A small body of previous research suggests that teachers who purposefully negotiated the physical education curriculum empowered their pupils and enhanced the quality of their experience. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of one purposefully negotiated season of sport education (SE) on one teacher and his 18 male eighth grade pupils. Data were collected by employing seven qualitative techniques. These included extensive non-participant observation and formal interviews with the teacher and pupils. Data were coded, categorized, and reduced to themes using standard interpretive techniques. The purposefully negotiated SE season was largely successful and the indications were that SE provided an excellent framework on which to build such a unit. Unlike more direct models of instruction in which teachers make most of the decisions, there was no contest, in the form of negative negotiation, between the teacher and his pupils. Rather, most negotiations were positive and involved discussions among and between pupils. Key pedagogies employed by the teacher were the indirect teaching styles of guided discovery and divergent production, and the ability to avoid interfering with the pupils as they designed and implemented their SE season.
AzarritoLEnnisC (2003) A sense of connection: Toward social constructivist physical education. Sport Education and Society8(2): 179–198.
2.
BoomerGLesterNOnoreC. (1992) Negotiating the Curriculum: Educating for the 21st Century. London: Falmer Press.
3.
BrockSJRovegnoIOliverKL (2009) The influence of student status on student interactions and experiences during a sport education unit. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy14(4): 355–375.
4.
BrookerRMacDonaldD (2010) Did we hear you? Issues of student voice in curriculum innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies31(2): 83–97.
5.
BurbulesNC (1986) A theory of power in education. Educational Theory36(2): 95–114.
6.
Cook-SatherA (2002) Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher3(4): 3–14.
7.
Cook-SatherA (2006) ‘Change based on what students say’: Preparing teachers for a paradoxical model of leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education9(4): 345–358.
8.
Cook-SatherA (2009) Learning from the Student’s Perspective: A Sourcebook for Effective Teaching. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
9.
Cook-SatherAAlterZ (2011) What is and what can be: How a liminal position can change learning and teaching in higher education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly42(1): 37–53.
10.
Curtner-SmithMDHastiePAKinchinGD (2008) Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport Education and Society13(1): 97–113.
11.
DoyleW (1979) The complex classrooms: A research focus. Theory into Practice18(3): 138–144.
12.
DoyleW (1992) Curriculum and pedagogy. In: PhilipsPW (ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: Macmillan, pp.486–516.
13.
DoyleWCarterK (1984) Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry14(2): 129–149.
14.
EnnisCD (1995) Teachers’ responses to noncompliant students: The realities and consequences of a negotiated curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education11(5): 445–460.
15.
EnnisCD (1996) When avoiding confrontation leads to avoiding content: Disruptive students’ impact on curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision11(2): 145–162.
16.
EnrightEO’SullivanM (2010) ‘Can I do it in my pyjamas?’ Negotiating a physical education curriculum with teenage girls. European Physical Education Review16(3): 203–222.
17.
EnrightEO’SullivanM (2011) ‘Producing different knowledge and producing knowledge differently’: Rethinking physical education research and practice through participatory visual methods. Sport, Education and Society17: 2–19.
18.
EnrightEO’SullivanM (2013) ‘Now, I’m magazine detective the whole time.’ Listening and responding to young people’s complex experiences of popular physical culture. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education32: 394–418.
19.
EricksonFSchultzJ (1992) Students’ experience of the curriculum. In: JacksonP (ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: Macmillan, pp.465–485.
20.
FisetteJ (2010a) Getting to know your students: The importance of learning students’ thoughts and feelings in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance81(7): 42–49.
21.
FisetteJ (2010b) Power of voice and action: Girls’ experience with exploratory projects. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport81(1): 49.
22.
FlutterJRuddockJ (2004) Consulting Pupils: What’s in it for Schools?London: Routledge Falmer.
23.
GlasbyTMacDonaldD (2004) Negotiating the curriculum: Challenging the social relationships in teaching. In: WrightJ (ed.) Critical Inquiry and Problem-Solving in Physical education. London: Routledge, pp.132–144.
24.
GoetzJPLeCompteMD (1984) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Education Research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.
25.
HastiePA (1996) Student role involvement during a unit of sport education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education16: 88–103.
26.
HastiePAPickwellA (1996) A description of a student social system in a secondary school dance class. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education15: 171–187.
27.
HastiePASiedentopD (1999) An ecological perspective on physical education. European Physical Education Review5(1): 9–29.
28.
MosstonMAshworthS (2008) Teaching Physical Education (1st online ed.). Available at: www.spectrumofteachingstyles.org/ebook (accessed 10 February 2015).
29.
MowlingCMBrockSJHastiePA (2006) Fourth grade students’ drawing interpretations of a sport education soccer unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education25(1): 9–35.
30.
O’DonovanTMKirkD (2007) Managing classroom entry: An ecological analysis of ritual and interaction and negotiation in the changing room. Sport, Education and Society12(4): 399–413.
31.
OliverKLOesterreichHA (2013) Student-centered inquiry as curriculum as a model for field-based teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies45(3): 394–417.
32.
OliverKLHamzehMMcCaughtryN (2009) Girly girls can play games/Las niñas pueden jugar tambien: Co-creating a curriculum of possibilities with fifth-grade girls. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education28(1): 90–110.
33.
SiedentopDHastiePAVan Der MarsH (2011) Complete Guide to Sport Education (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
34.
SinelnikovOHastieP (2008) Teaching sport education to Russian students: An ecological analysis. European Physical Education Review14(2): 203–222.
35.
SupapornSDoddsPGriffinL (2003) An ecological analysis on middle school misbehavior through student and teacher perspectives. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education22(3): 328–349.
36.
TousignantMSiedentopD (1983) A qualitative analysis of task structures in required secondary physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education3(1): 47–57.
37.
TsangaridouNO’SullivanM (2003) Physical education teachers’ theories of action and theories in use. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education22(2): 132–152.
38.
Wahl-AlexanderZCurtner-SmithMD (2014) Effect of negotiations on instruction during a movement concepts unit. Paper presented at the National AAHPERD convention, 1–5 April 20. St. Louis, MO.
39.
Wahl-AlexanderZCurtner-SmithMD (2015) Influence of negotiations between preservice teachers and pupils on instruction within multi-activity and sport education units. Sport, Education and Society20(7): 838–854.
40.
WoodsP (1978) Negotiating the demands of school work. Journal of Curriculum Studies10(4): 309–327.
