Digital Technologies and Learning in Physical Education

Pedagogical cases

Ashley Casey, Victoria A. Goodyear, Kathleen M. Armour, Ashley Casey, Victoria A. Goodyear, Kathleen M. Armour

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317366287
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Physical Education

There is evidence of considerable growth in the availability and use of digital technologies in physical education. Yet, we have scant knowledge about how technologies are being used by teachers, and whether or how these technologies are optimising student learning. This book makes a novel contribution by focusing on the ways in which teachers and teacher educators are attempting to use digital technologies in PE.

The book has been created using the innovative 'pedagogical cases' framework. Each case centres on a narrative, written by a PE practitioner, explaining how and why technology is used in their practice to advance and accelerate learning. Each practitioner narrative is then analysed by a team of experts from different disciplines. The aim is to offer a multi-dimensional understanding of the possibilities and challenges of supporting young people's learning with digital technologies. Each case concludes with a practitioner reflection to illustrate the links between theory, research and practice.

Digital Technologies and Learning in Physical Education encourages critical reflection on the use of technologies in PE. It is an essential resource for students on physical education, kinesiology or sport science courses, practitioners working in PE or youth sport, and researchers interested in digital technologies and education.

1
A PEDAGOGICAL CASES APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND LEARNING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Kathleen M. Armour, Ashley Casey and
Victoria A. Goodyear

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

While there is evidence of considerable growth in the availability and use of digital technologies in physical education, we have very little evidence about how these technologies are being used and whether they are optimising student learning. In this chapter, we explain the rationale for this book and explore key terms. We take the ‘pedagogical cases’ framework and a critical understanding of ‘pedagogies of technology’ as our starting point. The aim is to stimulate debate within the profession about the value and potential dangers of digital technologies, and to bridge research and practice for the benefit of both.

What did we set out to do?

This book is about learning in physical education. It is important to emphasise learning because although the book is also about digital technologies, it is not a technology book. We have resisted the temptation to be dazzled by the tech wizardry and we focus instead on the ways in which digital technologies can be used by practitioners to support and enhance young people’s learning. Indeed, the starting point for each chapter is a narrative, written by a physical education practitioner, about the technologies they use in their lessons, why, how, for whom, and to what (if any) benefit. Importantly, whilst accepting the educational potential of digital technologies, we have not made the assumption that they are inherently positive or negative in a physical education pedagogical context.

In many countries, digital technologies seem to have become ubiquitous (either intentionally or unintentionally) in our physical education classrooms, gymnasia, courtyards, fields and other settings (Kretschmann, 2015). The central questions addressed in this book are about the effects of these technologies on practitioners’ pedagogies and practices, and on young people’s learning. In other words, we wanted to know whether we could expand on Casey’s (2015) fledgling ideas about developing theory-grounded and practice-relevant pedagogies of technology to inform the ways in which teachers use these extensive and increasingly accessible technology resources. So, we approached physical education pedagogy experts from around the world and asked them each to bring together a team who could collaborate to write a case study chapter for this book in a common case framework.

Each chapter case team consisted of academics (at least one from pedagogy and three from other sub-disciplines) and a physical education practitioner, all of whom collaborated to co-author their case study chapter. The task for the practitioner was to describe and critically reflect upon an aspect of their practice where digital technologies are used. The sub-discipline academics were asked to use their expert disciplinary lenses to analyse and critically reflect upon the practitioner narrative. The pedagogy academic was tasked with drawing the strands of the case together and was encouraged to ‘be brave’ in taking our thinking about pedagogies of technology forward in new ways. The aim was to contribute to a wider understanding of pedagogy and technology in physical education. The end result is the thirteen pedagogical cases that make up this book.

Why pedagogical cases?

The pedagogical cases model was created originally by Armour (2014). The first book of twenty pedagogical cases attempted to take a novel approach to bridging research/theory and practice. At the heart of each case was a narrative about an individual young person attempting to learn in physical education. Teams of authors from different academic sub-disciplines, led by a pedagogy academic, undertook a multidisciplinary analysis of the narrative. Importantly, the young person at the heart of the narrative was to be characterised as a complex individual learner rather than a deficit case to be ‘fixed’. The ambition was twofold: to pilot a new way of translating knowledge developed in individual sub-disciplines into an accessible, multi- and even interdisciplinary format for students and practitioners; and to create a two-way communication channel between academics and practitioners.

Although it has long been argued that in education new communication channels, and translational mechanisms and resources are needed, rather little has materialized. An extract from the introductory chapter of the first volume of pedagogical cases summarises the rationale for taking this approach:

In her Presidential Address to the 2012 American Educational Research Association (AERA), Arnetha Ball challenged researchers to ‘move away from research designed as mere “demonstrations of knowledge” towards research that has the power to close the knowing-doing gap in education’ (Ball, 2012, p. 283, emphasis in original). Ball argued passionately that although it is important for researchers in education to conduct research that can create new knowledge, ‘to know is not enough’ because knowing ‘is not sufficient to address social problems, mitigate inequalities, or advance innovative methods of instruction’ (p. 284). Noting also that ‘there is a gap between what we know and what is widely done in the educational arena’ (p. 285) Ball made a case for more translational research to close persisting knowledge-practice or research-practice gaps. She argued that what is required is ‘persistent, collaborative, and generative work’ (p. 285) and ‘resources and mechanisms to promote the use of research to improve education’ (p. 292). This book introduces the concept of ‘Pedagogical Cases’ as a translational research mechanism and a professional learning tool for practitioners. The purpose of the cases is to make a contribution to closing the knowledge/ research/practice gap for practising and aspirant teachers and coaches who work with children and young people in physical education/youth sport settings. (Armour, 2014, p. 7)

Reflection on the process of developing that first volume of cases suggests that we were only partially successful in what we set out to do. Indeed, those cases are best described as a pilot and perhaps the key lessons learnt were about the considerable challenges to be faced in synthesising different sub-disciplinary knowledge around an individual learner and moving from multi- to interdisciplinary understandings. In this second volume, the task is both similar and different. The intention remains to take up Ball’s (2012) challenge to develop new ‘resources and mechanisms’ that can help to close knowing/doing or theory/practice gaps to improve both. The aim was to learn from the experience of developing the first pedagogical cases and to improve the model.

In each case/chapter in this book, a case narrative details a practitioner’s pedagogical intentions and processes when using digital technologies with specific groups of learners. The narratives are then analysed from three different sub-discipline perspectives to provide a multidisciplinary and critical understanding of the possibilities and challenges of supporting learning with digital technologies. Each case concludes with a pedagogical synthesis and a practitioner reflection to ensure the links between theory/research and practice are robust. The pedagogical cases approach, therefore, offered us the possibility to develop new thinking around pedagogies of technology that are grounded in both theory and practice.

Although the focal point of the case narrative in this book is a practitioner, the ultimate target is improved outcomes for learners in physical education contexts. It is also worth emphasising that as with the first volume of pedagogical cases, the aim is to bridge theory and practice but there is no intention to present the practitioner as a deficit case who needs to be ‘improved’ by knowledge from research. Instead, the aim is to present a set of collaborative, co-created pedagogical cases that raise issues for debate, discussion and further professional learning. It is worth noting that in this volume, a practitioner is a co-author on each chapter and has both the first (narrative) and last (critical reflection) word to ensure their voices are strong.

What are pedagogies of technology?

New technologies are transforming how we think, work, play and relate to each other.

Technology has dramatically affected virtually every sector in society that you can think of except education.

The stark contrast between Robinson’s and Fullan’s statements is at the heart of this book. It has been suggested that education is often far behind other disciplines (Dumagan, Gill, & Ingram, 2003) and somehow disconnected from the outside world, and this is one argument for aspirations to increase the use of technology in education. Yet, it can also be argued that this is hardly a new or particularly innovative message given that numerous researchers have voiced the expectation that technology will revolutionize education (Beynon, 1992; Papert, 1993; Prensky, 2010; Riel, 1994). Foremost among these has been Papert (1993, p. 37) who has suggested, in different ways and at different times, that digital technology (in this case, the computer) will create an environment where ‘new educational ideas can be put into practice today and in the near future’. Indeed, the saturation of technology in the personal lives of many individuals can mean that the step from personal to professional use is barely questioned. Selwyn (2011, p. 1), for example, argues that ‘we are faced with a prevailing sense that the use of technology in education is something that does not merit particular critical scrutiny or thought’.

Writing more than two decades ago, Apple (1992) suggested there was a sense of autonomy associated with technology. He felt that technology was afforded a life of its own and was simply expected to grow and progress in its capacity to act as ‘something of a savior … pedagogically’ (Apple, 1992, p. 106). Apple was convinced, however, that we should be willing to find and analyse the potential of technology before simply introducing it wholesale into education. More recently, Selwyn (2014) has voiced a similar distrust of educational technology suggesting that there is a ‘gulf that persists between the rhetoric of how digital technologies could be used in education and the realities of how digital technologies are actually used in education’ (Selwyn, 2014, p. vii, original emphasis). To this end both Apple (1992) and Selwyn (2014) have suggested that decisions about technology (i.e. what to purchase and use) are being made too quickly and assumptions are made about the future that are not evidence-based and that rarely come to fruition.

Underpinning all of these concerns is a belief that technology in education has tended to be considered largely uncritically and is viewed as being unquestionably beneficial (Apple, 1992; Oppenheimer, 2003; Selwyn, 2014). The sheer volume, power and pervasiveness of digital technologies means that they are seldom problematised and are, instead, positioned as the solution to a plethora of educational problems (see Fullan, 2013). Yet, as Selwyn suggests:

Most digital technologies over the past 30 years have been accompanied by promises of widening participation in education, increased motivation and engagement, better levels of ‘attainment’, enhanced convenience of use and more ‘efficient’ and ‘effective’ provision of educational opportunities. Indeed, the field of education and technology is beset by exaggerated expectations over the capacity of the latest ‘new’ technology to change education for the better, regardless of context and circumstance. (Selwyn, 2014, p. 7)

Clearly there is a large and perhaps irreconcilable gap (at least in the short term) between different positions on the value of technologies in education. Some believe in the natural capacity for educational technology to solve pedagogical ills, while others feel that a tectonic shift needs to occur in the way we debate about digital technologies. The purpose of this book is to open this debate in physical education and consider the potential impact of educational technologies on the pedagogies of our subject. In short, we (with the help of the chapter teams) will argue that the problematisation of technologies has the potential to support the field to reconsider what we want to achieve by asking ‘what pedagogical gaps exist that digital technologies can help to bridge?’ In other words, how can we be creative in our use of digital technologies so that they enhance, expand and even (optimistically) transform teaching and students’ learning?

Conceptualizing pedagogies of technology

As we embarked upon the process of developing this book and the pedagogical cases that comprise it, our starting point was a concern that digital technologies in education may not always be driven by a pedagogical process, but more by ad hoc decisions to use specific pieces of hardware and software (Hastie et al., 2010; Palao et al., 2015). Literature suggests that while some teachers are enthusiastic technology adopters, others are more resistant, perhaps feeling they lack the organizational and administrative support or expertise to integrate it (Fullan, 2013; Leh, 2005; Palao et al., 2015). This is perhaps not surprising given that schools and institutions are often not fit for purpose and based on industrialized systems of working (Lawson, 2009; Robinson, 2011). Increasingly, teachers lack autonomy. Indeed, there is a prevailing sense that teachers are being employed not to do what they consider is in the best interests of their students but are instead employed to teach in increasingly scripted ways (Au, 2011; Sloan, 2008). Under such conditions, teachers can be forgiven for failing to think pedagogically about technology and instead simply adopting it uncritically or using it because they have been told they must.

In positioning the idea of pedagogies of technology as a foundational concept ...