Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan, GIH

Föreliggande studie är en del av ett större forskningsprojekt, Physical Education-Academy, som undersökt hur så kallade signaturpedagogiker implementeras och upplevs vid sju europeiska lärosäten med lärarutbildning i idrott och hälsa. Forskningen inom idrott och hälsa har upprepade gånger efterlyst innovativa sätt att utbilda idrottslärare (t.ex. Kirk, 2009), vilket speglar Shulmans uppmaning att utforma och utveckla nya signaturpedagogiker inom lärarutbildning (Falk, 2006). Trots dessa uppmaningar finns det fortfarande en brist på forskning som beskriver och analyserar nya eller framväxande signaturpedagogiker inom idrott och hälsa.

Syftet med denna presentation är att bidra med kunskap om en potentiell signaturpedagogik inom idrott och hälsa – den integrerade rörelsepraktiken.

Den integrerade rörelsepraktiken, i detta fall dans och bollspel, kombinerat med ett rörelseteoretiskt ramverk inspirerat av Rudolf Laban, BRESS (Frisk & Svanström, 2024) har utvecklats vid Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan (GIH). De centrala målen med pedagogiken och BRESS-ramverket är att utmana aktivitetsfokuserad undervisning i idrott och hälsa samt att utveckla studenternas språk för att kunna beskriva lärande i rörelse.  Den integrerade rörelsepraktiken skiljer sig från de i Phys.Ed-Academy identifierade signaturpedagogikerna (Hordvik & Beni, 2024), varför vi menar att denna praktik kan förstås som en potentiellt ny signaturpedagogik. 

I presentationen utgår vi från följande forskningsfrågor:

Vilka är erfarenheterna med att integrera rörelsepraktiker inom svensk lärarutbildning i idrott och hälsa?Vilka är de karakteristiska strukturerna – signaturen – för denna pedagogik?Data genererades under en kurs i idrottsdidaktik för förstaårsstudenter via reflektionsdagböcker (n=14), lektionsobservationer (n=3), samt en fokusgruppsintervju med fem lärarstudenter.

Med teoretisk utgångspunkt i Shulmans (2005) strukturer för signaturpedagogiker analyserar vi ”signaturerna” för denna pedagogik. Resultaten ramas in utifrån begreppen ytliga, djupa och implicita strukturer. I diskussionen av resultaten belyser vi behovet och utmaningarna med att utveckla och sprida innovativa signaturpedagogiker inom idrottslärarutbildningar.

Referenser

Falk, B. (2006). “A conversation with Lee Shulman—signature pedagogies for teacher education: Defining our practices and rethinking our preparation.” The New Educator, 2(1), 73-82.

Frisk, A. & Svanström, F. (2023). Ett möte mellan bollspel och dans i BRESS. I: Suzanne Lundvall (Red.), Boll och bollspel i skolan: lek, lärande och rörelse (198-228). Liber.

Hordvik, M. and S. Beni. (2024). "Signature pedagogies of teacher education in physical education: a scoping review." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1-17.

Kirk, D. (2009). Physical education futures. Routledge.

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.

This study is part of the larger PhysEd-Academy research project examining how signature pedagogies are implemented and experienced in seven European physical education teacher education (PETE) departments. One key aim of the project is to develop a shared language in the signature pedagogies of PE. At the same time, PE scholarship has repeatedly called for developing new or innovative ways of educating PE teachers (e.g., Kirk, 2009). This echoes Shulman’s broader call for the design, development, and proliferation of a collection of new signature pedagogies in teacher education (Falk, 2006). However, despite myriad calls of this nature, there remains a dearth of research that describes and analyzes new or emerging signature pedagogies of PE. The purpose of this presentation is therefore to contribute knowledge regarding a potentially emerging signature pedagogy of PE – the integrated movement practice pedagogy. 

The pedagogy we examine has been developed at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH) and has a distinct logic of integrating different movement practices, in this case dance and ball games, combined with a locally developed movement theoretical framework inspired by Rudolf Laban, BRESS (Frisk & Svanström, 2024). The central aims of the pedagogy and BRESS framework are to challenge activity-focused teaching in PE and for students to develop a language for movement learning. Moreover, the pedagogy is distinct in how it intentionally integrates different signature pedagogies identified in the PhysEd-Academy project (Hordvik & Beni, 2024). Importantly, we argue that this pedagogy can be considered an emerging signature pedagogy. It is emerging because it does not fit squarely into the previously distinguished signature pedagogies of PE, and, although it is an established pedagogy at GIH, it is not (yet) a pervasive PETE pedagogy. 

In this presentation, we seek to answer the following research questions: What are the experiences and intentions of integrating movement practices in Swedish PETE? What are the characteristic structures of this emerging signature pedagogy? Data for the study was collected during a sport didactics course for first-year pre-service teachers via reflective diaries (n=14) by a teacher educator responsible for the implementation of the pedagogy, lesson observations of integrated movement practices (n=3), and a focus group interview with five pre-service teachers. 

With a theoretical starting point in Shulman’s (2005) structures of signature pedagogies, our analysis will explore the “signatures” of this emerging signature pedagogy. We frame our results in terms of surface, deep, and implicit structures while also considering the complex interplay of content, learning, and teaching in teacher education (Loughran, 2013). In our discussion of the results, our ambition is to shed light on the need and challenges for developing and sharing innovative signature pedagogies in PETE.  

References

Falk, B. 2006. “A conversation with Lee Shulman—signature pedagogies for teacher education: Defining our practices and rethinking our preparation.” The New Educator, 2(1), 73-82.

Frisk, A. & Svanström, F. (2023). Ett möte mellan bollspel och dans i BRESS. In: Suzanne Lundvall (Ed.), Boll och bollspel i skolan: lek, lärande och rörelse (pp. 198-228). Liber.

Hordvik, M. and S. Beni. 2024. "Signature pedagogies of teacher education in physical education: a scoping review." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy: 1-17.

Kirk, D. (2009). Physical education futures. Routledge.

Loughran, J. (2013). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching & learning about teaching. Routledge. 

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.

The field of PE has continued to face several grand challenges (e.g. around articulat-ing clear, coherent aims of PE), many of which are present across international con-texts and highly related to initial teacher education (ITE) and continuous professional development (CPD) of PE teachers. In seeking to address common challenges, there have been calls to better integrate the work of teachers and teacher educators through collective engagement in projects focused on key pedagogical challenges in PE. Scholars have highlighted the need for a collaborative redesign of school PE and ITE for the 21st century, aiming to bridge the gap between recommended practices and the realities of school PE and ITE. Such an endeavour will necessitate teachers and teacher educators moving beyond their isolated contexts and seeking to learn with and from one another. The purpose of this project has been to facilitate sus-tainable international collaboration between PE teachers and teacher educators across seven European nations with a focus on identifying signature pedagogies of PE-ITE and CPD to support innovative PE practices in schools and ITE programs. This presentation aims to share the pedagogical and methodological approach which has guided this collaborative endeavour. Methods: This study involves a collabora-tion between 27 teacher educators, 22 in-service teachers and two international PE associations. In addition, 70 pre-service teachers, 70 school students, and 35 in-ser-vice teachers participated in data generation. Data sources were generated across two years and include: reflective diaries from teachers and teacher educators; focus group interviews with pre-service teachers and students; learning community meet-ing transcripts; non-participant observations in PETE and PE; and teaching/learning artifacts. Approach: In this project, we employ a collective action approach, guided by MacPhail and Lawson’s (2020) strategies, which highlight the need for: a) inter-national-comparative analyses, facilitating cross-border knowledge generation, in-novation, professional learning, and continuous improvement; b) dynamic partner-ships between exemplary ITE and school PE programs; and c) knowledge-generating teams of teachers and teacher educators. To maximize the effect of the collective action approach, the project integrates practitioner inquiry and learning communi-ties as complementary approaches. In this presentation, we illustrate the approach as it has been used to explore signature pedagogies of PE-ITE and CPD and outline what can be learned from it. This research holds important implications for the design and implementation of collective action projects seeking to promote the re-design of PE across contexts and for methodological approaches aiming to better understand signature pedagogies in PE-ITE and CPD.

MacPhail, A., & Lawson, H. (Eds.). (2020). School physical education and teacher education: Collaborative rede-sign for the 21st century. Routledge.