“Where was this when I was in Physical Education?” Physical literacy enriched pedagogy in a quality physical education context

Abstract

IntroductionIn recent years, there has been a call to restructure physical education (PE) practices and outcomes. A physical literacy enriched pedagogy approach would support this change by more intentional design of lesson planning that includes concurrent development of competence & confidence and inclusion of students of all levels of ability, leading to holistic development of the student. Despite this potential, there is little research to date that outlines PE pedagogical practices with physical literacy as a foundation. The purpose was to explore pedagogical practices and perspectives from elementary PE teachers through a physical literacy enriched pedagogy lens in a high-quality PE context.MethodsOne-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of elementary PE teachers within one school division. Interviews with all participants focused on questions related to PE and physical literacy. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data collected from the audio-recorded interviews.ResultsFour themes were generated based on the semi-structured interviews from six elementary PE teachers from one school division. The results identified key physical literacy enriched pedagogical practices based on four themes: supporting a holistic PE experience based upon physical literacy as an outcome; movement within and beyond PE; inclusive and individualized experiences; and physical literacy practices bringing the school community together. The findings were then connected to the physical literacy cycle and UNESCO components of quality PE.ConclusionsAll participants spoke to how their pedagogy focused on the holistic development and inclusion of their students based upon activation of various feedback pathways of the physical literacy cycle. The themes that emerged and subsequent insight gained from teachers went beyond existing physical literacy cycles, in particular by discussing development of students from cognitive, affective, social and creative (problem solving) perspectives, supporting an expansion to the existing physical literacy cycle as presented.

Individuals experiencing disability and the ableist physical literacy narrative: critical considerations and recommendations for practice

“…Despite the generation of newfound PL programs that embody the philosophy of the concept [i.e. ( 18 – 20 )], the rapid uptake of PL has left it relatively misunderstood ( 12 , 30 ). Ongoing debate associated with its defining features and meaning, coupled with a lack of empirical evidence supporting the concept's application ( 6 , 23 , 24 ), has generated substantial confusion and ambiguity amongst physical activity practitioners, rendering efforts to facilitate PL development inconsistent and incongruent ( 3 , 47 ).…”

“…Affiliated with a pedagogically sensitive approach to PL development, and branching out from non-linear and constraints-based (see ecological dynamics below) approaches, Houser and Kriellaars ( 20 ) have recently advocated for PL-enriched pedagogy as a means to ensuring holistic development and meaningful experiences across a broad base of movement contexts. PL-enriched pedagogy is an intentional, person-centred design of physical activity opportunities, using that support the PL development of all students, both holistically (e.g., physical, psychological, social and creative) and inclusively [i.e., through the creation of individual agency; ( 20 )]. Within this pedagogical approach, experiences are constructed through the use of strategies that deviate from a “technical movement focus” ( 20 ) to those that empower and create meaning on behalf of each individual learner—that which contribute to the motivation for continued engagement ( 8 ).…”

“…PL-enriched pedagogy is an intentional, person-centred design of physical activity opportunities, using that support the PL development of all students, both holistically (e.g., physical, psychological, social and creative) and inclusively [i.e., through the creation of individual agency; ( 20 )]. Within this pedagogical approach, experiences are constructed through the use of strategies that deviate from a “technical movement focus” ( 20 ) to those that empower and create meaning on behalf of each individual learner—that which contribute to the motivation for continued engagement ( 8 ). As such, the PL facilitator and the learner work in tandem to facilitate a physical activity context that appropriately challenges each individual learner ( 79 ), and minimizes the negative emotions (i.e., fear, anxiety or self-doubt) that lead to negative movement experiences ( 20 , 79 ).…”

“…Within this pedagogical approach, experiences are constructed through the use of strategies that deviate from a “technical movement focus” ( 20 ) to those that empower and create meaning on behalf of each individual learner—that which contribute to the motivation for continued engagement ( 8 ). As such, the PL facilitator and the learner work in tandem to facilitate a physical activity context that appropriately challenges each individual learner ( 79 ), and minimizes the negative emotions (i.e., fear, anxiety or self-doubt) that lead to negative movement experiences ( 20 , 79 ).…”

“…On this note, PL has served as a cornerstone for programming endeavors aimed at fostering sustained engagement in physical activities and fostering healthy, active lifestyles for all, including for individuals experiencing disability 2 ( 17 ). Despite the efforts of initiatives ( 18 – 20 ) and organizations ( 21 , 22 ) that have embraced the philosophical foundations of PL, and thus have committed to providing opportunities for everyone that are inclusive by design (i.e., those considered as “PL programs” rather than integrating PL into physical activity programs), the broader landscape of programming centered around PL development (i.e., physical activity programs integrating PL) continues to perpetuate the dominant narrative of PL. 3 Consequently, these endeavours become entrenched in both overt and subtle expressions of ableism, failing to recognize the inherent value of PL irrespective of individual capabilities ( 21 , 22 ).…”