Perceived differences and preferred norms: Dutch physical educators constructing gendered ethnicity

Abstract

Many physical education (PE) teachers have been challenged by the shift from teaching in primarily ethnic homogenous contexts to multi-ethnic (ME) classes. Teachers in secondary schools often experience difficulty in class management in such classes. This difficulty may limit their ability to create a positive studentteacher relationship and may result in practices of inclusion, exclusion and marginalisation. The purpose of this paper was to explore how Dutch PE teachers construct their relationship with their students and manage differences in ME classes. Using video stimulation, we interviewed 11 Dutch secondary school PE teachers about their teaching and managing of ME classes. Findings showed that these teachers tended to target a specific group of boys in their teaching and class management. In addition, their class management seemed to be based on an invisible norm about appropriate student behaviour.

‘Of course I ask the best students to demonstrate’: digital normalizing practices in physical education

“…Elsewhere we have shown how constructions of students by physical education teachers can endorse certain practices of masculinity, ability and whiteness (Van Doodewaard & Knoppers, 2018). In the current study, PE teachers constructed several bodies as needing care or protection and these bodies were framed as 'being too vulnerable to perform'.…”

“…Feminist researchers have pointed out how the influence of gendered discourses and power relations in PE privilege particular masculinities and simultaneously marginalize femininities, alternative masculinities and sexualities (Gerdin, 2017;Scraton, 1992;Sykes, 2011;Van Doodewaard & Knoppers, 2018;Wrench & Garrett, 2017). For example, Fisette (2011) showed how PE reinforced gendered power relations by sending the message to some of the girls that they are 'not as good as others ' (p. 191).…”

“…Constructions of race and ethnicity also influence PE teachers' assumptions of desirable bodies (Azzarito & Harrison, 2008;Douglas & Halas, 2013;Van Doodewaard & Knoppers, 2018). Flintoff and Dowling (2017) for instance, argue that discourses about race 'tend to position whites as " normal" and racially "unmarked", and "others" as "deficit" or named'' (p. 1).…”

“…These notions of highly proficient bodies also produced a diversity of bodies however (see also Flintoff & Dowling, 2017;Hill & Azzarito, 2012;Van Doodewaard & Knoppers, 2018). Differences among highly desired bodies were categorized in relation to notions about ability, gender and ethnicity.…”

Ethics in Categorizing Ethnicity and Disability in Research with Children

“…Scholars have also illuminated how children from minority backgrounds or with disabilities are often placed within homogenous and fixed categories and treated within deficit discourse [15][16][17][18][19]. Within this discourse, children of minority backgrounds or with disabilities are seen as lacking the skills, values, and norms to be recognized as good and competent students in physical education [20]. Scholars have suggested that research has contributed to (re)producing categorical thinking and othering by focusing on how children's characteristics, such as cultural background or ability, act as barriers to participation rather than examining how the subject in Western countries is racialized, white-centric, and embedded in thoughts of Eurocentrism and ableism [19,[21][22][23].…”