Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Archives

Bulletin 65 Pdf

Contacts

| Feature | No.65 October 2013 |

Assessing embodied Knowledge in Swedish PEH—the Influence of Physical Literacy

Suzanne Lundvall & Anna Tidén

Abstract

There is internationally a growing interest in the concept physical literacy and how it can be used in educational contexts. The aim of this contribution is to illustrate and describe how and in which way Swedish PEH has been influenced by physical literacy in the context of learning outcomes and assessment. The empirical material consists of the PEH curricula and the official supplementary material for qualitative assessment. Tensions between curricula, pedagogy, and assessment are discussed as physical literacy is linked to an individual’s potential and being in the world and not related to assessment of what separates people.

Introduction

For more than a decade there has been an ongoing discussion about ability and educability within the field of physical education and health (PEH) (Evans, 2004, 2013; Evans & Davies, 2004; Evans & Penney, 2008; Hay & Macdonald, 2013; Wright & Burrows, 2006; Wellard, 2006; Larsson & Quennerstedt, 2012). Even though physical literacy was quite loosely applied to PEH when the former started to be developed, there has been a growing interest in what the concept stands for and how it can be used in educational contexts.

Physical literacy focuses on the lived body and the embodied dimension of human existence. It seeks to describe embodied experiences in order to enhance or improve physical performance and enhance or identify aspects of movements that enable a particular aim to be achieved or elements that need attention (Whitehead, 2001). The concept highlights “the developing and maintaining of all-round embodied competence, together with positive attitudes towards this sphere of human activity” (Whitehead, 2007, p. 287). The individual’s ability to develop a capacity to reflect over the nature of his or her performances and bodily intentionality is part of what the concept embraces. A departure point is therefore the concept’s intimate relationship between perception and movement in relation to bodily intentionality (Whitehead, 2001).

The notions of physical ability and/or physical literacy are often taken for granted as simply a measurable and observable capacity. Consequently, there is a number of assessment batteries developed for the evaluation of children’s and students’ abilities. However, many scholars have suggested that physical literacy is far from a neutral or simple concept. Hence, questions arise regarding what happens when a concept striving to make a meaningful whole is put into an educational context and the assessment of physical performances.

The aim of our contribution is to illustrate and describe how and in which way Swedish PEH has been influenced by physical literacy in the context of learning outcomes and assessment. The empirical material consists of the Swedish PEH curricula for compulsory schools (for children aged 7 to 16) and the official supplementary material for qualitative assessment (www.skolverket.se/ bedomningsstod; Lgr 11 [Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool and the Recreation Centre, 2011]).

Physical Literacy and Swedish PEH

In Sweden, physical literacy was introduced in research reports and textbooks to describe and support the understanding of children’s physical competence in relation to teaching and learning in PEH (Ekberg & Erberth, 2000; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2004, 2007; Larsson, 2007) and studies seeking to qualitatively assess schoolchildren’s movement repertoire (Nyberg & Tidén, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008; Tidén, Nyberg, & Lundquist, submitted). Furthermore, aspects of the concept have been used as a departure point for creating supplementary material designed to help PEH teachers in compulsory schools be able to perform valid assessments of their students (SNAE, 2012).i

Among the reasons for the interest in introducing physical literacy in Sweden was studies reporting a surprisingly large number of schoolchildren that had not reached the standards for basic skills and movement competence (Nyberg & Tidén, 2002, 2004, 2008). The growing interest in children’s embodied capacity was also linked to new physical inactivity patterns and calculated health risks among groups of young people. An interest in embodied competence and physical ability was expressed in statements made by scholars stressing that being “able” is crucial to wanting to take part in physical activities (Okley, Booth, & Patterson, 2001; Nyberg & Tidén, 2004; Wrotniak, Epstein, Dorn, Jones, & Kondilis, 2006; Barnett, van Beurden, Morgan, Brooks, & Beard, 2009; Stodden, Langendorfer, & Roberton, 2009).

School authorities and researchers in Sweden started to call for a clarification of learning outcomes in PEH. The traditional “doing” of activities in PEH had, so to speak, to go more hand in hand with “the learning” of defined knowledge qualities (Skolinspektionen, 2010). In order to clarify and support certain learning outcomes that encompassed learning in, through, and by movement, the Swedish PEH curricula were rewritten in 2011 as part of the latest school reform.

The new curriculum for upper secondary school emphasizes bodily capacity. The curriculum for compulsory school underlines all-round movement capacity, as one of five key competencies to be attained by students aged between 7 and 16 (Lgr 11):

Teaching in sports and health should essentially give pupils the opportunities to develop their ability to:

- move without restriction in different physical contexts,

- plan, implement and evaluate sports and other physical activities based on different views of health, movement and lifestyle,

- carry out and adapt time recreational and outdoor life to different conditions and environments, and

- prevent risks during physical activities, and manage emergency situations on land and in water. (Lgr11, pp. 50–58)

The compulsory school curriculum is based on three content knowledge areas: Movement, Health and lifestyle, and Outdoor life and activities. The overall aim of developing students’ “all-round movement capacity” is founded on the idea of a progression throughout the school years, starting with acquiring basic and combined movement skills in the early school years, then establishing more complex movement patterns, and ending with endeavoring to achieve a competence in bodily capacity (see Figure 1). In upper secondary schools, the learning outcome “with good quality of movement perform a range of activities that improve physical ability” involves aspects of an advanced reflective approach to physical activity and embodied experiences, including aspects of with whom, where, and why (GY 2011 [Curriculum for the Upper Secondary School], Swedish commentary material, see also Figure 2).

Figure 1. The idea of a progression from (basic) movement capacity to the establishing of more complex movement patterns, ending with a competence of bodily capacity (Lgr 11, GY 2011).

Several PE teachers and Physical Education Teacher Educators have indicated that the definitions of the concepts used in the curricula, such as “all-round movement capacity” and “bodily capacity” are unclear, and therefore problematic to implement and assess. The new curricula led to a need to define what these concepts mean in practice and how to measure or assess desired learning outcomes of embodied knowledge qualities. In response to this criticism, the SNAE took the initiative to compile the aforementioned supplementary material for Year 9 of the compulsory school in order to help PEH teachers in their work with assessment criteria (www.skolverket/bedomningsstod).

Assessment of embodied Knowledge

The supplementary material was designed to describe different quality levels in relation to defined knowledge requirements for Year 9. It was crucial to help teachers assess students’ learning outcomes in a valid and fair way. In the curricula, the quality of the knowledge attained is expressed using the words “to some extent,” “quite well,” and “well”; these are supposed to correspond to a five-grade scale (A–E). The knowledge requirement needed for a “C” in Movement reads as follows:

Pupils can participate in games and sports involving complex movements in different settings, and vary and adapt their movements to some extent to activities and context . . . (SNAE, 2011, p. 53)

Below is an example of a matrix in which aspects of quality and variations in qualities are described in relation to the knowledge requirement: “to participate in” with “complex movements” and “to be able to vary and adapt movements to activities and context” (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2. An example of the matrix for the knowledge requirements “to participate in” with “complex movements” (Year 9) describing the criteria for the quality levels expressed by the words “to some extent,” “quite well,” and “well” (SNAE, 2012).

Figure 3. An example of the matrix in the supplementary material describing the criteria for the quality levels for “to be able to participate in” and to “vary and adapt” movements to activities and context (Year 9).

In the supplementary material, a text accompanies the matrixes, explaining what teaching conditions must be available to support and promote the individual student’s enhanced mastery of physical disciplines. Examples of learning tasks are also presented in the material.

Several of the knowledge requirements in the above matrix can be related to physical literacy: to gain access to and acquire an embodied physical competence, which includes the ability to read, understand, and critically reflect upon embodied experiences in relation to self and others. However, the stated levels of knowledge qualities have a wider aim than supporting a student’s development; they are also linked to a summative assessment of certain definite knowledge requirements.

Conflicts and Tensions

When taking the supplementary material as the departure point for describing the influence of physical literacy, some problematic aspects emerge that touch on the relation between knowledge requirements and the assessment of embodied knowledge. How is quality expressed in an educational context of learning outcomes and assessment and what forms of quality are the focal point?

The concept literacy derives from ideas of how to empower people with valuable competences for developing identity, social relations, and beliefs (St Leger, 2000; Nutbeam, 2000, 2008; Paakkari et al., 2012; Whitehead, 2001, 2007, 2010). It encompasses a person’s ability to read, understand, act, and react, where dimensions of literacy can add quality to life and contribute to the sense of self. Self-awareness is included in the concept as an aspect that involves both the sense of being able to self-reflect and a form of self-reflection that focuses on oneself as a learner. The latter deals with the construction of meaning making. What the different uses of the literacy concept have in common, at a macrolevel, is that literacy is founded on the ideas of a broader competence than the acquiring of single, isolated skills.

The presented material draws attention to the abstract wording of the PEH curricula and the need for a language expressing nuances and dimensions of quality (to be able to read, act, and react in an embodied way). The existing descriptions of physical literacy greatly support the development of a language of how to express and communicate embodied qualities, but it is not used in the current curricula. Whitehead (2007) describes physical literacy in the following words: “A person who is physically literate moves with poise, economy and confidence in a wide variety of physically challenging situations. Furthermore, the individual is perceptive in ‘reading’ all aspects of the physical environment, anticipating movement needs or possibilities and responding appropriately to these, with intelligence and imagination” (Whitehead, 2007, p. 287). This described competence encompasses motile capacities, such as balance, coordination, flexibility, agility, control, precision, strength, endurance, and the ability to go at different speeds, from explosive to maintaining a movement over a long period (Whitehead, 2007, p. 287). The differences between how to define embodied competence and all-round movement capacity in relation to already-existing concepts like physical literacy create problems and leave the individual PEH teacher with a difficult job to do.

Another problematic aspect that emerges is what quality level of embodied knowledge students are supposed to demonstrate. What reference points within a variety of performed bodily movements are at hand when PEH teachers are to communicate quality to their students? Are we talking about the perfectionist quality associated with elite sports, or the ability to perform complex movement patterns to support students’ critical reflective learning in, of, and by movement, with a somewhat different demand for functionality and poise?

These different reference points draw attention to PEH teachers’ preparation for these types of learning outcomes of embodied knowledge qualities. As embodied experiences are culturally embedded, teachers need to consider how to support their students’ reflective approach to “their own mastery” and the meaning of movements (see, for example, Whitehead, 2001, 2007; Quennerstedt & Larsson, 2012). This includes being conscious of the body in motion, how it feels, and what it means. At best, PETE educators and PEH teachers work to create inclusive learning objectives and tasks that promote the intertwining of desired theoretical and practical knowledge skills, involving self-awareness and the qualities thereof. By continuously involving students in ipsative assessmentii it may be possible to make the student conscious of their own individual journey towards embodied knowledge. At worst, this perspective on embodied knowledge receives no attention.

The contact we have had with the reference group of PEH teachers shows that several teachers are already working towards creating a formative assessment based on a broad conception of what all-round movement capacity means and how quality in terms of poise, form, and characteristics can be displayed. Crucial aspects that have been mentioned are the creation of learning objectives and tasks. Other PEH teachers in the reference group have found arguments to support continuing to measure quantitatively to show how fast, high, or strong a student’s separate movement skill is. Examples given have been the assessment of a cartwheel, the techniques for hitting a clear in badminton, the running time of a Cooper test, etc. This kind of measuring doesn’t include, or accept, the idea of qualitatively assessing learning outcomes. What is still favored is a quantitative, traditional way of judging/measuring sports performances.

This risks a maltreatment or misuse of the concept literacy in a goal-oriented and assessment-driven school system. From a Bernsteinian viewpoint, literacy represents the promoting of a competence code; what people have in common, driven by a pedagogical device that allows learning situations based on desires, experiences, and intrinsic values and the building of relations to PEH subject matter content (Bernstein, 2000, 2003; Evans & Penney, 2008; Hay & Macdonald, 2013). The contrasting code, the performance code, is based on the social logic of performance: what sets people apart. And as several researchers have pointed out, being able in a culture of performativity mainly focuses on measurable performances, i.e., that which separates people, and on hierarchies (Ball, 2003; Evans & Davies, 2004; Evans & Penney, 2008).

In a school culture dominated by a performance code, it appears difficult to remain true to the broad and inclusive definition of physical literacy as literacy is linked to an individual’s potential and being in the world, and not related to measuring what separates people. Used in accordance with its definition, learning outcomes of physical literacy can act to “open doors” to a lifelong learning journey of being in the world (Whitehead, 2007), but thus not as a device for quantitatively measuring isolated skills without any context.

Final Thoughts

These first years using this supplementary material has resulted in questions of definitions, what the meaning of all-round movement competence and bodily capacity is, what level of competence that PEH teachers have, as well as the absence of models for literacy learning outcomes. As curricula are political documents, power relations are encoded in the former. Therefore, the presented supplementary material risks being misused. This latter aspect points to the tensions between curricula, pedagogy, and assessment, where a goal-oriented assessment system can withstand the move away from a dualistic approach to an embodied capacity. This also touches on the relevance of what education is for and the work that still has to be done regarding the interrelatedness of curricula, pedagogy, and assessment. To become a learner in PEH is a challenge in itself and highlights the need for comprehensible and engaging learning objectives and tasks that support physical literacy in a lifelong perspective.

i The supplementary material was produced by a group of researchers, PhD students, and a reference group of PEH teachers and the authors were part of this group. Similar supplementary material is now being produced for school year 6 and upper secondary schools.

ii Ipsative assessment; measuring yourself against yourself, which means using yourself as the norm against which to measure something, e.g. your present performance against your past performance rather than the performance of others.

References

1. Barnett, L.M., van Beurden, E., Morgan, P.J., Brooks, L.O., & Beard, J.R. (2009). Childhood motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 252–259.

2. Ball, S.J. (2003). The teacher´s soul and the terror of performativity, Journal of Education Policy, 11(2), 216-228.

3. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Theory, research, critique Revised edn. Oxford: Roman & Littlefield.

4. Bernstein, B. (2003). Class, codes and control, vol. IV: the structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.

5. Ekberg, J-E., Ekberth, B. (2000). Fysisk bildning – och ämnet idrott & hälsa. Lund: Studentlitteratur. [Physical literacy and the school subject sport and health].

6. Evans, J. (2004). Making a difference? Education and ‘ability’ in physical education. European Journal of Physical Education, 10(1), 95-108.

7. Evans, J. (2013). Physical Education as porn!, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(1), 75-89.

8. Evans, J. & Davies, B. (2004). Endnote: the embodiment of consciousness: Bernstein, health and schooling, in: J. Evans, B. Davies & J. Wright (Eds) Body knowledge and control. Studies in the sociology of physical educational health (London, Routledge), 207-217.

9. Evans, J. & Penney, D. (2008). Levels on the playing field: The social construction of physical ‘ability’ in physical education curriculum. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13(1), 31-47.

10. GY 2011, Ämnesplan i Idrott och hälsa. Skolverket.[Curriculum PEH, upper secondary school].

11. Hay, P.J., & Macdonald, D. (2013). Evidence for the social construction of ability in physical education. Sport Education and Society, 15(1), 1-18.

12. Larsson, H. & Quennerstedt, M. (2012). Understanding Movement: A Sociocultural Approach to Exploring Moving Humans. Quest, 64(11), 283-298.

13. Lgr11, Läroplan för det obligatoriska skolväsendet, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet (2011) (Stockholm, Skolverket). [Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool and the Recreation Centre, 2011].

14. Lundvall, S. & Meckbach, J. (2004). The School Project – a study of teachers in Physical education in What’s going on in the Gym?, Jörgensen, P., Vogensen, N. (eds), Syddansk universitet, pp. 104-113.

15. Lundvall, S. & Meckbach, J. (2007). Idrottsdidaktik – konsten att undervisa i idrott, in H. Larsson, & J. Meckbach (Eds) Idrottsdidaktiska utmaningar, Stockholm: Liber förlag, s. 17-35. [Sports didactics – the art of teaching]

16. Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal. Health Promotion International, 3:15, 259-266.

17. Nutbeam, D. (2008). The evolving concept of health literacy. Social Science & Medicine, 67,12, 2072-2078.

18. Nyberg, M. & Tidén, A. (2002). Hur rörelsekompetenta är dagens barn och ungdomar? Svensk Idrottsforskning, nr 3, årg. 11. s. 21-26. [How movement competent are children of today?]

19. Nyberg, M. & Tidén, A. (2004). Att kunna – en förutsättning för att vilja!. Svensk Idrottsforskning, nr 4, årg. 13 s. 57-60. [To be able – is a precondition to be willing!]

20. Nyberg, M., & Tidén. A. (2006). Allsidig rörelseförmåga hos barn och ungdomar: En kartläggning av skolelevers funktionella motorik, Rapport nr 5 i serien Skola-Idrott-Hälsa. Stockholm: GIH. [Versatile movement ability in children and adolescents: A screening of student’s functional movement skills, Report no. 5 in School- Sport- Health.]

21. Nyberg, M. & Tidén, A. (2008). Vad har hänt med ”skärmgenerationens” motorik? Svensk Idrottsforskning, nr 4, årg. 17. s.32-34. [What has happened with “screen” generation’s movement competence?]

22. Okley, A.D., Booth, M.L., & Patterson, J.W. (2001). Relationship of physical activity to fundamental movement skills among adolescents. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33, 1899-1904.

23. Paakkari L., Paakkari O. (2012). Health literacy as a learning outcome in school. Health Education. Vol.112 No.2 p.133

24. Skolinspektionen (2010). Mycket idrott och lite hälsa. Skolinspektionens rapport från den flygande tillsynen i idrott och hälsa. Rapport 2010:2037. Stockholm: Sweden. [A lot of sports and little health. Report from a flying inspection of the Swedish Schools Inspectorate].

25. St Leger, L. (2001). School health literacy and public health – possibilities and challenges. Health Promotion International, 2:16, 197-204.

26. Stodden, D.F, Langendorfer, S.J, & Roberton, M.A. (2009). The association between motor skill competence and physical fitness in young adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(2), 223-229.

27. Tidén, A., Nyberg, M., & Lundquist, C. (2013). Assessing Movement Skills in Compulsory School Pupils: An Initial Psychometric Evaluation of the NyTid Test. Research Quarterly in Exercise and Sport submitted.

28. Wellard, I. (2006) Re-thinking abilities, Sport, Education and Society, 11(3), 311-315.

29. Whitehead, M. (2001). The concept of Physical literacy. European Journal of Physical Education Volume 6(2), 127-138.

30. Whitehead, M.E. (2007) Physical Literacy: Philosophical considerations in relation to the development of self, universality and propositional knowledge. Sport Ethics and Philosophy. Volume 1 (3), 281-298

31. Whitehead, M.E. (2010). Physical Literacy: Throughout the lifecourse. London: Routledge.

32. Wright, J. & Burrows, L. (2006). Re-conceiving ability in physical education: a social analysis. Sport, Education and Society, 11(3), 275-291.

33. Wrotniak, B.H., Epstein, L.H., Dorn, J.M., Jones, K.E., & Kondilis, V.A. (2006). The relationship between motor proficiency and physical activity in children. Pediatrics, 118, 1758-1765.

34. http://www.skolverket.se/bedomning/nationella-prov-bedomningsstod/bedomning-i-grundskolan/bedomning-i-arskurs-7-9/bedomningsstod/praktiskt-estetiska-amnen/idrott-och-halsa/idrott-och-halsa-1.178207. Date of access: 7/18/2013. [Assessment Support Material for compulsory school, year 9, Physical Education and Health]

Contact

Suzanne Lundvall
The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences
Box 5626
114 18 Stockholm
Sweden.

http://www.icsspe.org/