Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant?

Abstract

Structured AbstractBackground: Many critical curriculum theorists in physical education have advocated a modelor models-based approach to teaching in the subject. This paper explores the literature base around models-based practice (MBP) and asks if this multi-models approach to curriculum planning has the potential to be the great white hope of pedagogical change or, if in fact, it is a white elephant that should be reconsidered or abandoned.Purpose: To review the literature around pedagogical and curricular change in physical education that relates to teachers experience of models-based practice. This review of research on teachers' perceptions and use of MBP was undertaken in an effort to ascertain the ways in which practitioners' interpreted this type of change in practice.Data Collection: Papers were selected by searching EBSCO databases with the identifiers "Instructional Models", "Sport Education", "Teaching Games for Understanding" and their hybrids, "Cooperative learning", "Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility", "Personalised System of Instruction" "Peer Teaching Model" and "Inquiry Teaching." These were chosen as they match the seven innovative models in Metzler's (2010) compendium of instructional models. Further articles were obtained through the citations and references in the original documents.Data Analysis: Analysis of the 45 papers followed a systematic process of inductive analysis and constant comparison. The categories, which emerged from the analysis, were based upon the researcher's perceptions of findings and revealed five key findings/themes; i) Change for Teachers, ii) Difficultly and Time, iii) Diversification in the teacher's role, iv) Evidence of effectiveness and iv) University/teacher collaboration.Findings: While changes in attitude, positive feelings, efficacy, enthusiasm and vigour were reported by teachers there was also an acknowledgement that they lacked experience in using MBP which made them feel like they were 'beginning teachers' again. For some the conceptual shift was too much and they deliberately returned to their old pedagogies. For others change occurred slowly but gradually over the course of the intervention. When professional learning 2 was part of the relationship between the teachers and researchers then these returns to old practices was not reported. However, it was acknowledged that to engage with MBP required greater effort on behalf of the teacher and that to feel comfortable could take upwards of two years. Change was a difficult undertaking but when 'evidence' of success was used to support the teachers' learning then they felt more confidence in their decisions. The biggest factor in engendering change was the sustained support offered through collaborative partnerships between schools and universities. These supportive relationships allowed the teachers to continually reconsider their practice with the help of experienced colleagues.Conclusions: While MBP has begun to help practitioners to change and develop their pedagogies and curriculum we ar...

Learning informally to use the ‘full version’ of teaching games for understanding

“…As a result, TGf U may have little meaning for teachers (Stolz and Pill, 2014). In using this model over a number of years based on his own students' needs, Pete supports the view that learning how to use TGf U knowing the students' needs would almost certainly improve the effectiveness of the approach's adoption (Brooker et al, 2000;Butler and Griffin, 2010;Casey, 2014).…”

“…In contrast, teachers' learning how to use TGf U in their own school based on their students' needs would almost certainly improve the effectiveness of the approach's adoption (Butler and Griffin, 2010;Casey, 2014). Indeed, Stolz and Pill (2014) have argued that PCK is context specific and in ignoring the contextual features that teachers face on a day-to-day basis means that innovations such as TGf U has little meaning for them.…”

Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education

“…Cooperative Learning (CL) (Dyson and Casey 2012) or Sport Education (SE) (Siedentop 1994), taught in isolation. The somewhat limited subject-wide use of MBP has been attributed to the challenges teachers face when using MBP (Casey 2014;Metzler 2011). At the core of these challenges is the admission by teachers that they lack experience, confidence and competence using MBP and therefore return to their traditional practices (Casey 2014;Gurvitch and Blankenship 2008) after an initial period of innovation has passed (Goodyear and Casey 2015, 186).…”

What are physical education teachers being told about how to teach sport? An exploratory analysis of sport teaching in physical education

“…Metzler (2011) describes pedagogical models as blueprints for PE teaching, learning and assessment where each model has distinctive teaching and learning objectives. Casey (2014) suggested that while MBP has begun to help PE teachers to change and develop their pedagogies and curriculum we still do not fully understand the impact of changing to a MBP. Furthermore, advocates of MBP practice need to explore the pedagogical and curricular ramifications on teachers of the long-term adoption of a MBP.…”

“…For example, Mosston's Spectrum of Teaching Approaches (Mosston, 1966;Mosston & Ashworth, 2008) is an example of one of these enduring ideas. More recently, however, scholarly and research literature has been promoting models based practice (MBP), particularly as a means for implementing student-centred approaches to learning (Casey, 2014;Hastie & Casey, 2014). Metzler (2011) describes pedagogical models as blueprints for PE teaching, learning and assessment where each model has distinctive teaching and learning objectives.…”