Abstract
This research takes on the recommendation to continue examining the use of models-based practice (MbP) in diverse contexts by considering pre-service teachers’ (PSTs’) experiences of learning to teach using MbP in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program in Norway. Guided by the theory of a pedagogy of teacher education ( Loughran, 2006), this research was driven by the question: “What are PSTs’ experiences of learning about teaching using MbP in one comprehensive PETE course?” The context was a 15-credit PETE course taught collaboratively by four teacher educators to two cohorts of first-year undergraduate PSTs (25 PSTs in each cohort). Data were generated through a total of 24 focus group interviews with eight PST groups before, during, and upon completion of the course. A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive theme development enabled us to produce knowledge of how PSTs’ learning evolved through four phases: (a) (traditional) assumptions about physical education and teacher education, (b) learning about and through a new way of teaching and learning physical education, (c) challenging and being challenged by the traditional “gym” culture in schools, and (d) understanding what it means to be and become a (physical education) teacher. This research offers support to claims about the challenges in creating coherence at different levels in PSTs’ learning experiences in a Norwegian PETE program. At the same time, we show that MbP can provide PSTs with a coherent learning experience, potentially resulting in changes to how PSTs think about teaching physical education.
Keywords
Background and aim
Models-based practice (MbP) is a pedagogical approach to physical education where programming is organized around diverse pedagogical models that support the creation of wide-ranging student-centered experiences that facilitate deep learning across a range of domains (physical, lifestyle, affective, social, and cognitive) (Baker, 2016; Casey and Kirk, 2021). In this way, MbP also serves as a vision to inspire teachers in physical education to shift their focus away from organization around content and activities, and toward consideration of the interconnection between curriculum, teaching, learning, and assessment (Casey and Kirk, 2021). While this conceptualization of MbP (and physical education) entails the use of multiple pedagogical models, examples of its use are limited. Instead, the study of models in the literature has predominantly taken the form of a single-model approach (see Casey, 2014; Fernandez-Rio and Iglesias, 2024) and/or hybrid approaches where two models are blended (e.g. blending Sport Education with Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility [TPSR]) (see Gonzalez-Villora et al., 2019). Thus, despite a large body of literature advocating for the use of multiple models in the form of MbP, there are relatively few examples that consider teachers’ (Casey and MacPhail, 2018; Malinowski et al., 2023), pre-service teachers’ (PSTs') (Baker, 2022; Baker and Fletcher, 2017; Gurvitch et al., 2008; Harvey et al., 2018), or teacher educators’ (Baker, 2021; Fletcher and Casey, 2014; Hordvik et al., 2021) experiences of teaching-learning using multiple models.
In this research, we examine the experiences of PSTs learning to teach using MbP in a physical education teacher education (PETE) program in Norway. Our aim is to expand the limited research exploring PSTs’ experiences of learning to teach using MbP as an innovative approach to teaching-learning in physical education. In the subsequent background sections, we begin by exploring research centered on PSTs’ experiences of learning to teach using a multi-model approach to MbP. This is followed by a contextualization of MbP and this research within a Scandinavian Bildung tradition.
PSTs learning to teach using MbP
As explained, most examples of PSTs’ experiences of learning to teach using models are addressed through a single- (e.g. Sport Education, Cooperative Learning) rather than multi-model approach. We identified five articles detailing the experiences of PSTs learning to teach using MbP with multiple models. Broadly speaking, these articles highlight that PSTs appreciate the philosophy and characteristics of MbP, and acknowledge its multiple advantages compared to traditional multi-activity and teacher-led physical education (Baker and Fletcher, 2017; Gurvitch et al., 2008). Furthermore, exposure to MbP in PETE programs can contribute to and shape PSTs’ evolving perspectives and practices (Baker, 2022; Harvey et al., 2018). However, Gurvitch et al. (2008) noted that as PSTs became initial teachers, the majority shared that they mainly relied on using direct instruction strategies instead of MbP.
Three of the five articles we identified were based on doctoral research conducted by Baker, and these serve as the most relevant example for our research. Therefore, we first provide a detailed review of her research, and then explain how our study both builds on and extends her doctoral work. Baker and Fletcher (2017) and Baker (2022) examined PSTs’ experiences of learning about and through MbP represented by four pedagogical models (Teaching Games for Understanding [TGfU], TPSR, Cooperative Learning, and Peer Teaching). In both papers the data set was drawn from nine participating PSTs who learned to teach using different combinations of the four models during three PETE courses at a university in Canada. This involved classroom-based lectures where the PSTs learned about the foundations, teaching and learning features, and implementation needs and modifications of the different models (e.g. PSTs were required to plan lessons and complete model assignments). In addition, the PSTs learned through MbP by experiencing different models simultaneously as a learner and a teacher. Elsewhere, this approach has been described as having PSTs “live the curriculum” (Oslin et al., 2001). Results from Baker (2022) highlighted both the challenges faced by PSTs in learning about and through MbP but also addressed the ways that MbP represented an approach that challenged PSTs’ apprenticeships of observation (Lortie, 1975) and therefore, their assumptions about how to teach. Baker and Fletcher (2017) showed that while the PSTs felt that a mixture between learning about and through MbP was important, they experienced tensions between their assumptions about the content, teaching, and learning in physical education and the student-centered culture of MbP. As they developed a deeper understanding of MbP, PSTs started to acknowledge the way it provided a coherent and structured alternative to the traditional multi-activity physical education they had experienced as school students.
In another paper from her doctoral work, Baker (2021) developed three principles of teaching PSTs about teaching using MbP: (a) teacher educators should provide opportunities for PSTs to analyze their learning about and through MbP in order to offer unique insights into using MbP, (b) experiencing and examining alternatives to MbP provides PSTs with opportunities to practice pedagogical decision-making, and (c) individual and group meetings support teacher educators and PSTs in crystallizing understandings of MbP implementation (Baker, 2021: 5–7). Importantly, these principles are based on Baker's own experiences of teaching PSTs using MbP and grounded in the context in which she works and where the research was conducted.
While results from this previous research offer a foundation for current knowledge of teaching and learning MbP using multiple models, it is recommended that researchers continue to examine such a perspective of MbP in diverse contexts (Baker, 2021). The present research builds upon existing work about PSTs’ experiences of learning when teacher educators teach using MbP. Similar to the research conducted by Baker (2022) and Baker and Fletcher (2017) in one Canadian PETE program, our research explores how PSTs experience learning about and through various pedagogical models in one Norwegian PETE program. Moreover, we employ the same conceptual framework as Baker, with the aim of contributing to the development of a pedagogy specific to PETE, particularly that of teaching PSTs about teaching MbP. Our contribution extends previous research by encompassing a substantial cohort of PSTs (50 in total), taught by four collaborating teacher educators focused on teaching PSTs about teaching MbP. Furthermore, compared with research in Canada by Baker (2021; 2022) and Baker and Fletcher (2017), the different contexts of this research (Norway) have the potential to show aspects of both similarity and difference in how MbP is taught in PETE programs, highlighting the pedagogical decisions teacher educators make that influence implementation based on important curricular and contextual elements.
Subsequently, this research adds to the “chain of evidence” focused on empirical data that demonstrates the connection between teacher education programs and PSTs’ learning (Cochran-Smith, 2005). Adding to the chain of evidence is especially important for approaches such as MbP given the acknowledgment that practitioners should make pedagogical decisions about implementation based on the contexts in which they are working (Casey and Kirk, 2021; Landi et al., 2016). Thus, teachers’ and teacher educators’ use of MbP—and students’ learning—will likely look different from context to context based on a variety of curricular, political, and sociocultural forces at play that impact upon teaching-learning.
Contextualizing MbP and this research within the Scandinavian Bildung tradition
While MbP has attracted considerable international attention and acceptance as a potential and appropriate alternative to the prevalent multi-activity and sports technique-oriented approach to teaching physical education, as mentioned in the article’s introduction (e.g. Baker, 2016; Casey and Kirk, 2021), critiques of the approach do exist. The most notable critique has been stated by Landi et al. (2016), who contended that MbP is “not the solution to the legitimate questions about the purpose of physical education” (402) and that it is “problematic to simply employ models in physical education without thought for the underlying principles, values, and orientations of any given model, and how these align (or not) with wider programmatic aims” (407). Instead, the authors argue that teachers should craft their own purpose and aspirations for physical education and use the ideas of MbP and related pedagogical models for realizing their purpose and aspirations, complementing their interpretation of national and/or local curricula.
In Scandinavia (which provides the broader context of this research), researchers have sought to further develop MbP by drawing on Bildung theory to delve into the educational rationale and theoretical underpinnings of MbP in physical education (Aggerholm and Hordvik, 2024; Volshøy and Jensen, 2024). Bildung, a German term without a direct English equivalent, is often retained in its original form in international scholarship and roughly translates to “self-cultivation” or “self-formation”. Volshøj and Jensen (2024) contemplate the purpose of physical education, utilizing Biesta's (2020) perspective on education and its objectives of qualification, socialization, and subjectification to discuss how this viewpoint can enrich a versatile MbP. Aggerholm and Hordvik (2024) discuss how Klafki's critical-constructive theory of Bildung can inform an MbP approach to teaching physical education and provide a solid Bildung theoretical stance for the approach. This research broadens the educational justification of MbP and provides valuable insights for teachers concerning the what, how, and why for their MbP.
Bildung holds a long-standing tradition in Norwegian schools, with its significance more explicitly articulated in the most recent core curriculum (LK20) than in previous versions (Fauskevåg, 2022; Telhaug, 2011). The primacy of Bildung in education is highlighted when it is declared that the school has both a Bildung mission and an educational mission (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017: 8). Broadly speaking, Bildung embodies a relational concept, encompassing the idea of expanding one's horizons and self-forming through interaction with the world. According to Løken and Torjussen (2024), Bildung in the Norwegian curriculum is perceived as a process wherein the student actively engages with the world through the subject matter, allowing themselves to be formed by the world, while also playing an active role in shaping it.
Consequently, this research holds significance because it contributes to the limited studies conducted on PSTs’ experiences of learning to teach using a multi-model approach to MbP. Furthermore, the research was conducted in the Norwegian context and Bildung tradition, where both teachers and students are given agency to engage with the purpose and aspirations for physical education, being enabled to determine the specific content to be taught and the teaching methods to be employed at the individual school level. Thus, the contexts of the research contribute to its significance because it allows us to propose ways in which MbP can offer PSTs an alternative to the traditional multi-activity and teacher-led form of physical education in settings outside of the Anglo-American traditions.
Conceptual framework: developing a pedagogy of teacher education
The pioneering book of John Loughran (2006) on “Developing a pedagogy of teacher education” has had a significant impact on the field of teacher education, including PETE. He describes a pedagogy of teacher education as the theory and practice of how teacher educators teach about teaching and how PSTs learn about teaching (Loughran, 2013). In this research, we focus particularly on understanding learning about teaching from PSTs’ perspectives. As part of the process in developing a pedagogy of teacher education, learning about teaching is “concerned with the knowledge and practices related to the ways in which students of teaching [PSTs] come to learn from, and then develop as a consequence of, their teacher education experiences” (Loughran, 2014: 5). Loughran (2006) emphasizes that this process involves considerations of the “why,” “what,” and “how” of teaching and learning, and he explains the complexity of PSTs’ learning agenda as a constant need to consider the perspectives of both being a teacher and a learner: Students of teaching need to be conscious of their own learning so that they overtly develop their understanding of the teaching practices they experience in order to purposefully link the manner in which they learn in a given situation with the nature of teaching itself. Therefore, for students of teaching, their learning agenda includes learning about the specific content being taught, learning about learning and learning about teaching. (4–5)
Subsequently, Loughran (2006) highlights that considering only the “what” and “how” of teaching provides a narrow view of teaching and learning about teaching. PSTs also need to pay attention to the “why” of teaching, which requires teacher educators to articulate the “what,” “how,” and “why” of teaching through the very experience of teaching about teaching and learning about teaching (Loughran, 2006). A pedagogy of teacher education is therefore: …not about defining how to act, but is more about creating conditions through which students of teaching can learn more about practice. That means a pedagogy of teacher education must involve helping students of teaching to see into pedagogy and facilitate their ability to grasp more than “the how,” but to also be engaged in unpacking “the why” of their rich learning about teaching experiences. (Loughran, 2013: 133)
Methods
Context and participants
The context for this research was a PETE course taught collaboratively by four teacher educators to two cohorts of first-year undergraduate PSTs (25 PSTs in each cohort) in a Norwegian PETE program. While MbP has attracted attention in the Norwegian physical education community in the last decade, our data from PSTs highlighted that MbP represented a radical change from their experiences as K-12 students. This is similar to the experiences of PSTs in the Canadian PETE program described by Baker (2021, 2022). The PSTs shared that they had mostly experienced the traditional multi-activity approach being taught through direct instruction and that they had not knowingly experienced MbP or any pedagogical models prior to the course. As such, the different pedagogical models, and the idea of using several models to organize teaching and learning in physical education, were new to the PSTs and disrupted some of the assumptions about teaching physical education they brought with them to the PETE program.
Setting
The specific setting was a 15-credit PETE course named “Curriculum and Teaching.” The course description states that PSTs will learn about the pedagogical process that goes from interpreting the curriculum to planning, teaching, and assessment. Thus, the PETE course did not focus solely on MbP but aimed to connect MbP to the Norwegian physical education curriculum (Ministery of Education and Research, 2017) and related educational theories (such as Bildung). In this way, the course attempted to introduce PSTs to interrogating the “why,” “what,” and “how” of teaching physical education. The MbP approach involved PSTs learning about three pedagogical models: TPSR taught by the first author, TGfU taught by the third author, and Teamball taught by the fourth author. TPSR and TGfU are both established models that have a strong record of evidence supporting their use in physical education to enhance student learning. Although Teamball does not have the same level of global evidence, it is a model developed in Denmark with many similar features to Sport Education (Halling et al., 2011). Kirk (2013) highlights that the value of a model will be decided by teachers and based on its ability to enhance student learning in that particular school or local context. Given Teamball's similarities to Sport Education but roots in Scandinavian movement culture, we chose to use Teamball rather than Sport Education as a model in this PETE course for contextual reasons. The PSTs’ learning experience involved 90 hours of face-to-face teaching, which was carried out in both the gymnasium (19 lessons in total) and classroom (seven lessons and seven seminars in total). All teaching about and through models took place in the gymnasium. A typical lesson entailed learning about the model through a brief presentation and/or discussion based on recommended pre-class readings. This was followed by a “living the curriculum” approach where PSTs learned through the model while being prompted to reflect upon their experiences as learners and the teaching modeled by the teacher educator. There is a good deal of debate about fidelity to models in their implementation (Hastie and Casey, 2014; Landi et al., 2016) and while we agree with Casey and Kirk (2021) that teachers/teacher educators ultimately make decisions about how they implement models based on their knowledge and local contexts, there were several things the teacher educators did so that their implementation addressed key features of each model. These included the primary purpose and character of the model, the critical elements that define the model, and the related learning aspirations, while also striving to teach about the pedagogy of the models (Casey and Kirk, 2021). For the purposes of this research, we are not aiming to provide evidence of the effectiveness of models for students' learning and, as such, we did not seek to generate evidence according to the guidelines for fidelity offered by Hastie and Casey (2014).
The classroom teaching primarily aimed to link the three models to the Norwegian physical education curriculum and broader educational literature. This involved four lectures carried out by the fifth author, where PSTs were prompted to reflect upon and discuss the content in relation to MbP and the specific models they learned about in the gymnasium. The seven seminars were carried out by the four teacher educators as a group and covered various topics. These topics included the why, what, and how of MbP, teacher vision and identity, and reflection on their learning experience (in focus group interviews). Typically, each seminar involved a brief introduction, group work by PSTs, and a concluding presentation by the PSTs based on the group work.
Additionally, the PSTs were required to undertake an assessment task during the course. This involved creating a comprehensive lesson plan covering the context, pedagogical model, curriculum objectives, lesson goal(s), and the what, how, and why of students’ learning experiences. Two supervision meetings with one of the teacher educators were also required. The lesson plan was intended to guide their teaching during the school placement, which was scheduled halfway through the course, with a typical lesson lasting 45–60 minutes. The assessment task, submitted toward the end of the course, included a justification for and reflection on pedagogical decisions, in addition to the detailed lesson plan (see also Hordvik et al., 2021 for further descriptions).
Data generation
Data were generated through focus group interviews with eight groups of PSTs. Focus group interviews were chosen because they encourage and allow the capturing of different PST experiences, agreements, and disagreements. The focus groups consisted of between six and eight PSTs and were carried out before, during, and upon completion of the course. This resulted in a total of 24 focus groups and approximately 14 hours audio, allowing us to follow PSTs’ processes of learning to teach MbP throughout the course. Considering the focus groups as a valuable learning experience for PSTs, the four teacher educators responsible for the course conducted the interviews with the same two groups each time (eight in total). This decision served as the rationale for selecting larger focus groups and encouraged the teacher educators to utilize insights gathered from the focus groups to refine their teaching of MbP. The focus group topics involved repetitive questions (e.g. How would you describe a good physical education lesson? What are the current needs and concerns you have for your MbP learning process?) and time-/context-sensitive questions (e.g. What is your sports and teaching background? What are your expectations for implementing MbP during your school placement? How was your experience of the last period of the course?) to enable us to identify critical incidents in their learning.
Analysis
A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive theme development (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006) was used to analyze the focus group interviews. Although presented as a linear, phase-by-phase procedure, in practice the research analysis was an iterative and reflexive process.
First, those of us in Norway (the second author was not involved due to all of the data being generated in Norwegian) engaged with each other's transcribed focus group data (e.g. the first author analyzed the focus groups conducted by the third author, and the fifth author analyzed the focus groups conducted by the fourth author), the research question, and concepts from PSTs’ learning agendas (i.e. learning about content, learning, and teaching). This involved a strategy similar to an inductive approach of “data walking” (Waterhouse, 2011) that involved reading the focus group transcripts while highlighting sections of interest and noting interactions in and between the data, and between the literature and the data. Following this coding of specific focus group data, we “walked through” each other's coded focus group data with the aim to construct an overall individual understanding of the data prior to meeting as a group.
Second, the four of us discussed our individual interpretations of the data. This led to the development of initial ideas and three related themes: “MbP as an alternative to traditional PE practice”; “learning about learning through personal learning experiences and those of school students”; and “learning about teaching by observing teacher educators’ practice.” After the meeting, the first author compiled the ideas and translated them into English in a Word document, which was then forwarded to the second author for his review and comments.
Third, using the constructed themes, the four researchers in Norway re-visited the same focus groups as in the first step. Importantly, in this process, we “walked through” the data using a newly designed template that included the three initial themes and boxes for each of the focus group interviews carried out before, during, and after completion of the course. This encouraged a focus on PSTs’ learning agendas and processes related to the three preliminary themes (e.g. MbP as an alternative to traditional PE practice: before, during, and on completion of the course).
Fourth, we met to discuss our individual interpretations in which we re-constructed/refined the three main themes while co-constructing a deeper understanding about the PSTs’ learning agendas and processes. This step was finalized by a two-step “verifying” process: (a) each of us returned to our specific focus group transcripts to confirm the main ideas while highlighting text that we believed could be used as examples, and (b) discussing our interpretations with the second author.
Fifth, the second author read a first draft of the summarized version of the results that was based on our interpretation and understanding. Based on his feedback and critique in a meeting, themes were reconsidered, refined, and further developed.
Finally, the first author engaged in a process similar to “memo writing” (Charmaz, 2006) where he further developed the understanding and description of PSTs’ learning agendas and processes related to the four main themes that were later to be included in the final results section. The memos were finally shared with all authors for comments and consensus.
Results
Our analysis enabled us to produce knowledge of how the Norwegian PSTs’ experiences and understanding of learning about teaching using MbP evolved throughout the course. We present the results of the analysis sequentially, in that the order of the presentation of themes roughly follows the evolution of PSTs’ learning experiences in four phases: (a) (traditional) assumptions about physical education and teacher education; (b) learning about and through a new way of teaching and learning physical education; (c) challenging and being challenged by the traditional “gym” culture in schools; and (d) understanding what it means to be and become a (physical education) teacher.
(Traditional) assumptions about physical education and teacher education
As with many Norwegian PSTs (Mordal-Moen and Green, 2014; Østerlie and Kristensen, 2023), the PSTs in this study tended to have a “huge interest in sport” and reported positive experiences from school physical education. They remembered a subject that was based on “having fun” and playing different sports, mostly “ball games.” When describing the organization of a physical education lesson, they referred to a rather traditional approach, similar to “physical education as sport techniques” (Kirk, 2009). However, several also pointed to physical education being about learning. This sentiment was shared by several participants, with one offering a particularly insightful representation of what they felt characterized a “good” physical education lesson: [It] should have a thread that is followed throughout the class… Say you have football, for example, and you first of all start by learning some basics such as passing or shooting or something like that. And then you can play at the end so that they can test what they have learned earlier in the gym class. That gym class is not just fun, but that it actually has a purpose. (Group 8, Focus Group 1) It is important that it is feasible for all students. That they feel that they have mastered what they are supposed to do and that it gives motivation and a desire to participate in the classes … so that all the students think it's fun. If you teach football, it's not just that you must be professional to make it happen. That it should be adapted to all students so that it is fun. (Group 7, Focus Group 1) I think it is important that we learn a lot about the subject and the theory we are going to further teach but I also think that it's very important to learn how to teach it… Even if one has an extreme knowledge of the subject, it does not necessarily mean that you teach it well. So if you have the opportunity to not only retain that knowledge, but to find out the best possible way for how others can learn it. (Group 8, Focus Group 1) I very much agree with what is being said; that we can take as many tools as possible with us. It is a bit of a cliché, but to have it in the toolbox, so that when we get out [in school], we have things to pick up… That I, as a teacher, can be 100% confident that I know what I’m doing. (Group 2, Focus Group 1) [I expect to learn about] varied ways of teaching. The focus is of course on ball games and team sports [in this course], but to experience different ways of organizing a lesson. (Group 8, Focus Group 1)
Learning about and through a new way of teaching and learning physical education
The PETE course did not focus solely on MbP but aimed to connect MbP to the Norwegian physical education curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2020) and related educational theories (such as Bildung). For many teachers, the uptake of new innovations is somewhat dependent on the ways they align with the objectives of the curriculum document they are using (Beni et al., 2023). When PSTs could see clear connections between MbP and principles of Bildung in the Norwegian curriculum, it could help them see how MbP could be integrated into the curriculum rather than being positioned as an “add on.” As the course progressed, one of the PSTs described how this made them appreciate both the philosophies and principles of Bildung and MbP as viable, contemporary alternatives to the traditional physical education they previously had experienced, and how it shifted the focus away from only valuing physical (sport) performance toward developing the different competencies of each child: It's been exciting with those models… It has been a different way of thinking, … A little more focus on the whole person than what I had previously thought. It is very much based on Bildung, not only on physical achievements and only what happens in the lessons, but also how the students develop. (Group 4, Focus Group 2) The practical teaching has, in particular, been very rich in learning in relation to the fact that we have experienced three different models. [That has provided] different perspectives on what a physical education class can be like and how it is structured. (Group 1, Focus Group 2) I have learned to start a thinking process while I am active… Usually, when I’m in an activity, I’m used to focusing on that, whereas now I’m thinking more about what's behind it: why and how to apply the model. (Group 6, Focus Group 2) When we have theory with Author 5, she often talks about what we have done with the rest of you, and what is similar and what is different… That you perhaps understand the connection, the “red thread” between what we actually do in practice … it has happened that I have sat there and understood what you [Authors 1, 3 and 4] have meant in your lessons. It sort of justifies it to a greater extent. (Group 5, Focus Group 2) I would have liked to see some templates of session plans, of how a lesson is organized … that we had gotten something more concrete about what a start can be and what a main part and conclusion can be… I understand that we must come up with things ourselves and such things, but to have some ideas… So basically, some examples of lessons. (Group 1, Focus Group 2) I have thought about the fact that we have [experienced] all the practical lessons as a group of students who are very interested in physical education. How we can try to get into the role (as teacher) and direct it towards a more real situation, as it would be in school? (Group 6, Focus Group 2) I feel that the last two TPSR lessons have been the most educational. We have worked [with the model] ourselves instead of just following your plan, we have read and thought through it ourselves. Although it almost becomes a bit more theoretical than practical, I feel that is what I have learned the most from how to use TPSR. (Group 5, Focus Group 2) When you only are going to be there for such a short time, it becomes so intensive, and your focus is on getting things done and seeing what works and what doesn’t. But if you get to work with [students] over time, it's a completely different way of communicating with them and finding opportunities. (Group 8, Focus Group 2)
Challenging and being challenged by the traditional “gym” culture in schools
Despite being conscious about their level of experience with and knowledge of MbP, and the reality of their school placement (i.e. 14 days that limit building of experiences and relationships), PSTs were optimistic about teaching aspects of one model during school placement. For many, this optimism changed quickly as they interacted with their cooperating teacher and taught using their model lesson plan. That is, while some PSTs experienced that MbP was received well from both cooperating teachers and students, several experienced that the aims and practice of MbP were in large contrast to their cooperating teachers’ aims and practices and, therefore, also what the students expected and were able or willing to do. In this sense, they experienced a misalignment in their own philosophies and practices with those of their cooperating teachers. One PST described the common observation of how the students reacted: MbP didn’t work particularly well. It was quite clear that [the students] had never experienced [any models] before and very often the focus and effort just dropped so madly, when we tried to teach them something other than regular gym that they had experienced before. It was difficult to get them to understand why we did things, and it became very unnatural. (Group 8, Focus Group 3)
None of the PSTs reported their cooperating teachers as having knowledge about MbP. Our analysis helped us understand how the PSTs described three different reactions from their cooperating teachers: (i) positive towards the aims and teaching style of one or more models; (ii) uninterested/indifferent and allowing the PSTs to test out this new way of teaching; and (iii) skeptical and trying to convince PSTs that the aims and practices of MbP have nothing to do with what physical education should be. While there were nuances in all three reactions, some of the PSTs found it devastating that what they had come to see as a potential sustainable change to physical education practice in MbP was being met with stark opposition from physical education teachers. One PST explained how this opposition influenced their growing identity as a teacher while also questioning the extent to which the school was an appropriate place to be on school placement: I notice that I lost more and more of my identity. My idea of how we would do it. It was in a sense robbed. It was like we had a script that was just crumpled up and thrown in the trash and then just: “this is how it works here.” You can almost wonder, based on the kind of learning we are introduced to (at the university), whether that school is even suitable to be a cooperating school. Because it (MbP) is completely wrong according to them. (Group 7, Focus Group 3)
Understanding what it means to be and become a (physical education) teacher
While it is difficult to determine PSTs’ knowledge of teaching MbP after taking part in the 15-credit course, the themes outlined above offer some insights into the processes of PSTs’ knowledge development of MbP during the course. That is, while continuing to search for a toolbox to fill with familiar drills and activities (the “what”), they came to acknowledge that MbP represents a potentially sustainable alternative to the traditional multi-activity and sports-based physical education program (the “how”), and could also see how several principles were apparent in the Norwegian curriculum (the “why”). The knowledge they developed also allowed several of them to be critical toward the beliefs and practices of their cooperating teachers. Interestingly, in the last focus groups, when PSTs were asked about their overall experiences in the PETE program, they identified important aspects concerned with the notion of teacher professionalism (Flores, 2016). In discussing their involvement in the research project and related focus groups, the PSTs started to identify aspects of the teacher role other than that of being an “instructor.” That is, through conducting the project and modeling an inquiry-oriented approach to their teaching about teaching, the PSTs came to see how the teacher eduactors (authors 1, 3, 4 and 5) were also on a quest for new knowledge and deeper understanding of the relationship between teaching and learning, and to interrogate their own beliefs about this relationship. PSTs highlighted several important aspects of being and becoming a teacher. For instance, one PST expressed: That is positive…, that you don’t think that you have THE answer and have finished your education or finished learning. It seems to me that you are interested in the subject and are passionate about it. (Group 3, Focus Group 3)
The PSTs also experienced the focus groups as an important learning experience, as they were encouraged to reflect on and listen to others as they reflected on what and how they learned, and why they learned MbP in the way they did. One PST voiced a commonly expressed experience among other participants: I like these focus groups, because then we get to reflect on it once more. It is something else to reflect on things on your own, but when you are asked questions and then hear what others in the group think, it builds on your own thoughts. And you get to reflect on how yourself and others have experienced it. (Group 4, Focus Group 3)
Discussion and conclusion
This research has extended the small body of literature exploring PSTs’ experiences of learning to teach using MbP as an innovative approach to teaching and learning in physical education (e.g. Baker, 2021, 2022; Baker and Fletcher, 2017; Gurvitch et al., 2008). Specifically, by drawing on Loughran's (2006) conceptualization of a pedagogy of teacher education, this research offers support to claims about the challenges in creating coherence on different levels in PSTs’ learning experiences in a Norwegian PETE program. At the same time, we show that MbP can provide PSTs with a coherent learning experience, potentially resulting in changes to how they think about teaching physical education both specifically (e.g. teaching using MbP) and broadly, and how they think about what it means to become a physical education teacher.
These results support previous reports on the ways MbP can provide coherence in physical education teacher educators’ practice (Hordvik et al., 2021), and add weight to Baker's (2021) articulation of principles of PETE practice for teaching PSTs using MbP. That is, PSTs: (a) were given unique insights into using MbP by having opportunities to learn about and through multiple models by living the curriculum (Oslin et al., 2001); (b) engaged in pedagogical decision-making by experiencing and examining alternatives to MbP in the gymnasium, the classroom, and the curriculum (e.g. particularly in relation to Bildung) and practiced this decision-making during school placements; and (c) participated in focus group interviews which supported how both PSTs and teacher educators developed nuanced understandings of implementing MbP. Regarding the latter principle, we also believe this supported the development of PSTs’ sense of professionalism by the teacher educators modeling curiosity, uncertainty, and lifelong learning. These findings highlight the need for teacher educators to not only teach about the what, how, and why of specific approaches (e.g. MbP) but also about teaching and learning in a broader sense, and what it means to be a teacher (Flores, 2016). This brings issues of teacher/teacher educator identity into view, supporting Kelchtermans’ (2009) idea that teaching teachers is not just about “how I teach” being the message but “who I am in how I teach.”
In thinking about the complexities involved in becoming a teacher and learning to teach (Loughran, 2006), we showed that supporting PSTs in learning about the content, teaching, and learning of MbP should involve opportunities to experience the models as learners (at the university) and teachers (in school), in addition to learning about the models in a theoretical setting. This involved five main learning experiences: (i) experiencing three different models (i.e. TPSR, TGfU, and Teamball) as learners in the university sports hall while being encouraged to reflect upon and share their experience as learners; (ii) teaching based on one model in school placement and reflecting upon their experiences in written form (assessment task); (iii) learning about the models’ foundations, main themes and teaching-learning approaches in the sports hall; (iv) relating MbP to the Norwegian curriculum and wider educational theory in the classroom; and (v) reflecting upon their beliefs about the what, how, and why of physical education, and their teaching and learning experience in three focus groups. These learning experiences together resulted in two main learning outcomes. First, in much the same way as participants in Baker's (2021, 2022) research, through “living” the curriculum (Oslin et al., 2001), the PSTs recognized MbP as a potential, sustainable alternative to traditional multi-activity and teacher-led physical education. Second, the PSTs realized that (physical education) teachers should engage in practice that involves more than technical instruction or purely fun experiences; there should be an explicit learning agenda focused on inclusion. We argue that this research highlights that the coherent nature of the PSTs’ learning experience about and through MbP was important for developing such understanding.
Along with the ways that MbP offered a path toward coherence in PETE, we also showed the linking of university experiences and school placements posed some challenges or even threats to the coherence of the PSTs' learning experiences. Like many other PSTs (Harvey et al., 2018; Hordvik et al., 2019), for several participants in our research, the school placement experience tended to reflect a culture where teachers and students exhibited strong traditional dispositions about the what, how, and why of physical education. In recognizing the interconnected nature of teaching about teaching and learning about teaching, it is likely that PSTs’ desire for “quick fixes” by seeking the familiar in terms of tips and tricks (Loughran, 2006) could be connected to a relatively surface-level approach to teaching the different models, not allowing PSTs time to really engage with the models in any depth. So while the university-based MbP learning experience had many PSTs questioning the quality of their own learning during their apprenticeships of observation and assumptions about teaching physical education, coupled with the short duration of the placement, the school-based MbP learning experience made some revert back to their former beliefs. This suggests that while it is important that PSTs “live” new approaches to teaching and learning in physical education, it is likely not enough to sustain change in teaching practice.
On a more positive note, some PSTs who had developed a strong identity as an innovative teacher by using MbP questioned the beliefs and practices of their cooperating teachers and their lack of coherence with the university teacher educators. Curtner-Smith (2001) showed that PSTs with innovative orientations can continue to pursue pedagogical innovations once in the workforce, even in the face of strong situational and interpersonal constraints, such as working in a school culture with a traditional or conservative orientation. Following PSTs from our research after graduation may illuminate their experiences of persisting with or ceasing to use MbP once in a teaching role, and highlights the need for longitudinal accounts of PSTs’ experiences of learning to teach using MbP.
In conclusion, results from this research add to findings from other contexts (e.g. Canada and the United States) to highlight the ways MbP can offer PSTs an alternative to the traditional teacher-centered, multi-activity and sports-technique approach that Norwegian PSTs often believe represents what it means to teach physical education when entering PETE. Furthermore, by teacher educators modeling the specific and the general of teaching, PSTs’ learning experience can move beyond that of simply learning about teaching using MbP. This emphasizes how a coherent, inquiry- and improvement-oriented approach to teaching PSTs about teaching can result in PSTs learning about content and pedagogy (i.e. MbP) but also about the nature of teaching and learning about teaching.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval and informed consent statements
This research did receive necessary ethical approval, and participants signed informed consent.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
