, S. A. Dodds, P. and Placek J. H. (1993) ‘Persistence of beliefs about teaching during formal training of pre – service teachers’. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, pp.355- 364.
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
Green, K. (2002) ‘Physical education teachers in their figurations: A sociological analysis of everyday philosophies’, Sport and Society, 7(1), pp.65-83.
Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London, UK: Routledge.
lisahunter, Smith, W. and emerald, E (2015) ‘Bourdieu and his conceptual tools’ in lisahunter, Smith, W. and emerald, E. (eds) Pierre Bourdieu and Physical Culture, Routledge, London. pp3-23.
Lortie, D. (1975/2002) Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study (2nd ed.) with a new preface. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Woods, A. M., Richards, K. A. R. and Ayres, S. (2016) ‘All in: teachers and college faculties roles in recruiting physical educators’. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 87(4), pp.18- 23.