Pedagogical Cases in Physical Education and Youth Sport

Kathleen Armour, Kathleen Armour

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781134453764
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Éducation physique

Pedagogical Cases in Physical Education and Youth Sport is a completely new kind of resource for students and practitioners working in physical education or youth sport. The book consists of 20 richly described cases of individual young learners, each written by a team of authors with diverse expertise from across the sport, exercise and movement sciences. These cases bring together knowledge from single sub-disciplines into new interdisciplinary knowledge to inform best practice in physical education, teaching and coaching in youth sport settings.

At the heart of each case is an individual young person of a specified age and gender, with a range of physical, social and psychological characteristics. Drawing on current research, theory and empirical data from their own specialist discipline, each chapter author identifies the key factors they feel should be taken into account when attempting to teach or coach the young person described. These strands are then drawn together at the end of each chapter and linked to current research from the sport pedagogy literature, to highlight the implications for planning and evaluating teaching or coaching sessions.

No other book offers such a rich, vivid and thought-provoking set of pedagogical tools for understanding and working with children and young people in sport. This is an essential resource for any student on a physical education, coaching, kinesiology or sport science course, and for any teacher, coach or instructor working in physical education or youth sport.

1
Pedagogical Cases Explained

Kathleen Armour

SCHOOL OF SPORT, EXERCISE & REHABILITATION SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND

Key words: pedagogical case, professional learning tool, theory and practice, physical education, youth sport.

Why pedagogical cases?

In the Introduction to this book, a “pedagogical case” was defined as a translational research mechanism and professional learning tool. A pedagogical case comprises three elements: (i) a case narrative about a learner (in this volume, a child or young person); (ii) multidisciplinary perspectives (usually three) on the case narrative; and (iii) a pedagogical perspective that seeks to draw the strands together to generate interdisciplinary knowledge. Each chapter in this book constitutes a unique pedagogical case written by a multidisciplinary team of authors, including teams from some of the leading departments in our international field. Taken as a whole, the book covers a wide range of individual young learners and contexts. The intention is that these pedagogical cases are viewed as learning tools that can generate discussion/debate, facilitate communication across traditional boundaries, and offer access to cutting edge research and theory.

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: 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.

In this chapter, the concept pedagogical case is explained, including discussion about its genesis and potential application. Questions about whether these integrative pedagogical cases should be labelled as multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary – or indeed something else – are also considered. Importantly, as was noted in the Introduction, the cases presented in this book are positioned firmly as tools to stimulate discussion and debate, rather than an attempt to provide a blueprint for practice. The book should be helpful, therefore, as a conduit for critical discussion among those with an interest in learning more about how research can contribute to practice.

The teams of contributors for each pedagogical case comprise a lead pedagogy author and three contributors from any other sub-disciplines that could offer helpful insights into the specific case. In practical terms, the task for each chapter team was to (a) create a research-based narrative that describes an individual child or young person; (b) identify current research knowledge from each of the sub-disciplines that could be relevant to understanding the young person as a learner; and (c) explore the pedagogical implications for meeting the needs of that learner. Given that the author teams are drawn from different countries, each pedagogical case also reflects key features of local and national cultural context.

Neither pedagogical nor cases are new terms or concepts. It is clear, therefore, that this book builds on a large body of existing theory and research in these areas. What is different, however, is that those terms have been put together and developed in a way that results in a new resource for professional learning in our field. In order to begin to explain the rationale for pedagogical cases, it is helpful to analyse the two constituent terms of the concept: pedagogy/pedagogical and cases.

The “pedagogical” in pedagogical cases

In a recent book I reviewed the literature on the concept of pedagogy (see Armour 2011, for a fuller analysis). It became apparent that although there is some confusion in the use of the term (Stone 2000) learning – rather than mere transmission or instruction – is at its core (Watkins and Mortimore 1999). The work of Leach and Moon (1999) is widely cited, and these authors defined pedagogy as the relationship between four key elements of an educational encounter: teachers, learners, the learning task, and the learning environment. Alexander (2008) highlighted the “extraordinary richness of pedagogy as a field of intellectual exploration and empirical enquiry” and exhorted educators to reveal the “values, beliefs and theories … [that] … shape what both teachers and students do” (p. 183). He also argued that pedagogy “mediates learning, knowledge, culture and identity” (p. 183), and this point is certainly evident in the pedagogical cases presented in this book.

Within the field of physical education and youth sport, Tinning (2008) has written extensively on the concept of sport pedagogy. Tinning has argued that although the term sport pedagogy is amorphous, it is generally accepted as a “subdiscipline of the field of kinesiology” (p. 412). Tinning also argues for an understanding of pedagogical work related to physical activity, bodies, and health wherever it takes place, linked to other cultural players in the field such as those working in obesity/health. Certainly in the pedagogical cases presented in this book, a wide range of expertise contributes to an understanding of the cases. Importantly, each case takes, as its starting point, the needs and interests of an individual child or young person and his or her engagement in sport and physical activity.

In the specific field of physical education, Kirk, Macdonald, and O’Sullivan (2006) defined pedagogy “by its three key elements of learning, teaching and curriculum” stating that they “understand these three elements to be interdependent” (p. xi). In my earlier book entitled Sport Pedagogy, An Introduction for Teaching and Coaching I drew on the work of these authors and others such as Rovegno (2003), Grossman (1989), and Shulman (1987) to define sport pedagogy as having three complex dimensions that are made even more complex as they interact to form each pedagogical encounter: (i) knowledge in context; (ii) learners and learners; and (iii) teachers/teaching and coaches/coaching (Armour 2011). I also argued that the historical divisions and barriers between physical education teaching and youth sport coaching should be challenged. The point was made that the needs and interests of young learners should be prioritised, especially as many will try to learn across different sport/physical activity contexts. As Akkerman and Van Eijck (2013: 60) have argued, “the learner should be approached … as a whole person who participates in school as well as in many other practices”. In short pedagogical, within the concept of pedagogical cases signals that the complex learning needs of learners are identified as the core of professional practice.

“Cases” in pedagogical cases

Case within the concept of pedagogical cases is central to the book’s design and structure. In taking a case study approach as an organizing framework, I have drawn on numerous sources. For example, Lawrence Stenhouse (1979: 4) advocated for the wider use of case studies as a resource for practitioners. He argued for cases based on a “differential response to diagnostic assessment of [learner] needs” and for the development of mixed method case studies, and their “… patient accumulation”. Stenhouse argued that taking this approach would lead to new resources that could be shared. He also believed these resources could support practitioners in educational contexts to “make refined judgments about what educational action to take in particular cases lodged in particular contexts” (p. 4). In other words, it would appear that Sten-house was arguing for the use of cases that, in Ball’s (2012) terms, could act as a translational mechanism.

There is a rich literature debating the value of case studies and case study research in education and other fields (Stake 2005). Classically, case studies are criticised for being descriptive, singular, and lacking in generalizability, but Thomas (2011) dismisses such criticisms, arguing that:

At its best, case study provides the most vivid, the most inspirational analysis that inquiry can offer. Einstein did it; Newton did it. Sociologists do it; psychologists do it. Doctors do it; teachers do it; lawyers do it; nurses do it. It is done across the disciplinary and methodological spectrum … Case study provides a form of inquiry that elevates a view of life in its complexity … It’s the realization that complexity in social affairs is frequently indivisible that has led to case study’s status as one of the most popular and most fertile design frames open to the researcher.

(Thomas 2011: preface)

Yet, despite the widespread use of case study as method in educational research, there have been relatively few examples of cases developed in interesting ways as professional learning tools. This is not to claim that no case studies have been published, but instead to note that there are very few collaborative and generative case studies on learners that draw on different sub-disciplinary perspectives. It is this gap that has driven the development of pedagogical cases.

A notable exception in the field of sport pedagogy is the work of Wathne (2011), which appeared in the journal Sport, Education and Society. The author used her rather unique combination of medical and sociological academic knowledge to offer a detailed analysis of the issues faced by an obese girl who was exhorted to take exercise to reduce her weight. In a paper entitled: “Movement of large bodies impaired: The double burden of obesity: Somatic and semiotic issues”, Wathne pointed out that although it is recognised that obesity is both a medical and a social problem, “A traditional medical approach does not adequately consider social factors that may predispose and maintain the condition” (p. 415). Weaving together a detailed somatic and semiotic analysis of Berit, her young patient, Wathne illustrates vividly that when offered a traditional exercise prescription approach to weight loss, Berit faced unique challenges at multiple levels:

Berit’s body is very much a constant presence, a factor to be reckoned with, in all her undertakings … Berit seems obliged by her bodily structure to pause and inwardly pose questions like: What will this particular movement achieve? Where will this situation land me? This is the phenomenological or corporeal dimension to the equation.

(p. 426, emphases in the original)

Wathne’s conclusion is that “people in Berit’s situation are effectively ‘double trapped’ by their obese bodily condition – physically and in terms of cultural codes” (p. 427). In pedagogical cases, the approach is different to Wathne’s study in that each chapter offers multiple authors/perspectives, including an integrative pedagogical analysis. Nonetheless, Wathne’s paper does provide an example of the depth of insight that can be developed by moving beyond single sub-disciplinary perspectives, and her paper formed part of the inspiration for this project.

To summarise these two sections, pedagogical cases can be understood as a translational mechanism that utilises research from a range of perspectives to analyse the complex learning needs of learners. Individual young people are the focal point for each chapter in this book, and they are presented as complex and diverse learners. Statements about the purposes of education systems or curricula usually claim to place the learning needs of individual pupils at the heart of policy and practice, so perhaps this book illustrates the challenges of delivering such claims in practice. It is possible that future editions of pedagogical cases will take different focal points; for example, learners at different ages and stages of the life course; groups of learners who share one or more characteristics or interests; learners in specific contexts; or even practitioners themselves. In all future iterations of the concept, however, the fundamental purpose will be the same: to act as a multidisciplinary and, at times, interdisciplinary translational research mechanism and a professional learning tool.

Transcending single disciplines in professional learning and practice: the multi-inter-trans-cross-post debate

Questions about what kinds of knowledge teachers or coaches have/need/use are clearly relevant to the kinds of continuing professional development that might be required over a career. In his classic work based on research that observed neophyte teachers, Shulman (1987) outlined a knowledge base of teaching in the form of seven categories: content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational contexts, and knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values. Shulman identified “pedagogical content knowledge” as distinctive because it is “most likely to distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from that of the pedagogue” (p. 8). The pedagogical cases presented in this book do focus on aspects of pedagogical content knowledg...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• Notes on contributors
• Introduction
• 1 Pedagogical cases explained
• 2 Sophie
• 3 Kate
• 4 Patrick
• 5 Deshane
• 6 Teresa
• 7 Rob
• 8 Yasmin
• 9 Greta
• 10 Onni
• 11 Jenny
• 12 Tony
• 13 Maria
• 14 William
• 15 Laura
• 16 Joshua
• 17 Ilona
• 18 John
• 19 Marianne
• 20 Karen
• Index