Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Archives

Bulletin 65 Pdf

Contacts

| Feature | No.65 October 2013 |

The Reconceptualisation of Gymnastics: Equipping Physical Education Teachers to promote Physical Literacy in Schools

Michelle Flemons

Abstract

This paper considers the way in which Gymnastics has been marginalised in the physical education curriculum and proposes a review of teaching methods which would benefit Gymnastics and enable the activity to play a part in promoting physical literacy

Introduction

Many advocates for radical change in physical education have repeatedly argued that the curriculum is currently focused on a traditional ‘one size fits all’, sport technique based, multi- activity form’ (Kirk, 2013, p3). Others have argued that this ‘traditional curriculum’ is dominated by games (Green, 2002) and that the development of other areas has subsequently been stifled. For example, the development of gymnastics has been marginalised due to a range of barriers (Morton and Doherty, 2008) which in turn has restricted children’s opportunity to progress in certain aspects of their physical literacy journey.

This paper discusses the barriers to teaching gymnastics in schools and the need for gymnastics to ‘move with the times’ if it is to be accessible and engaging to young people and their teachers in the current physical education climate. I will justify the significance of developing young people’s creativity through physical movement and show how gymnastics provides the foundation to many of the fundamental movement skills needed for confident and competent involvement in any physical activity. This in turn might help to promote lifelong participation. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that the reconceptualisation of gymnastics for today’s teaching climate will allow teachers to be more knowledgeable about physical literacy and thus be better equipped to promote physical literacy within their physical education lessons.

Curriculum for Physical Education

The ‘traditional curriculum’ (Green, 2002) experienced in schools focuses primarily on physical competence and places little emphasis on the development of the ‘whole’ child. In contrast, Whitehead’s (2010) concept of physical literacy is based on the monist notion of the human condition (i.e. the mind and body work as one and each part cannot function without the other). It focuses on the development of the whole child. In other words, Whitehead argues that ‘I do not have my body, I am my body’ and physical literacy is conceptualised to further this aim. Bailey et al (2009) support this idea when highlighting the importance of physical education in having a positive and profound effect in the following domains; physical, lifestyle, affective, social and cognitive.

In contrast while the traditional curricula, may, by default, contribute towards developing some of the key attributes of a physically literate individual, overemphasis is placed physical competence. As a result there is little room for the inclusion of activities that might establish ones ‘sensitivity to and awareness of embodied capability leading to fluent self expression through non verbal communication and to perceptive and empathetic interaction with others’ (Whitehead, 2013, www.physical-literacy.org.uk) or indeed for ensuring individuals’ understanding of their embodied self within the world. Due to a more skills based, teacher led approach to teaching, children are limited in having opportunities to respond fully to reading their environment and interacting with its changes with imagination and intelligence. The games dominated traditional curricula restricts children to experiencing only one type of environment. Actions and rules may vary, however the similarities are great.

In order to initiate much needed change, the habit of recycling of the traditional curriculum must be broken. The question is how can this be initiated? In order to ensure physical education teachers are equipped to embed physical literacy within the curriculum, they themselves need to have a clear understanding of the nature of physical literacy and how this capability will feed into an understanding of who they are, where they are on their own physical literacy journey, how they respond to the environment and how they perceive themselves and the world around them.

Physical Literacy and Physical I lliteracy

Whitehead (2013, physical-literacy.org.uk) describes physical literacy as ‘a disposition to capitalise on the human embodied capability, wherein the individual has the motivation, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for maintaining purposeful physical pursuits/ activities throughout the life course.’

Each individual is, as described by Whitehead (2013), on a unique physical literacy journey throughout their lives. If at any point an individual lacks or loses motivation, confidence and physical competence to value physical activity, they risk becoming physically illiterate. Whilst children that aspire to become physical education teachers could potentially be described as having the motivation, confidence and physical competence, based on their own experiences, their perception of physical literacy is somewhat limited to the boundaries of the traditional curriculum. Once they become physical education teachers, these limitations created by their own lack of experiences leave them ill equipped to deliver lessons that can start or re start the physical literacy journey for every child. (Whitehead, 2013) A lack of understanding of the nature of physical literacy has prevented this concept from having a direct effect on teachers’ beliefs as to what should be nurtured in physical education.

Teacher Beliefs

An individual’s beliefs are fostered and embedded during the acculturation phase of life (between birth and entering teacher education). These beliefs act as filters for teacher learning and are major determinants of a teacher’s practise (Borko and Putnam, 1996). The consequence of this is that, for example, where teacher education recruits’ appreciation of their own physical literacy journey is minimal they will have no grounds on which to relate this concept to teaching physical education. It can be argued that the recruits’ lack of understanding of physical literacy will act as a barrier to its importance in the delivery of National Curriculum for Physical Education; not only, according to Dewar and Lawson (1984) during their teacher Education, but also during their teaching career.

Sirna, Tinning and Rossi (2010, p73), drawing on the work of Bourdieu (1977), describe the school as the ‘field’ or social setting which is ‘infused with power struggles and organising structure’ where students and newly qualified teachers in particular continue to form their beliefs and perceptions, moulding them to frame the constraints in which they work. Through continual experimentation, socially constructed ways become embodied within the teachers’ identity and become naturalized, therefore cementing historical behaviours into the present. Although recruits start their teacher education with pre conceived beliefs and perceptions that will ‘filter’ their learning (Borko and Putnam, 1996); there is no reason why they cannot be introduced to the concept of physical literacy, its importance and value and subsequently build the concept into their teaching of physical education.

The main issue here is that their beliefs will already have been well established. Recognising this is significant when determining the value added nature of PETE programmes. As Tsangaridou (2006) suggests, teachers’ beliefs shape the professional knowledge acquired through teacher education programmes rather than initial beliefs being shaped by professional knowledge. If recruits have no knowledge or understanding of physical literacy prior to starting ITTE, this provides a real challenge for the trainers. It will be essential that these recruits have sufficient time to grasp the concept, so that it can play a part in shaping their growing professional knowledge.

Having an appreciation of recruits’ pre-conceived ideas can ensure Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) programmes impact on teacher pedagogy and beliefs (Richardson, 1996) and teacher attitudes (OCED, 2006), and thus, according to Calderhead (1996), influencing teacher behaviour. The peregrination of PETE recruits’ beliefs was noted by Philpot and Smith (2011). They substantiated that there was a change between the beginning of the course, when recruits aligned physical education with sport, and their views on graduation, when they perceived physical education as more than sport. However, recruits felt that the curriculum needed to be made up of and heavily influenced by sport. This is not necessarily conducive to a curriculum that focuses on educating the whole child as is required for the development of physically literate children. This is not helped by the perception that teaching ‘sport’ is more akin to coaching and is, therefore, skills based (Curtner – Smith, 2002). Philpot and Smith (2011) also noted that the graduating students’ beliefs that PE is ‘more than sport’ were unlikely to last the duration of their first year in teaching.

PETE educators need to understand fully the nature and unquestioned acceptance of the beliefs and perceptions PETE recruits arrive with when they enter teacher education, if they are to have any impact on change in physical education. Physical education ideology should ensure that learners leave school having made progress on their individual physical literacy journeys. For any young person to finish their time at school physically illiterate, would be unquestionably highly regrettable. Work that is aligned to fostering physical literacy should spring from teachers’ commitment to, and sound grasp of, the value of physical literacy.

Barriers to teaching a Variety of Experiences

In addition to the problems created by the recycling of a ‘traditional curriculum’, it is important to highlight the barriers to delivering the physical education curriculum in a way that could potentially provide opportunities to educate the whole, embodied child and ‘capitalise on the human embodied capability’ (Whitehead, 2013,physical-literacy.org.uk) through gymnastics based activity.

Tinning (1979) recognised that there was very little gymnastics taught within the school curriculum and this has not changed in recent years. The problems of inadequate teaching of other activities (i.e. other than games) can be traced back to minimal personal experiences and therefore lack of subject knowledge in a given area (Docherty and Morton, 2008). This creates concern and lack of confidence. As an outcome, Gymnastics, for example, can be misconstrued as a ‘risky’ activity.

Unfortunately society today has an unhealthy obsession with risk management, and due to the adoption of a claim culture, we have become very health and safety aware. (Docherty and Morton, 2008). Although in some respects this is necessary, it has had a negative impact on children’s’ development through play outside of the classroom. The simple, basic fundamentals such as hanging, swinging and climbing are often avoided. These basic skills that were previously developed through play are essential in developing upper and lower body strength and a fundamental level of fitness (Docherty and Morton, 2008). Indeed, ensuring that children can support their own body weight is an important safety skill. It is worrying that this essential physical ability is not being developed by many children (Nilges and Lathrop, 2000).

Due to a decline in physical activity opportunities outside of school, coupled with limited time for curriculum gymnastics, it has been suggested that children will not necessarily be as well prepared as they need to be to perform certain gymnastics based activities.(Nilges and Lathrop, 2000). This also impacts on their competence and confidence in other physical activities and can minimise the amount of physical activity an individual will engage in during later life. However, regrettably, gymnastics does not present itself as being accessible to either children or physical education teachers.

The media depicts gymnastics solely as Olympic gymnastics with tiny, lean figured athletes in an elite artistic gymnastics arena. Routines are made up of demanding, complex and challenging movements that create fear in the hearts of many as well as engendering apprehension on the part of the performer.(Markovic, Sporis and Cavar, 2011). However, this level of performance is beyond, all but the most competent of performers. Therefore, while most teachers would agree that gymnastics is an important activity for the growth and development of children and their physical abilities (Tinning, 1979), few are confident to teach it.

Pedagogically the picture is not much better. Kirk (1992) gives a descriptive history of physical education and positions gymnastics being either made up of tightly regulated, teacher directed skills and drills, or alternatively the more female dominated process orientated educational gymnastics. The smell of a dusty school hall with old and often disused/ condemned gymnastics equipment does not inspire or capture the imagination of the youth of today who were born in an era dominated by modern technology and a ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ culture.

Due to such pre-conceived ideas based only on the media’s portrayal of gymnastics, and the way gymnastics has been replicated over the years through a ‘cafeteria approach’ to its the teaching in the form of educational gymnastics - teachers are reluctant to teach it. They also cite: lack of subject knowledge, concern over safety and the perceived demanding requirements needed to teach and perform. Due to a lack in one or more of these competencies, teachers will opt out of teaching gymnastics (ACHPER, 2008) thus limiting the learning experiences to which children can have access.

In the following section I will define creativity and demonstrate its significance in developing the whole, embodied child.

Creativity

Creativity has been defined by McFee (1994:173) as ‘…the common communication of one’s thoughts and feelings expressed through the instrument of one’s’ body.’ This demonstrates how creativity is key in the expression of an individual, and therefore central to educating the whole child. This is further supported by Papendorp and Friedman (1997:4) who believe that the (creative movement) process ‘is a co operative activity of the emotions, intellect, body and spirit’. This again relates back to the monist notion of the human condition that underpins the concept of physical literacy.

Gymnastics provides an appropriate arena for fostering creativity. Reflecting back on Whitehead’s (2013) definition of physical literacy, creativity is central to its development and relates to many of its constituents. Lykeas, Koutsouba and Tyrovola (2009) defined creativity as each individual’s skill or original way of problem solving. They also identified three significant factors affecting its development: the teacher as the trigger factor for the students’ creative forces, the curriculum as a flexible framework and guide for the teachers, and most importantly the teaching method which ultimately brings together teacher, student, knowledge and reality. The focus needs to be on facilitation of learning induced by a stimulus rather than the more ‘traditional’ ideology of the teacher being perceived as ‘master of the game’.

Discourses surrounding gymnastics delivery in schools

Drawing from Kirk’s (1992) work as mentioned earlier, one can see quite clearly how the teaching of gymnastics in schools has become weak and somewhat fractured. The lack of knowledge, skills and experience on the part of the teachers has contributed significantly to this situation (Morton and Doherty, 2008). The importance of developing creativity within children thus adding value to their physical literacy journey within physical education is also underestimated. When creativity is neglected, human potential is wasted (Papendorp and Friedman (1997).

Teachers will often adopt one of two approaches; skills orientated/teacher led or alternatively an educational gymnastics ‘watered down’ approach: this latter is process orientated and more often than not lacks the form or skill mastery relating to gymnastics based movement (Smith-Autard, 2002).

Kruger (1978) questioned the contribution of artistic gymnastics in assisting children to develop the coordination's, physical fitness and confidence to manage their present and future movement problems successfully. Docherty and Morton (2008: p41) clearly support this view when they observed that ‘Spotting children through a particularly difficult stunt does not always necessarily mean they will acquire that stunt or even enhance body management skills.’

In order to overcome the issues raised in this section, I would recommend the reconceptualisation of gymnastics as one solution to promoting a well rounded physical literacy experience in physical education.

Reconceptualisation of Gymnastics

Changing the definition, nature and purposes of gymnastics in physical education will facilitate the opportunity to develop physical fitness, motor development, posture, body management and creativity. Utilising educational gymnastics taught in its purest form could, potentially, allow for learners to benefit in these ways. The use of open ended tasks accommodates inclusion. This can, however be problematic when pupils answer the tasks with non gymnastic based movement which requires little skill. Educational gymnastics can be more accessible, requiring less expertise, however consequently it can lack a clear relationship with gymnastics (Docherty and Morton, 2008).

Smith – Autard (2002) developed the midway model, which could potentially allow the best of both worlds: combining the process orientated educational gymnastics with the product orientated competitive ‘professional’ model. This model brings together the use of the methodology and content of educational gymnastics with the exploration of traditional gymnastics movement (Standevan, 1978). The approach can be complemented with resourced based teaching. Using Cirque Du Soleil, The Chinese and Russian circus as well as free running, team gym and cheerleading as an inspiration will not only capture the imagination and inspire children of today, but also inspire them to engage with their own creative development. Smith – Autard (2002) is an advocate of this in relation to dance and she highlights the importance of form when creating movement and movement sequences. Exiner and Lloyd (1974) emphasise the importance of the teacher giving guidance without tightly controlling the pupils’ work.

This would allow children to explore fully both their physical competence and creativity, thus really engaging them in their physical literacy journey.

The midway model can be supported by the use of models based practise; for example, co operative learning. This can be described as a student centred model where students take the lead in planning and organising the lesson themselves and take ownership of setting up small tasks independently in small groups. The teacher acts as the facilitator as is central to the success of using this pedagogical model. (Dyson & Grineski, 2001; Dyson & Rubin, 2003; Dyson & Casey, 2012). The model essentially ensures that cognitive and social development are equally addressed and seen as equally important.

Facilitation of learning allows the learner to shift from being a passive recipient of knowledge to an actively engaged individual who is involved in the decision making process. This encourages their use of imagination, improvisation, initiative and personal judgement. (Lykeas et al, 2009). It was also noted that a more creative method of teaching is highly essential for psycho- emotional and socio – emotional development; promoting opportunities for students to build trusting relationships with adults and peers. This can be instigated through allowing children to explore and function independently. The two key elements to maintaining a secure and meaningful learning environment are teachers’ strength in subject knowledge and their knowledge of the students with whom they are working. This equips the teacher with the right knowledge base to allow them to ask the right types of questions to facilitate learning effectively.

Moving away from a more traditional skills based approach makes sense in terms of gymnastics delivery in physical education lessons. Clear, inclusive progressions where children learn to manage their own bodies in their own time with a focus on high quality movement as well as developing creativity would be an ideal solution. Children can develop a range of skills and physical abilities that will help to reduce injury and improve performance in all sports. (ACHPER Active and Healthy Magazine, 2008).

Conclusion

I have discussed the barriers to teaching gymnastics in schools and the need to move with the times in order for the activity to be accessible and engaging in the current physical education climate. I have justified the significance of developing learners’ creativity through movement and have demonstrated how gymnastics provides the foundation to all fundamental movement skills needed for confident and competent involvement in any physical activity, thus promoting lifelong participation.

In order for teachers to be able to fully encompass physical literacy within their everyday teaching they need to confident and comfortable themselves by fully understanding the notion of ‘capitalis(ing) on the human embodied capability’, (Whitehead,2013, physical-literacy.org ). One way of achieving this is to not only change the teachers’ approach to pupil learning, but also to step away from the old and move into a modern era complemented by the assets of the world around us. By reconceptualising gymnastics to make it a more attractive option as a school based activity to children and teachers alike, we can indeed make a significant contribution to fostering physical literacy as a valuable concept within in teacher education, teaching and learning.

Reconceptualising gymnastics is just one way of moving physical education forwards and promoting a physical literacy journey that can be embedded within physical education ideology. Educating the ‘whole’ child and providing opportunities for this will become central to the very essence of the future. Without it, can physical education ever really move forward at all?

Acknowledgements: Dr. Ashley Casey for editing and supporting the process of writing this paper.

References

1. Author unknown, (2008) ‘Give Gymnastics a Go’ ACHPER Active and Healthy Magazine, Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation Inc.

2. Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I. and Sandford, R. (2009) 'The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: An academic review', Research Papers in Education, 24 (1), pp.1-27.

3. Borko H., and Putnam, R. (1996) ‘Learning to Teach’. In D.C Berliner and R.C. Calfree (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology, 758-781, New York, MacMillan

4. Calderhead, J. (1996) ‘Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D.C Berliner and R.C. Calfree (Eds.) handbook of Educational Psychology, 758 – 781, New York: Macmillan

5. Curtner – Smith, M. D. (2001) ‘ The Occupational Socialization of a First Year Physical Education

6. Teacher with a Teaching Orientation’. Sport, Education and Society, 6(1): 81-105

7. Dewar, A. M. Lawson, H. A. (1984) ‘The Subjective Warrant and Recruitment into Physical Education’. Quest: 36(1): 15-25

8. Docherty. D., and Morton. A.(2008) ‘A Focus on Skill Development in Teaching Educational Gymnastics Reprinted from the Cahper Journal, July-August 1982. 48(6), pp. 38

9. Dyson, B. and Grineski, S. (2001) 'Using cooperative learning structures in physical education', The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 72 (2), pp.28-31.

10. Dyson, B. and Rubin, A. (2003) 'Implementing cooperative learning in elementary physical education', The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74 (1), pp.48-55.

11. Dyson, B. and Casey, A. (2012a) Cooperative Learning in physical education: A research-based approach. London: Routledge.

12. Exiner J. and Lloyd, P. (1974) Teaching Creative Movement. Sussex. New Educational Press.

13. Green, K. (2002) ‘Physical Education Teachers in their Figurations: A Sociological Analysis of Everyday Philosophies’ Sport and Society, 7(1): 65-83

14. Kruger, H. (1978) ‘A iocus on body management’.Journal of Physical Education and Recreation Sept. pp39-41

15. Lykesas, G Koutsouba, M, Tyrovola, V (2009) ‘Creativity as an approach and teaching method of traditional greek dance in secondary schools’. Physical Culture & Tourism, 16(2), p207 8p.

16. Markovic,K., Sporis, G., and Cavar, I. (2011) ‘Initial state of motor skills in sports gvmnastics’. Faculty of Kinesiology, Zagreb, Croatia Acta Kinesiologica 5. 1, pp67-72

17. Mc Fee, G. (1994) The Concept of Dance Education. London: Routledge

18. Nilges. L., and Lathrop.A. (2000) ‘Eleven Safety tips for educational gymnastics’ Teaching Elementary Physical Education, July. p10.

19. OCED (2006)’Education policy analysis: Focus on higher education- 2005-2006 edition’ Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

20. Papendorp, J. and Friedman, S (1997) Teaching Creative Dance: A Handbook. Kwela Books, Cape Town, 1st ed.

21. Philpot, R. and Smith, W. (2011)’ beginning and graduating student – teachers’ beliefs about physical education: a case study’ Asia – Pacific Journal of health, Sport and Physical education 2(1): 33-50

22. Richardson, V. (1996) ‘The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.Sikula, T. Buttery and EGuyton (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education 2nd Edition: 102-119. (New York: MacMillan)

23. Sirna. K., Tinning, R, Rossi, T. (2010) ‘Social processes of health and physical education teachers’ identity formation: reproducing and changing culture’ British Journal of Sociology of Education 31(1), pp71-84

24. Smith – Autard, J. (2002) 2nd ed. The Art of Dance Education. London: A& C Black Publishers Ltd.

25. Standevan. J, (1978) "More than simply movement experience." Journal of Physical Education and Recreation. Sept. pp 35-38,

26. Tinning, R. (1979)‘Physical Education in Geelong primary schools.’ The Australian Journal for Health. Physical Education and Recreation. December (86); 10-14,

27. Tsangaridou, N. (2006) ‘Teacher Beliefs’ In D. Kirk, D. MacDonald and M.O’Sullivan (Eds.) handbook of Research in Physical Education, 369-385, London: Sage

28. Whitehead, M. (2013) www.physical-literacy.org.uk

29. Whitehead, M.E. (Ed) (2010) Physical Literacy: Throughout the Lifecourse. London.

Contact

Michelle Flemons
University of Bedfordshire,
UK
michelle.flemons@beds.ac.uk

http://www.icsspe.org/