| Feature | No.41 June 2004 |

Teaching Olympism in Schools: Olympic Education as a Focus on Values Education Dr Deanna L. Binder, Canada |
(Note: An expanded version of this discussion appears as an on-line lecture on the web site of the Olympic Studies Centre at Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona) Introduction In the article titled Olympic education: Challenges for theory and practice in the 21st century (Binder, 2001), two challenges were identified. One challenge focused on fundamental questions of modern pedagogics (Mueller, 1994). It was suggested that “a pedagogy of Olympism be defined as teaching the values of Olympism, rather than teaching about the values of Olympism” (p. 17). “We have only just begun to understand the role of emotion and affect in the learning and teaching of values. We have only just begun to understand the role of imagination in helping children, youth and athletes to visualize a better performance, hope for a brighter and healthier future and a “better and more peaceful world”.” (p. 17) This discussion explores current thinking with respect to pedagogical strategies that are necessary to or seem to facilitate the development of and the reinforcement of positive values and behaviours related to the teaching of Olympism. Reference will be made to current curriculum literature in the general field of values education, and also to literature on the topic of values development within sport education and physical education programs. Fundamental to the understanding of Olympism is its emphasis on an educational mandate. In fact, the “Olympic idea cannot be understood without an understanding of its educational mission” (Gessman, 1992, p. 33). This educational mandate is outlined in several of the Fundamental Principles of the Olympic Charter (2000). Fundamental Principle #2 – Olympism is a philosophy of life; exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles. Fundamental Principle #3 – The goal of Olympism is to place everywhere sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to encouraging the establishment of a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity. This is a values education mandate. Some of the specific positive values referred to in these principles include a respect for balance in the human character between aspects of mind, body and spirit, an understanding of the joy found in effort, an emphasis on peaceful behaviour, and respect for others (here described as preservation of human dignity). The principles, while somewhat awkward in their English wording, also include direction for an Olympic pedagogy. That is, the fundamental principles seem to suggest components of a possible teaching and learning strategy. Note the references to such strategies as “blending sport with culture and education,” setting “good examples,” and encouraging participation in sport as an educational situation in which these values can be developed. Orientation for the Reader It is hoped that this paper will inaugurate a worldwide discussion on the topic of Olympic pedagogy. In a post-modern milieu is it even thinkable to speak about “universal fundamental ethical principles” as the Olympic Charter does? It is true that ethical issues such as fair play, violence, cheating, abuse of performance enhancing drugs, commercialism, equity, etc. receive much media attention and are frequently addressed in papers and presentations at Olympic sport and physical education conferences. They seem to have worldwide relevance. Unfortunately the pedagogy of these issues is rarely addressed. How are fair play/ethical behaviours learned? How can they be taught, and how can this teaching be supported? The literature also appears silent on the cross-cultural issues. How, for example, is fair play understood and experienced by people in different cultural contexts? Educators, like all people, are products of their own cultural, political and educational milieaux. They see the world through the filters of their particular educational and systemic orientations. Hans Georg Gadamer (1989) describes this filter as a “horizon” defining the boundaries of understanding between people. Thus, for example, this paper is somewhat defined or boundaried by its dependence on Euro-American understandings (literature) available in English. It is also somewhat boundaried by the North-American, specifically Canadian, orientation of its author to schools, educational systems and curriculum. Hopefully, this does not mean that the understanding and insights of the author of this paper do not have meaning and relevance for people in other educational circumstances. Rather, it means that readers (each with his or her own “horizon”) should approach this paper with a reflective orientation, engaging the author in a silent dialogue, and reflecting on questions such as: Do the values that are described here have the same meaning for me and for people in my cultural and educational lifeworld as they seem to have for the author? How are each of the values different? How are they the same? What components of an Olympic education program would integrate well with educational priorities and the value systems in my country? What components might not be welcomed? Why? Do I understand the educational principles outlined in this paper for teaching Olympic values? Will they have relevance in the educational and cultural circumstances in which I work? Why or why not? What teaching and learning strategies could I suggest to enhance the teaching of Olympism in the schools in my country? Hopefully, in the not too distant future, a silent dialogue, such as the one recommended for a reading of this paper, could become an international exchange of ideas through internet discussions, a conference or a series of workshops. Teaching Olympic Values Values development or values/moral education is a complex process that takes place in all aspects of the lifeworld of children and youth. In traditional cultures, influences such as the family, the immediate community and religion were the key factors in this process. These factors continue to have a significant influence. In most countries today, however, the responsibility for developing values is also assigned to schools in formal teaching settings Global influences such as TV, the internet, population displacement because of war and migration, and the living together of people from many different cultures further complicate the processes of helping children and youth develop positive values. Since the 1960s curriculum development related to values education in North America has been dominated by the moral development theory of Lawrence Kohlberg. In a study to test the “effects on the moral development of children in physical education using educational activities selected from Fair Play for Kids (Binder, 1995),” Gibbons, et.al. (1995) reported the following: “Results supported the main hypothesis that implementation of a specially designed educational program can effect changes in several facets of moral development…These results support theory and empirical research that enhancing moral growth is not an automatic consequence of participation in physical activity, but rather that systematic and organized delivery of theoretically grounded curricula is necessary to make a difference.” (p. 253) Gibbons et. al’s study, used empirical measures to test before and after responses in the areas of moral judgment, moral reason, moral intention, and prosocial behaviour. These measure were either based on or correlated closely with the stages of moral development model developed by Rest (1986). The researchers note that, “Although the products of this study (i.e., changes in quantitative scores) were highly visible, the processes by which these changes occurred were less discernible” (p. 254). It is the “less discernible” processes and the pedagogical decision-making that contributes to these processes that have now become the focus for curriculum theory related to ethics and moral education. Models of moral development still provide a platform for research on isolated aspects of moral judgment, but moral development theory no longer dominates the discussions in moral and ethical education. A profound shift in perspective has taken place, exemplified in the transition within the writing of Lawrence Walker one of Canada’s well-known researchers in the field of moral education. In 1994 in an article titled “Whither moral psychology?” Walker writes: “…it has become apparent that this pervasive influence [Kohlberg’s] has imparted a rather constricted view of moral functioning, which we must now strive to overcome. This constricted view of moral functioning arose from Kohlberg’s a priori and consequently restricted notion of morality (following in the Platonic and Kantian traditions in moral philosophy which emphasize justice and individualism) and from his impoverished description of the moral agent… “(p. 1) In exploring this shift in perspective and its implications for Olympic education, I want to highlight the works of four scholars: Martha Nussbaum (1986) - a philosopher, Carol Gilligan (1982) - a psychologist, and Nel Noddings (1984) and Maxine Greene (1995) - both educational philosophers and curriculum theorists. Their work provides a critique of cognitive-based, moral development models¾in particular the tendency of these models to simplify complex human interactions, and also to discount groups of people that don’t fit the model. Their work also offers helpful direction for curriculum development in ethical/moral education in the new century. Thus their work has profound implications for Olympic educators. Martha Nussbaum In The fragility of goodness (1986), Nussbaum refers to ancient Greek literature as she explores questions such as: In what ways is the good human life dependent on things that human beings do not control? What are the limits of “reason” in the search for the good life? How do human beings deal with the contingent conflict among values in their lives? Nussbaum is clearly uncomfortable with abstract discussions of moral dilemmas, and emphasizes the importance of emotion. “Our Anglo-American philosophical tradition has tended to assume that the ethical text should, in the process of inquiry, converse with the intellect alone; it should not make its appeal to the emotions, feelings, and sensory responses. Plato explicitly argues that ethical learning must proceed by separating the intellect from our other merely human parts... The conversation we have with a work of tragic poetry is not like this. Our cognitive activity, as we explore the ethical conception embodied in the text, centrally involves emotional response. We discover what we think about these events partly by noticing how we feel; our investigation of our emotional geography is a major part of our search for self-knowledge.” (p. 15-16) There are two aspects of Nussbaum’s work that may have implications for teaching Olympic values. She argues in support of an approach to ethics that focuses on the lived experiences and moral conflicts of real people in real situations, as opposed to intellectual discussions of abstract moral dilemmas. She also emphasizes narrative¾drama, poetry, story¾as important tools for ethical education. “Our pupil must learn to appreciate the diversity of circumstances in which human beings struggle for flourishing; this means not just learning some facts about classes, races, nationalities, and sexual orientations other than her own, but being drawn into those lives through the imagination, becoming a participant in those struggles.” (p. 51) Carol Gilligan In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development by Carol Gilligan (1982), a former student of Lawrence Kohlberg, questioned the conclusions that Kohlberg reached about the moral reasoning of women and girls based on his model of the “hierarchical stages of moral reasoning.” She points out that Kohlberg’s (and Piaget’s) studies, carried out to develop the model and its descriptors, were based on sample populations of boys and men. She also notes that Kohlberg, like Freud and Piaget before him, all observe that somehow girls do not fit their models. When women do not conform to the standards of psychological expectation, she says, the conclusion has generally been that something is wrong with the women (p. 14). For example, she describes a 1976 study on the organization and structure of the playtime activities of 181 fifth-grade, white middle-class children, aged ten and eleven, which reported sex differences: “…boys play out of doors more often than girls do; boys play more often in large and age-heterogeneous groups; they play competitive games more often, and their games last longer than girls’ games…Boys’ games appeared to last longer not only because they required a higher level of skill and were thus less likely to become boring, but also because, when disputes arose in the course of a game, boys were able to resolve the disputes more effectively than girls…In fact, it seemed that the boys enjoyed the legal debates as much as they did the game itself, and even marginal players of lesser size or skill participated equally in these recurrent squabbles. In contrast, the eruption of disputes among girls tended to end the game.” (p. 10) In this study, the researcher’s conclusion (Lever, 1976) was the same as Piaget’s: that the legal sense, which Piaget considers essential to moral development, is “far less developed in little girls than in boys” (Piaget, 1965, p. 77). These gender differences that are noted in early childhood with respect to children’s games are even more obvious, Gilligan notes, at puberty. According to Piaget, she says, “children learn the respect for rules necessary for moral development by playing rule-bound games and Lawrence Kohlberg adds that these lessons are most effectively learned through the opportunities for role-taking that arise in the course of resolving disputes” (p. 10). Gilligan suggests that “rather than elaborating a system of rules for resolving disputes, girls subordinated the continuation of the game to the continuation of relationships” (p. 10). Gilligan argues that: “Sensitivity to the needs of others and the assumption of responsibility for taking care lead women to attend to voices other than their own and to include in their judgment other points of view. Women’s moral weakness, manifest in an apparent diffusion and confusion of judgment, is thus inseparable from women’s moral strength, an overriding concern with relationships and responsibilities.” (pp. 16-17) “The reluctance to judge, “she suggests, “may itself be indicative of the care and concern for others that infuse the psychology of women’s development and are responsible for what is generally seen as problematic in its nature” (pp. 16-17). Nel Noddings In Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, Noddings (1984) proposes an ethics based on caring, and grounded in receptivity, relatedness, and responsiveness. In her book Noddings comments on moral development. “Many of us in education are keenly aware of the distortion that results from undue emphasis on moral judgments and justification. Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory, for example is widely held to be a model for moral education, but is actually only a hierarchical description of moral reasoning. It is well known, further, that the description may not be accurate. In particular, the fact that women seem often to be “stuck” at stage three might call the accuracy of the description into question…” “Women, perhaps a majority of women, prefer to discuss moral problems in terms of concrete situations. They approach moral problems not as intellectual problems to be solved by abstract reasoning but as concrete human problems to be lived and to be solved in living…Faced with a hypothetical moral dilemma, women often ask for more information.” (p. 96) Noddings recommends that schools should be “deliberately redesigned to support caring and caring individuals” (p.182). She describes four fundamental strategies for nurturing the ethical ideal: dialogue, practice, confirmation and modeling. Most sport and physical educators would argue that sport played in the spirit of the Olympic ideals offers a context within which all of these strategies can be applied and practiced. With respect to confirmation, Noddings highlights the importance of the teacher’s special relationship with a student. “A teacher cannot “talk” this ethic. She must live it, and that implies establishing a relation with the student. Besides talking to him and showing him how one cares, she engages in cooperative practice with him. He is learning not just mathematics or social studies; he is also learning how to be one-caring. By conducting education morally, the teacher hopes to induce an enhanced moral sense in the student…Everything we do, then, as teachers, has moral overtones. Through dialogue, modeling, the provision of practice, and the attribution of best motive, the one-caring as teacher nurtures the ethical ideal.” (p. 179) “Teachers model caring,” she suggests, “when they steadfastly encourage responsible self-affirmation in their students” (Noddings, 1988, p. 222). Such a statement could be made with equal conviction for a coach’s special relationship with his/her athletes. Highlighting the critical role of teachers as “one-caring” in their relationships with students and as models of ethical action should be a prominent component of future Olympic educational initiatives. Every teaching/coaching day is filled with hundreds of instant pedagogical moments. In each moment, teachers and coaches have to make an appropriate response. It is in those important instant pedagogical moments, when a teacher or a coach makes a response that inspires, or affirms or encourages or corrects a student or athlete, that they have the opportunity to gently nudge them along the route to fair and ethical living. The ideas and conclusions of Nussbaum, Gilligan and Noddings point Olympic educators away from learning values through a teaching and learning process based on resolving ethical dilemmas through cognitive and well-reasoned application of universal concepts and principles, and towards a teaching and learning process that is much more complex, that helps young people to explore their emotional as well as their intellectual responses to ethical issues; and that emphasizes care and compassion for others. Olympic educators need to move away from the safety and certainty of teaching rules, penalties and universally applicable principles, and move towards an imaginative, holistic, diverse but inclusive vision for teaching Olympic values. Maxine Greene To try and understand what this “move towards” a new vision for the pedagogy of Olympic education means, I am drawn to the work of Maxine Greene. In Releasing the Imagination, Greene emphasizes that teaching and learning – in schools as well as in sport - are matters of “breaking through barriers¾of expectation, of boredom, of predefinition” (p. 14). “It is imagination,” she says, “that opens our eyes to worlds beyond our experience¾enabling us to create, care for others, and envision social change” (book jacket). Imagination has to be part of all good teaching and good coaching. Simply lecturing about basketball will not develop a basketball player. Somehow teachers and coaches communicate ways of doing things that allow learners to put into practice in their own way what they are seeing, hearing and experiencing. “To teach, at least in one dimension, is to provide persons with the knacks and know-how they need in order to teach themselves” (p. 14). This is a form of inventiveness, a use of imagination. It is imagination - “with its capacity to both make order out of chaos and open experience to the mysterious and the strange” (p. 23) that moves teachers and coaches, students and athletes to journey where they have never been. The role of imagination, she says, “is not to resolve, not to point the way, not to improve. It is to awaken, to disclose the ordinarily unseen, unheard, and unexpected” (p. 28). Greene celebrates the arts in this process. “Encounters with the arts have a unique power to release imagination. Stories, poems, dance performances, concerts, paintings, films, plays¾all have the potential to provide remarkable pleasure for those willing to move out toward them and engage with them.” (p. 27). I would argue that this “imaginative” journey also takes place in physical and sports education as students link mind and spirit in the development of their physical capabilities and in the “agon” with an opponent. Maxine Greene suggests that it is through the stimulation of the imagination that children come to see themselves and the possibilities of their world in a different way. She emphasizes the fine arts as the place where children’s imaginations can be best stimulated. Images from the VISA “Olympics of the Imagination” program for the Sydney Olympic Games demonstrate the power of an imaginative and exciting event like an Olympic Games to bring the ideals of sport, peace, friendship and fair play together in artistic representations. Conclusion Pierre de Coubertin seemed to understand the importance of emotion and imagination as pedagogical tools. In his planning for the promotion and staging of Olympic Games, he integrated symbols, ceremonies, music, pageantry and culture. And ever since the first of the modern Olympic Games, the world has been inspired every four years with emotional stories of athletic triumph and disappointment. These stories act as models and as confirmation for future generations of potential high achievers. An imaginative approach to the teaching of Olympic values is necessary in order to help all of us break through the barriers of tradition and prejudice that sometimes wrap us up in despair over doping, violence and cheating. Olympic educators need to help their students and their athletes see the world in a different way, see each other in a different way, and change behaviours so that they act in a different way. If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. Furthermore, as de Coubertin suggests, this stimulation of imagination also takes place in the striving for physical excellence. Engagement of the whole body in the physical domain engages not only the physical, mental and intellectual domains, but also the emotional and imaginative (e.g., positive visualization), and, according to the traditional teachings of our First Nations people, the spiritual domain as well (Ghostkeeper). Mind, body, spirit (and emotion) come together in a sublime performance of any kind – athletic or artistic. De Coubertin suggests that whether you are climbing a mountain or playing rugby, the effect is the same. I would argue that imagination must be an organizing principle for all future Olympic education educational initiatives. The reason the Olympic Movement brings sport and culture together is because together they stimulate the imagination and motivate all of us to strive for “a better and more peaceful world.” When master teachers are engaged in Olympic education initiatives, this principle is clearly evident in the work that they do with students. They engage their students in art, music, storytelling and role-playing. Today, every city bidding for an Olympic Games is required to outline its plans for an Olympic education initiative. The challenge for all who believe that sport and physical activity provide a context for learning about life is how to realize these aims. As de Coubertin himself writes, it is not enough to talk about them; they must be practiced. The legacy of Olympic education, particularly at the elementary and middle school age level could serve as a ‘bridge’ between the striving for excellence by elite athletes and the reaching for dreams by a young child jumping over a school bench. What greater legacy could there be? References Binder, D. L. (1995). Fair play for kids: A handbook of activities for teaching fair play. Ottawa: Fair Play Canada. Gadamer, H. G. (1989). Truth and method, Second, revised edition. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Corporation. Gessman, R. (1992). Olympische Erziehung in der Schule unter besonderer Berueksichtigung des Fair-play Gedankens [Olympic education and its school application. Olympic education in schools within the special context of the fair play idea]. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the First National Teacher Professional Workshop of the National Olympic Committee of Germany, Olympia, Greece, September 7-15, 1991. Ghostkeeper, E. (2002). Greetings to the First Annual Summer Institute of the Institute for Olympic Education. Edmonton: University of Alberta, July 8, 2002. Gibbons, S., Ebbeck, L. & Weiss, M. (1995). Fair play for kids: Effects on the moral development of children in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(3), 247-255. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Lever, J. (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Social Problems, 23(4, April), 479-488. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press. Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangement. American Journal of Education, 96(2), 215-230. Nussbaum, M. C. (1986). The fragility of goodness: luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child / Jean Piaget, with the assistance of seven collaborators (Marjorie Gabain, Trans.). New York: Free Press. Piaget, J. (1975). The child's conception of the world. New York: Littlefield. Romance, T. J., Weiss, M. R., & Bockoven, J. (1986). A program to promote moral development through elementary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5(2, January), 126-136. Walker, L. J. (1995). Whither moral psychology? Moral Education Forum, 20(1), 1-8. Dr. Deanna L. Binder, PhD Director Institute for Olympic Education 845 Education South - University of Alberta Edmonton, AB T6G 2G5 Telephone: +1 780 4923178 Fax: +1 780 4920236 Web: www.olympiceducation.org http://www.icsspe.org/portal/bulletin-June2004.htm Teaching Olympism in Schools: Olympic Education as a Focus on Values Education Dr Deanna L. Binder, Canada