Digital Technology in Physical Education: Global Perspectives 9781138569881, 9780203704011

The rapid development of digital technologies has opened up new possibilities for how Physical Education is taught. This

179 48 9MB

English Pages [301] Year 2018

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Digital Technology in Physical Education: Global Perspectives
 9781138569881, 9780203704011

Table of contents :
Half Title
Series Information
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of contents
Chapter 1 Next generation PE: Thoughtful integration of digital technologies
Merging technology with pedagogy
The book: digital technology in PE: global perspectives
Part I: Skill acquisition and assessment: practical implications of research
Part II: Technological influence on models based practices
Part III: Concepts and critical reflections on Digi- tech in PE
Part IV: Technological innovations for professional development
Part I Skill acquisition and assessment
Practical implications of research
Chapter 2 Digital video and self-modeling in the PE classroom
Theoretical framework
Digital video
Electronic video portfolio
Digital video used for assessment
Video feedback
Potential challenges
Implication and conclusions
Chapter 3 Adopting self-controlled video feedback in physical education: A way to unite self-regulation skills, ...
Current research on self-controlled video feedback in adults and children
Self-controlled digital video modeling and feedback in PE: opportunities and hurdles
Zimmerman’s self-regulation model: understanding the benefits of self-controlled (video) modeling and feedback
Explaining self-controlled feedback benefits: importance of self-observation and -reflection
Increasing self-control in self-controlled video feedback
Chapter 4 The role of digital technology in the assessment of children’s movement competence during primary school ...
A collaborative approach: our experience
Assessment design process
Practical principles
Set-up time
Data recording
Video recording
Addressing practical issues and scientific challenges
Why are we assessing children’s movement?
Is it to measure children’s competence or improve teaching and learning?
How should we do it?
Should the assessment setting be ‘natural’ or ‘engineered’?
What should it look like?
What is the appropriate balance between simplicity and complexity?
Chapter 5 Exploring pedagogies of digital technology in physical education through appreciative inquiry
DigiTech in PE
Pedagogies of technology
Appreciative Inquiry
School setting
How did we generate our data?
How did we analyse our data?
Findings and discussion
Working within an embedded culture of DigiTech use
Establishing routines
Keeping tasks simple
Concluding remarks
Part II Technological influence on models-based practices
Chapter 6 Technology in models-based practice: A case of Sport Education
Models-based approach to teaching physical education
Sport Education as a models-based approach to teaching
Sport Education objectives and applied applications
Sport Education objectives: (1) Develop sport-specific techniques and fitness and (2) Appreciate and be able to execute ...
Sport Education objective: (3) Participate at a developmentally appropriate level
Sport Education objective: (4) Share planning and administration of sport experiences
Sport Education objective: (5) Provide responsible leadership
Sport Education objective: (6) Work effectively with your team to pursue common goals
Sport Education objective: (7) Appreciate the ritual and conventions that give sports very unique meanings
Sport Education objective: (8) Develop the capacity to make reasoned decisions about sport concerns
Sport Education objective: (9) Develop and apply knowledge about umpiring, refereeing and training
Sport Education objective: (10) Become involved with sports and physical activity outside of school
Concluding thought
Chapter 7 Using social media in the Sport Education model
A brief introduction to the Sport Education model
The use of social media in sports participation and experience
Technology integration in physical education
The use of social media to enhance the six key features of Sport Education
The use of social media to enhance pupils’ roles
The use of social media to enhance the three learning objectives of the Sport Education model
Chapter 8 Video gaming design: Insights for Teaching Games for Understanding and Sport Education
Videogame design CONCEPTS of gameplay, playability, game mechanics and player identity
Constraints and ecological approach to learning
Personal accounts on gameplay related to school PE
Connecting videogame concepts to personal narratives on gameplay
Game mechanics (skill learning) in situ
Engaged imagination from gameplay identity
Part III Concepts and critical reflections on digi-tech in PE
Chapter 9 Developing physical educators’ knowledge of opaque and transparent technologies and its implications for student lear
Social-behavioral technological theoretical framework
Opaque technology
Transparent technology
Research overview
Practical examples of technology integration by physical educators
Story 1: Using video to develop game performance
Story 1 Analysis
Story 2: Using video to develop technical skill performance
Story 2 Analysis
Story 3: Using wearable technology to teach fitness concepts in the weight room
Story 3 Analysis
Chapter 10 Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum in the educational praxis of physical education
Curriculum as educational praxis
Discourses: explicit and implicit messages
Digital technologies
Video feedback
Video instruction
Chapter 11 Using digital technology in physical education tailored to students’ learning phase
The student’s learning phase should guide pedagogical choices
New digital technology in PE
Multimedia instruction books
Video analysis through tagging and delay
The learning circle-model
Phase one: structure to manage
Implication for using digital tools: supporting the managing phase
Phase two: inform to stabilize
Implication for using digital tools: enhancing stabilization
Phase three: inspire to explore
Implication for using digital tools: inspiring playfulness
Practical suggestions
Practical ideas on multimedia instruction books
Practical ideas with video analysis through tagging and delay
Chapter 12 ePE: Using connectivism to theorise developments in digital technology in physical education in ...
1. Networks
2. Actionable knowledge
3. Using knowledge to build learning capacity
Connectivism in the New Zealand context
Theme 1. Personalising learning
Theme 2: New views of equity and diversity
Theme 3: Knowledge to develop learning capacity
Theme 4: Rethinking the role of learners and teacher roles
Theme 5. Continuous culture of learning for teachers and learners
Theme 6: New partnerships and relationships
Connectivism in the physical education context
Connectivism in initial teacher education in PE (PETE)
Case study 1: Formative assessment for learning in PETE
Case study 2: Using cloud-based digital technologies in PE to network and use knowledge to build learning capacity
PE teacher professional learning and development (PLD)
Case study 3: From one off, face-to-face to continuous networked PLD
Part IV Technological innovations for professional development
Chapter 13 Harnessing the power of virtual reality simulation in physical education teacher education
Constructivism and virtual reality simulations
Integration of Mursion virtual reality simulation in a teacher education program
Meet the 7th grade avatars
Methods and logistics
Virtual reality simulations
Summary of simulation implementation
Impacts of virtual reality simulation technology
Promoted reflection-in-action
Developed proactive management: “Trip down to the office for a referral”
Afforded snapshot view
Possibilities for virtual reality in physical education
Physical education teacher education (PETE)
Primary and secondary physical education
Final thoughts
Chapter 14 Experiences of using iPads in physical education teacher education
Quality physical education teaching and technology
Context for the integration of technology
Pedagogical theories that shaped our work
Learning, managing and integrating the technology
What are the practical, applied implications to our work?
Chapter 15 Pre-service and in-service teachers’ use of a Wiki platform within a physical education mentoring program
Mentoring conceptual framework
Research findings: practical and applied implications
Barriers and enablers to effective e-mentoring schemes
Lessons learned from teacher education programs
Recent developments in e-mentoring literature
The study
Physical education teachers’ experiences and use of an e-mentoring tool
The mentoring program
Structure and process of interaction within electronic communities of practice
The e-mentoring relationship
The pedagogy of e-mentoring
Implications for physical education teacher education programs
Conclusions and recommendations

Citation preview

Digital Technology in Physical Education

The rapid development of digital technologies has opened up new possibilities for how Physical Education (PE) is taught. This book offers a comprehensive, practice-​oriented and critical exploration of the actual and potential applications of digital technologies in PE. It considers the opportunities that are offered by new technologies and how they may be best implemented to enhance the learning process. Including contributions from the US, UK, Europe, Canada and New Zealand, this international collection reflects on how digital innovations are shaping PE pedagogy in theory and practice across the globe. Its chapters identify core pedagogical principles –​rather than simply discussing passing digital fads –​and offer practical narratives, case studies and reflections on how PE practitioners can introduce technology into teaching and learning through the use of social media, video gaming, virtual reality simulation, iPads and Wiki platforms. Digital Technology in Physical Education: Global Perspectives is a valuable resource for students, researchers and practitioners of PE looking to integrate digital technology into their work in a way that does justice to the complexity of teaching and learning. Jeroen Koekoek is Senior Lecturer in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands. His research interests are in the areas of game-​based approaches and teacher education related to game pedagogy. In particular, he advocates for TGfU principles in the context of physical education and sport. Ivo van Hilvoorde is Assistant Professor of Sport Philosophy at Vrije Universiteit and Professor of Human Movement and Sport at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands. In his research he integrates philosophical, sociological and pedagogical perspectives on sport and physical education, with special interest in new technologies.

Routledge Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport Series Editor: David Kirk, University of Strathclyde, UK

The Routledge Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport series is a forum for the discussion of the latest and most important ideas and issues in physical education, sport, and active leisure for young people across school, club and recreational settings. The series presents the work of the best well-​ established and emerging scholars from around the world, offering a truly international perspective on policy and practice. It aims to enhance our understanding of key challenges, to inform academic debate, and to have a high impact on both policy and practice, and is thus an essential resource for all serious students of physical education and youth sport. Also available in this series Girls, Gender and Physical Education An Activist Approach Kimberly L. Oliver and David Kirk The Female Tradition in Physical Education ‘Women First’ Revisited David Kirk and Patricia Vertinsky Teacher Socialization in Physical Education New Perspectives Edited by K. Andrew R. Richards and Karen Lux Gaudreault Examination Physical Education Policy, Pedagogies and Possibilities Trent D. Brown and Dawn Penney Digital Technology in Physical Education Global Perspectives Edited by Jeroen Koekoek and Ivo van Hilvoorde​sport/​series/​RSPEYS

Digital Technology in Physical Education

Global Perspectives

Edited by Jeroen Koekoek and Ivo van Hilvoorde

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Jeroen Koekoek and Ivo van Hilvoorde; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Jeroen Koekoek and Ivo van Hilvoorde to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-​1-​138-​56988-​1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​0-​203-​70401-​1 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Out of House Publishing


List of figures List of tables List of contributors 1 Next generation PE: thoughtful integration of digital technologies

viii ix x




Skill acquisition and assessment: practical implications of research


2 Digital video and self-​modeling in the PE classroom



3 Adopting self-​controlled video feedback in physical education: a way to unite self-​regulation skills, motivational beliefs, and motor skill learning



4 The role of digital technology in the assessment of children’s movement competence during primary school physical education lessons



5 Exploring pedagogies of digital technology in physical education through appreciative inquiry J U L I A SA R G E N T A N D ASH L E Y CA SE Y


vi Contents PA RT I I

Technological influence on models-based practices


 6 Technology in models-​based practice: a case of Sport Education



 7 Using social media in the Sport Education model



 8 Video gaming design: insights for Teaching Games for Understanding and Sport Education




Concepts and critical reflections on digi-​t ech in PE


 9 Developing physical educators’ knowledge of opaque and transparent technologies and its implications for student learning 147 C L AY TO N KUKL ICK A N D STE P H E N  H ARVE Y

10 Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum in the educational praxis of physical education



11 Using digital technology in physical education tailored to students’ learning phase



12 ePE: using connectivism to theorise developments in digital technology in physical education in Aotearoa/​New Zealand




Technological innovations for professional development


13 Harnessing the power of virtual reality simulation in physical education teacher education



Contents vii

14 Experiences of using iPads in physical education teacher education



15 Pre-​service and in-​service teachers’ use of a Wiki platform within a physical education mentoring program






1.1 3.1 4.1 4.2

The TPACK model as framework. Phases and subprocesses of self-​regulation. Digitally created storyboard of movement assessment. Practical principles for primary teachers using digital technologies to assess movement competence. 4.3 Option 2 – Flow chart scoring system. 11.1 Example of a multimedia instructional card. 11.2 The learning circle. 11.3a Tracking and comparing each team’s success to analyse game balance. 11.3b Recommendations for modifying the game constraints to enhance game balance increase opportunities for students to learn to manage the task. 11.4 Structuring multimedia instructions: slopes and phase-​models. 11.5 Who do you resemble the most? Models differentiated for different phases of learning. 11.6 Tagging events of interest by name or type of success. 11.7 Augmented drawings to enhance analogy thinking. 12.1 Digital presentations at Physical Education New Zealand (PENZ) national teaching conference 2010–​17. 12.2 Changing focus of digital technology presentations at the Physical Education New Zealand (PENZ) national teaching conference 2010–​17. 13.1 Picture of avatars: left to right, front row: Ed, Sean; left to right, back row: Maria, CJ, and Kevin.

3 38 53 54 58 185 187 191 192 196 197 198 199 216 217 229


4.1 Option 1 – Grid scoring system. 4.2 Experts’ perceptions of considerations related to the development of a children’s (4–​7 years) movement assessment tool to be used by primary school teachers. 5.1 Flipped learning through two types of DigiTech. 7.1 The seven corresponding TPACK categories of knowledge in a Sport Education model unit using social media as a technology integration tool. 9.1 TPACK definitions. 9.2 Opaque and transparent technology examples. 9.3 Pros and cons of opaque and transparent technologies. 12.1 Principles of connectivism. 13.1 Simulation design for interactor and learning goals for pre-​service teachers.

58 61 79 111 152 154 159 205 232


Mauro André is a Senior Lecturer at Leeds Beckett University, UK. Dr André has taught and researched student-​centred pedagogies from kindergarten to higher education in different countries and cultural contexts. Dr André’s research has been focusing on two main areas: physical education pedagogical models such as Student-​Designed Games and Sport Education and the study of designing environments that promotes children’s free play. Margot Bowes is a Lecturer in Physical Education in the School of Curriculum and Pedagogy at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Her research interests include teacher professional learning, senior school physical education, mobile and digital technologies and skill acquisition. She is currently national President of Physical Education New Zealand (PENZ). Margot was an inaugural Fellow of the Centre for Learning and Research in Higher Education researching interactive teaching and learning. Margot lives with her family in Auckland, New Zealand. Ashley Casey is Senior Lecturer in Pedagogy at Loughborough University, UK. His research focuses on Models-​Based Practice, teacher learning/​ research and the use of new technologies in learning. Ashley is an Associate Editor of the peer-​reviewed journal Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy (Routledge), is the author, co-​author or editor of four Routledge books and publishes regularly in leading education research journals. He is active on social media where he writes and blogs about Models-​Based Practice, teacher learning and new technologies. Arnold Consten is a Senior Lecturer at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in Zwolle, the Netherlands. He worked as a PE teacher in primary school and as a gymnastics coach. His work focuses on modern gymnastics, pedagogy in PE, new technology and motor skill learning. Maura Coulter is a Lecturer in Primary Physical Education in the School of Arts Education and Movement at Dublin City University Institute of Education, Ireland. Prior to joining academia in 2000, Maura taught

Contributors xi

physical education to 11–​18 year olds for eight years. Maura’s research interests include the professional development of pre-​ service and in-​service teachers, outdoor education and outdoor learning, using digital technologies in PE, self-​study of teacher education practices and physical activity promotion in primary school children. Aspasia Dania belongs to the Special Teaching Staff of the School of Physical Education and Sport Science of the University of Athens, Greece, where she received her Master degree in 2009 and her Doctorate diploma in 2013. Her subjects of specialty are Sport Pedagogy and Methodology of Physical Education Teaching and she is responsible for planning and supervising school placement experiences. Her research interests and publications focus on model-​ based practice and teacher professional development within the fields of physical education and sport. Corina van Doodewaard is a Senior Lecturer in Sport Pedagogy, especially focused on youth, education and society at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. She teaches and studies the links between physical educators’ constructions of the body, identity and inequality issues from a pedagogical and sociocultural perspective. She is involved in several research projects concerning inclusive physical education, empowerment of disadvantaged youth through sports and participation through sport as identity work. Gert van Driel is a retired Senior Lecturer and was head of the department of Physical Education at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in Zwolle, the Netherlands. He was the President of the Dutch Association of PE teachers (KVLO). In his work he focuses on didactics and methodology of modern gymnastics and physical education practices. His main interest is in movement development, motor learning and digital technology. Hong Fu is currently a research associate and instructor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Victoria, Canada. She completed her doctoral degree in the University of Victoria in 2015 with research interests and experience in teacher identity, teaching and learning theories, digital portfolio and technology, and preparing teacher candidates to teach English language learners. She is also involved in Education Leadership programs for schoolteachers and administrators outside Canada. Stephen Harvey is an Associate Professor and the Program Coordinator of the Online Master of Coaching Education program in the Department of Recreation and Sport Pedagogy at Ohio University, USA. His research focuses on teaching and coaching pedagogy through game-​ centred approaches and the application of technology to the physical

xii Contributors

education and coaching context. Harvey is co-​author of Advances in Rugby Coaching: An Holistic Approach, and co-​editor of Ethics in Youth Sport: Policy and Pedagogical Applications, both published by Routledge. Tim Hopper is an Associate Professor in the School of Exercise Science, Physical and Health Education, Faculty of Education, University of Victoria, BC, Canada. He received his Masters and PhD from the University of Alberta. His scholarly work focuses on teacher education, in particular, conceptual approaches to teaching and learning in PE such as TGfU and SEM. He has recently completed two research grants, one on electronic-​portfolio development in professional programs, and the other on Youth Civic Engagement within Virtual Games Environments. Ivo van Hilvoorde is a Professor at the School of Human Movement and Sport (Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, the Netherlands) and Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Human Movement Sciences (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands). In his research he combines philosophical, sociological and pedagogical perspectives on sport and physical education, with special interest in new technologies. In 2017 he was editor of Sport and Play in a Digital World (Routledge, 2017). John van der Kamp is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He is currently also affiliated as a Senior Lecturer and researcher to the Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in Zwolle. John’s research and teaching focus on motor skill learning. Annelies Knoppers is a critical scholar at the Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht University in the Netherlands. She has conducted much research in the area of gender and organizations as well as the role of pedagogy in sport. Her special focus has been on the often invisible assumptions that may contribute to social inequality in sport and physical education. She has been awarded several grants (e.g. by the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research and the International Olympic committee) to analyze current gendered practices in sport, physical education and sport organizations. She has published widely in this area in international sport scholarly journals and books. She was senior editor (2005–​2008) of the Sociology of Sport Journal. Jeroen Koekoek is a Senior Lecturer Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy in the Faculty Physical Education Teacher Education of Calo at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands. Jeroen is representing the Netherlands as member of the International Advisory Board (IAB) of the Teaching Games for Understanding –​Special Interest Group (TGfU-​ SIG). Jeroen is involved in several research projects in particular on Digital Technology Pedagogy (research, innovations, developing digital

Contributors xiii

applications). He contributed to several books on physical education and sport with a focus on teaching and learning of game-​based approaches. Marjan Kok is Lecturer and Researcher at the Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. She teaches students, sports coaches and physical education teachers about scientific insights in motor learning and the consequences for practice. Her research focuses on the effectiveness of different motor learning methods in PE. These methods address –​among others –​the degree to which learners rely on explicit knowledge and/​or self-​regulatory skills during practice. Clayton Kuklick is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Master of Arts in Sport Coaching program at the University of Denver, USA, where he teaches a variety of courses spanning motor learning and pedagogy, biomechanics, kinesiology, and applied sports technology. His research interests center on sport educators’ development and learning. Kuklick acquired his PhD in Human Performance and Recreation:  Administration and Teaching, maintains teaching licensure in multiple states, and has served as a baseball coach in the collegiate setting. Hongxin Li is the third-​ year doctoral student in Sport Pedagogy and Motor Behavior in the Department of Kinesiology, Health Promotion and Recreation at the University of North Texas, USA. His research interests focus on instructional technology in physical education, psychosocial determinants/​correlates of school-​aged students’ physical activity, adolescents’ physical activity and sedentary behavior, and the economic costs of physical inactivity. Susan Marron is a Lecturer in Primary Physical Education in the School of Arts Education and Movement at Dublin City University Institute of Education, Ireland. As former second-​level physical education and geography secondary school teacher, Susan has been lecturing in physical education since 2004. Susan’s research focuses on inclusion, digital technology and PE, physical activity at school break times and fundamental movements skills. She creates resources to support teachers in implementing programmes which engage their students in quality movement. David Morley is Head of the Academy of Sport and Physical Activity and Professor of Youth Sport and Physical Activity at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. He was previously a secondary school physical education teacher. He specialises in children’s movement, youth sport, talent development and coach education and has led evaluative projects in these fields for a range of national and international sport organisations. He has a passion for using sport and physical education to improve the lives of children.

xiv Contributors

Misti Neutzling is a Professor in the Movement Arts Health Promotion and Leisure Studies Department at Bridgewater State University, USA. She earned her PhD  in sport pedagogy at the University of Northern Colorado, USA. Her research focuses around constructivist teaching and technology to enhance learning in education, and physical education teacher education. Her scholarly work has been presented at the national and international level and in peer-​reviewed journals. Karen Pagnano Richardson is a Professor of Physical Education Teacher Education at Bridgewater State University in Bridgewater, MA, USA. Her research interest is centered on constructivist teaching and learning in both game play and in learning in the classroom in higher education. She presents research at conferences focused on TGFU at the national and international level, and has worked to promote learner and game centered approaches in her teaching, research, and service. Tom van Rossum is an Associate Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. He followed a career as a primary school teacher, and returned to university to undertake a PhD in physical education and youth sport. His doctoral thesis has focused on the development of a fundamental movement skills assessment for teachers to use with children aged 4–​7  years old. This research has involved teachers, practitioners and academics with expertise in children’s movement development and has demonstrated the potential benefits of incorporating digital technology within physical education programmes to support pedagogy and assessment. Kathy Sanford is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Victoria, Canada. Her research interests include teacher education, ePortfolios as alternative forms of learning and assessment, nonformal and informal adult education, gender pedagogy, and multiliteracies. She is currently working on research focused on learning in professional programs, ePortfolio development in three professional programs to support students’ learning and growth, video games and youth civic engagement, and museum/​library education. Julia Sargent is a Research Fellow at the Open University where she works in Academic Professional Development to support the development of pedagogical and technological research. She completed her PhD in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy at Loughborough University, UK. Her research focuses on digital technology use in physical education, teaching and pedagogy. Deborah Sheehy is a Professor of Physical Education Teacher Education and Chairperson of the Movement Arts, Health Promotion and Leisure Studies Department at Bridgewater State University, USA. She is recognized for her expertise in Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) at the


Contributors xv

international, national, state and local levels. She has conducted research presentations in Tokyo, Germany, New Zealand, Spain, England and the United States. Her research involves examining constructivist practices as they relate to the learning and implementation of TGfU. Oleg A. Sinelnikov is an Associate Professor and Paul W. Bryant Professor in Education (teaching) at the University of Alabama, USA. Dr Sinelnikov’s research focuses on models-​based practice, with an emphasis on Sport Education pedagogical model, classroom ecology, motivation, and integration of technology in physical education. He has widely published his research in refereed international journals and book chapters in physical education and sport pedagogy. Dr. Sinelnikov is a Research Consortium Fellow in the Society of Health and Physical Educators of America. Chris Swanwick is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia, and previously a teacher and education consultant in the UK and New Zealand. His research interest is the intersection between education, economy and digital technology. His current thesis project looks at educational technology policies in the context of globalisation, by focusing on the uptake of a specific set of classroom technologies in Australasia and Europe. He lives in Melbourne, Australia, with his wife and two children. Wytse Walinga is a Senior Lecturer at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in Zwolle, the Netherlands. He worked as a teacher of Physical Education in secondary school and started teaching at the faculty of Physical Education Teacher Education (Calo) in 2003. His work focuses on games teaching, games design, Teaching Games for Understanding, Digital technology, Motor skill learning and Sport Psychology. Tao Zhang is an Associate Professor in the Department of Kinesiology, Health Promotion and Recreation at the University of North Texas, USA, where he serves as Pediatric Movement and Physical Activity Laboratory Director. As a Kinesiology scholar, Dr.  Zhang has given around 110 research presentations at international and national conferences, and published about 50 refereed research articles. His research focuses on physical activity environments, achievement motivation, and youth physical activity and health promotion from social, psychological and pedagogical perspectives.

Chapter 1

Next generation PE Thoughtful integration of digital technologies Ivo van Hilvoorde and Jeroen Koekoek

Many physical educators and youth sport coaches are eager to incorporate digital technology in their teaching practice. This motivation to innovate can be seen as a consequence of digital technology’s huge impact on how people nowadays experience games and sports. The use of smart phones, tablets, video feedback and serious games influence how children come into contact with sport, how they acquire movement skills and how they evaluate their movement skills on video recordings. The rapid development of digital technologies expands the prospects and promises for its application within the context of PE and sports. Physical educators are becoming increasingly interested in technology, but often remain inadequately equipped to effectively integrate these technological resources in their daily practice or lack the practical knowledge about the potential of these digital tools. There are critical voices on the use of digital tools in physical education that need to be taken seriously (e.g. Gard, 2014; Lupton, 2015; Pluim & Gard, 2016). Gard (2014) critically discusses how digital technology may contribute to the “worldwide trend towards measurability, accountability, performativity and standardization” (p. 833) and how questions of pedagogical process and effectiveness may soon struggle for relevance in the digital future of PE (p. 827). Furthermore, the increasing growth and progress of new technologies in physical education contexts may limit the time that is available to reflect on implementation routes. There are also claims that digital technology is part of the problem (of obesity for example) instead of a tool to enhance the quality of PE. Most professionals will be familiar with the general discourse on obesity, sedentary behavior and the negative role that digital technology can play on sport participation or on education in general. However, the authors of this book are not primarily interested in the potential negative impact that digital technology may have on our health or sport participation. Instead, with this book we aim to illuminate the positive potential (in terms of motivation and motor learning for example) of digital innovations in PE (e.g. Casey, Goodyear, & Armour, 2017).

2  van Hilvoorde and Koekoek

The central foci of this book are the pedagogical implications of incorporating technology in PE. Especially, we are interested in the question how technology is reshaping the context and content of educational practices, and how we can use new tools to reach the goals, that remain crucial for the PE context. Digital technologies are increasingly used and integrated within the context of PE. It is often claimed, not only through physical educators themselves, that the kind of technological innovation that we are dealing with at the moment, is revolutionary. In order to better understand the dynamics and revolutionary character of this process of integrating digital technology in our daily behavior, we think it is also crucial to include a historical perspective. Such a perspective tells us that we have always, since the early days of institutionalized education, been struggling with the integration of new technologies. This history also teaches us that earlier innovations, such as the introduction of TV in the classroom, were more or less top-​down initiatives. This meant that technology and innovation often dominated or overruled the traditional didactical structure of a lesson without taking the pedagogical aims into account. According to Cuban: “Claims predicting extraordinary changes in teacher practice and student learning, mixed with promotional tactics, dominated the literature in the initial wave of enthusiasm for each new technology. Seldom were these innovations initiated by teachers” (Cuban, 1986). Within the context of PE, we are witnessing pioneering activities by teachers worldwide. Although in many cases this seems to be developments initiated by professionals themselves, we have to remain critical regarding each new kind of innovation. One clear example of these worldwide initiatives is the incorporation of video images in PE. The central idea behind the current use of images in PE is not revolutionary. One of the first scientific articles on the use of images in schools is written in 1924, in the British Journal of Psychology, with the title “The didactic value of lantern slides and films” (Révész & Hazewinkel, 1924). Already in 1924, the authors state that images can be most valuable when movements, vision and imitation are central elements of the educational context. This insight is still crucial for our perspective today, since images and imitation remain central elements of learning within PE. Teaching physical education implies that the learning processes and learning objectives are directly visible, for both peers and teachers. This visibility and transparency is a crucial aspect of creating a rich learning context, and can be used or adapted for several pedagogical and didactical reasons. Without a doubt, the process of integrating technology in education is being stimulated by the omnipresence of technology in our everyday existence. What is new in our digital age is the pervasiveness. Digital technology permeates our entire being and merges with all our daily activities. Digital technology is changing our behavior in many ways, including our motor skills. Virtual spaces open up new worlds. Digital literacy is a necessary

Next generation PE  3

condition in order to become a full member of most societies. At the same time, it creates new types of inequalities. “Digital illiteracy” is not merely a matter of not being interested in technology. It becomes an urgent societal issue, related to injustice and unequal distribution of resources and opportunities (Hendrix, 2005). Digital technology is not just a freely chosen extension of our human capabilities or desires. It is not just about introducing the tablet or mobile phone (with their opportunities of making images and videos) into the PE classroom. It becomes urgent to understand the way we select from all the information and digital technologies, without losing our main pedagogical and educational goals out of sight. In other words, physical educators, scholars and policy-​ makers increasingly face the challenge and need to create a digital pedagogy for physical education. PE teachers who want to develop a digital pedagogy for PE classes often rely on their pedagogical content knowledge. The TPACK model (see Figure 1.1) is a framework that can be used to illustrate some of the main challenges that are characteristic for digital innovation in PE (Mishra &

Figure 1.1 The TPACK model as framework. Reproduced with permission of the publisher, © 2012 by

4  van Hilvoorde and Koekoek

Koehler, 2006). Shulman (1986) defined “pedagogical content knowledge” (PCK) as the knowledge that deals with the teaching process, including “the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (p. 9). It represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction (Shulman, 1986, p. 8). With the concept of PCK, Shulman stressed the importance of integrating pedagogical knowledge with content knowledge. “At the heart of PCK is the manner in which subject matter is transformed for teaching. This occurs when the teacher interprets the subject matter and finds different ways to represent it and make it accessible to learners.” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1021). Mishra and Koehler extended the work of Shulman and included technology in the model, to stress the importance of technology in modern education. TPACK draws our attention to the question how technology is used in education, instead of just looking at the technology itself. The framework offers an analytic and conceptual lens that helps to focus on specific developments of teacher knowledge, on new technologies and the integration of that knowledge in an educational context. When trying to integrate technology in PE, physical educators also need to have Technological Knowledge (TK). For PE relevant TK could be knowledge on apps that are available, on the hardware that can be used, skills how to get a wireless connection between a tablet, external camera and TV screen, how to display video images to a large screen or how to tag important moments. These skills are crucial, for example, for teaching and practicing tactical skills. PE teachers could ask themselves the question what kind of apps and other technologies children could use best in an educational context. But more than knowing how the technology works, the model stresses the argument that integrating those knowledge areas requires new skills. TPACK draws our attention to the importance of understanding the technology before being able to integrate this knowledge with the content we want to deliver in a specific context, with specific pedagogical and didactical aims. The framework “emphasizes the connections, interactions, affordances, and constraints between and among content, pedagogy, and technology” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p.  1025). Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) draws our attention to the question how technology and content are related. “Teachers need to know not just the subject matter they teach but also the manner in which the subject matter can be changed by the application of technology” (ibid., p. 1028). “In this model, knowledge about content (C), pedagogy (P), and technology (T) is central for developing good teaching. However, rather than treating these domains as separate bodies of knowledge, this model additionally emphasizes the complex interplay of these three bodies of knowledge” (ibid., p. 1025).

Next generation PE  5

The three circles of knowledge lead to three pairs of related knowledge (PCK, TCK, TPK) and one new triad (TPACK). “Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) is an emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three components (content, pedagogy, and technology)” (ibid., p. 1028). Since the recent, extensive growth of digital technology (Digitech), there is relatively little attention for the consequences and mechanisms of this triad for developing new PE pedagogies. The integration of technology into the teachers’ domain of pedagogical knowhow creates new thresholds and raises new questions. The complexity of integrating technology can easily be ignored, by using the relatively uncontroversial cases, where the content is still leading and technology is serving the content. For example, social media offer many opportunities to ingrate sport related content with digital technology, without the complexity of immediately understanding how we should pedagogically adapt the technology to the specific pedagogical content. In a Sport Education project, the teacher wants to address the cultural significance of traditional games. The digital delivery of content, for example by using You Tube to actually show these traditional cultural games, would be a valuable contribution to the understanding of the content. The leading question here is rather straightforward, namely how and in what sense is the technology changing the content that is being taught. The challenge remains, however, to select the most suitable images, tailored to the skills and motivation of the students. Stories of successful uses of videos on the internet can be inspiring, but may also obscure the more complex pedagogical issues involved. YouTube has become a powerful and sometimes successful instrument for self-​regulation, as can be illustrated by the Kenyan javelin thrower Julius Yego, nicknamed “Mr. YouTube,” who learned how to throw by watching YouTube videos, becoming World Champion and silver medal winner at the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. It becomes more complex when the digitalized content is clearly affecting the pedagogical and the teaching context itself. For example, when developing digital instruction cards for assigned learning tasks, we not only need the technological knowledge to develop, but also the skills to adapt the content to the new opportunities this digital instruction offers for teaching. In a teaching context it is crucial to know how children can learn skills displayed on a tablet pc screen in groups without the presence or support of the teacher. We need to know what kind of skills are required for the teacher and how the learning environment should be arranged where the children learn these kind of skills.

Merging technology with pedagogy When technology is interrupting the processes of teaching and assessing, there is a necessity to reflect on the integration of Technological and Pedagogical

6  van Hilvoorde and Koekoek

Knowledge (TPK). TPK “is knowledge of the existence, components, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings, and conversely, knowing how teaching might change as the result of using particular technologies” (ibid., p.  1028). The following example illustrates this merging of technology with pedagogical knowledge. Many teachers want to make video images that are directly available in the learning process. Therefore, digital tagging seems to be a promising and valuable teaching methodology (Koekoek, Van der Mars, Van der Kamp, Walinga, & Van Hilvoorde, 2018). Using tablets for tagging situations in PE is less complex compared with the use of a video camera and computer. Less effort is needed for teachers to make these clips available for children due to the relatively simple editing process. More important now is the question, how to create the right tag panel, that suits the capabilities of the child and/​ or the educational goals of the teacher. Teachers determine the kind of images they want to select and tag. But after the tagging process, they also need to consider which images could be useful for the learning stage of the children. Through the many software applications that are available for digital tagging, teachers can do more than just apply the technologies that are developed elsewhere. With the developing TPK, they can also become knowledgeable on the adequacy of the technology itself. TPK not only implies that technologies are pedagogically adapted to the specific context. It also means that the technology should be critically valued from a pedagogical point of view, also before it is used. Once video images are brought into the context of a PE lesson, teachers may deal with another broad and complex issue, namely the digital assessment of children. New technologies can have a huge and immediate impact on assessment, but there are still many unanswered questions. For example, how can digital technologies be used for the assessment, recording and monitoring of children’s movement competence within PE? How can new technologies be used to longitudinally monitor the development of motor abilities of children? What data are needed for assessment tools? The educational system in many countries often requires that children’s cognitive and physical competences are monitored by generating clear and verifiable data. These data may inform the teachers about the progress or insights in (motor) skill levels of children. At the same time, these professionals may also seek for those technological innovations that meet a high level of user-​friendliness. For an early adopter of the most sophisticated technology, there is always a risk for PE when not taking into account the appropriateness of the data and the digital tool. When the opportunities of technology seems to be boundless, it might not always be the primary focus of physical educators any more to question what kind of data are needed and most appropriate for assessment. We also need to guarantee the protection of the data and individual’s privacy. With the increase of digital assessment tools, it remains the challenge to measure what we value (in PE), instead of valuing what we can measure.

Next generation PE  7

Assessing movement capacities is more than just applying evaluative technologies, based upon a selection of competencies or fundamental movement skills. A focus on a broad concept of Physical Literacy (Whitehead, 2010) cannot be combined with a simple measurement of fundamental movement skills (e.g. Pot et al., 2017). PE teachers can and should play an important role in adapting digital technologies to the standards of PE practices, instead of adapting the practices to the available technologies. If we want to assess movement competences based upon a broad understanding of physical literacy, we need to be careful about technology with its own dynamics, potentially overruling pedagogical principles. Especially when these principles are not that well articulated or robust (such as often the case with assessment in PE), it seems rather easy to let technology do the job (and quantify whatever can be quantified). There is an enormous amount of monitoring technology, related to health and fitness, with strong links to the ideology of quantified self (e.g. Lupton, 2015). PE teachers should be critical about these applications, not in the least because they can ultimately undermine the professional status of the PE teacher. “[T]‌he more physical education classes become an exercise in overseeing students’ use of technologies such as video games, the weaker the arguments for using university trained and professionally remunerated teachers to do this work” (Gard, 2014, p. 831). As far as the TPACK model has been used for research purposes in PE settings, it is obvious that technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is an emergent form of knowledge that transcends the three separate components (content, pedagogy, and technology). “This knowledge is different from knowledge of a disciplinary or technology expert and also from the general pedagogical knowledge shared by teachers across disciplines. TPCK is the basis of good teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, pp. 1028/​1029). For a successful use of technology we need to fully understand all the technology, and integrate those technological skills with knowledge on the content (what exactly do we want to teach?) and the pedagogy (how do we adapt the content to the specific pedagogical context?). The example that we just described about digital tagging in PE illustrates some of the main issues that teachers have to deal with. Pedagogical Content Knowledge implies that teachers know when and how to give examples or demonstrations during PE. Teachers have knowledge on the goals they want to achieve with observational learning. All performances in PE can be observed, and these observations can at any time be used for learning and teaching. With digital technology, “any time” even means the opportunity to observe before or after the class. Tablets and digital applications have become mainstream and much easier to use than the earlier generations of cameras and videos. Technological Knowledge involves the knowledge of these apps and what to do with it. But again, integrating technology is not just a matter of

8  van Hilvoorde and Koekoek

adding the technology to the regular practice. These technologies interact with both the content as well as the pedagogy of the teaching practice. Digital technology offers more possibilities to experiment with the demonstration, which means that choices have to be made that are new, and that should be related in a new context with content and pedagogy. At present, the use of digital video confronts the teacher with different choices that are new and often ignored. In order to rationally integrate the knowledge domains (according to the TPACK model), we need more scientific, experimental research and evidence in order to ensure that the technology is indeed contributing to the goals that are aimed for. Digital video is most often used to allow students to watch their own performance for immediate feedback. This can be defined as video self-​modeling:  “a form of observational learning with the distinction that the observed and the observer, object, and subject, are the same person” (Dowrick, 2012, p. 31). An advantage of digital videos is that students can record, watch and evaluate on their own or in small groups, without continuous guidance of the teacher. Immediate feedback after performances can be a powerful instrument in teaching. However, the applications and potential uses of these technologies are much more diverse and offer a variety of new opportunities. Instead of choosing for self-​modeling based upon images that are immediately available, teachers can also make use of the opportunity to select and edit models to instruct students. Teachers can also make use of a split screen, to compare performances with a model. In perspective of the pedagogical content knowledge, it can be questioned by the teacher whether a mastery model would be appropriate to use or a coping model. Images can be watched in slow motion, scrolled back-​and forward, zoomed in and out. What images does the teacher select and how are the tag fragments used, based upon what kind of definition or construction? Tagging meaningful images is a skill that is highly relevant when using videos (Koekoek et  al., 2018). But the more technical skill of tagging can hardly be distinguished from the pedagogical knowledge what exactly to do with the fragments. Just showing and watching performances might not be enough to have a lasting and meaningful impact. Relevant aspects of the performance can be highlighted and emphasized, for example by adding arrows or verbal instruction. Some researchers even claim that video feedback is only effective when it explicitly guides the learner to relevant aspects in the display (e.g. Ste Marie et al., 2012, 2013). Variability can also be enhanced by varying with the moments of feedback, or by choosing to obtain feedback or not. Instead of the teacher deciding to provide feedback, learners may deliberately choose after each attempt whether or not to obtain feedback. In a more traditional context of PE teaching, content is represented by giving feedback on a specific action, or giving a demonstration of how a motor action should be performed. Content and pedagogy are closely interrelated when giving feedback. New technologies highly interfere with this essential

Next generation PE  9

element of teaching and learning. It is a misunderstanding to think that technology may replace traditional –​human –​feedback. Digital technology interferes, but also increases the complexity of feedback and instruction. This kind of innovation implies more than just following the early adopters. That’s why the facilitation of innovative processes into learning communities is crucial, where professionals can exchange experiences and monitor progression and quality of the innovation. At any moment in the process of technological innovation, teachers should be aware that certain pedagogical or didactical aims are affected by the technology itself. A physical educator may think that in a particular learning context, a child needs to be praised for a specific performance. But the educational and technological configuration of a teaching context may do the opposite, for example, when this child looks back at the performance which disappoints him or her. Teachers should also consider the different aims of feedback. Do we want to praise, to stimulate, to correct, to reflect, and how do these different aims relate to technological constraints and affordances? We know from our own research project in the past years that for incorporating technology in the PE context it is essential to start the process of aligning technology with specific pedagogical aims (e.g. Koekoek et al., 2018). Digital tagging is used to develop didactic strategies for teaching tactical awareness in sport games. From this research we conclude that the use of digital technology, along with tagging, constitutes a natural extension that can potentially support the development of competent players. It is our experience that integrating content, pedagogy and technology demands enormous amount of time, expertise and spaces for developing new skills. The framework suggests that there is a sweet spot in the middle, where the virtuous pedagogues and teachers want to be. Instead, the framework should be understood as a more dynamic process. The model can draw attention to specific moments of innovation. A journey towards TPACK is generally not a straight line, nor a spiral finishing in the middle. Teachers can also choose to focus on specific areas in a process, in order to better understand the next step. For relatively uncontroversial and straightforward uses of technology, such as the use of YouTube, PE teachers may benefit from good practices and the exchange of experiences. For pedagogically more complex issues, such as the use of video feedback, more scholarly attention and evidence is needed. The omnipresence of digital technology in our society can in many ways obstruct the aims of PE. There is however no reason to close our eyes for new opportunities, also when technology is leading and may even dominate the pedagogical context and content. New technologies are already emerging, that ask for new critical reflection and research on its potential benefits for physical education. For example, the use of virtual or augmented reality makes it possible to play totally new games, with other kinds of social contact and also new kinds of movement behavior (e.g. Van Hilvoorde, 2017).

10  van Hilvoorde and Koekoek

In this introducing chapter, we have tried to stress the fact that “knowing how to use technology is not the same as knowing how to teach with it” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1033). Technology can enrich, augment and enhance specific elements of PE. Digital technologies may also change the content of teaching, and with lack of pedagogical expertise also obstruct pedagogical quality. The skills to professionally integrate new technologies with content and pedagogy take an enormous amount of effort, time and money. In order to guarantee a durable innovation of technology, PETE faculties have a crucial role because they need to invest in the innovative climate as well, and in the didactics of introducing new students in the use of technologies. In order to prevent a growing (generation) gap in knowledge and skills, professionalization and schooling of teachers at PETE faculties are of great importance. PE teacher educators should be involved in adapting and aligning the technology and the science to the specific characteristics of our educational context. These professionals should always remain critical towards all the claims that are made on the positive learning outcomes of digital technologies, and the pedagogical principles that are supposed to underlie these positive outcomes. Current developments in technology seem to fit within a focus on personalized learning and self-​regulation. This paradigm is not without risk and should be carefully discerned from the non-​pedagogical practice that students can do the work on their own. Technology cannot replace the important work of PE teachers. If the teacher is in control, technology can however help to reach the same goals in a more innovative way.

The book: digital technology in PE: global perspectives With this book we have the ambition to present a scientific state of the art (what do we know and what kind of evidence is available on the use of technology in PE?) as well as practical narratives, case studies and reflections that could help PE teachers and coaches who wish to introduce technology into their daily practice. The main focus in the book is on pedagogy and their implications for the PE classroom or for the (educational and didactical) practice in PETE faculties. The chapters especially address insights in the way teachers accommodate technology into a sustainable digital pedagogy. As said, with this book we try to identify core pedagogical principles rather than simply discussing passing fads and temporary technologies. With this perspective we aim to give the book itself a pedagogical value instead of a collection of research papers. The authors of the chapters reflect on pedagogical theories that shaped their work, supplemented with reflections on how digital innovations affected their work. The chapters also consist of practical and applied implications of the contributors’ work in which they addressed practical questions as well as scientific challenges. Each contributor added a few discussion questions to their chapter in order to

Next generation PE  11

further reflect on the topic. Moreover, they also provided some suggestions of references for further reading. The book is divided into the following four sections: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Skill acquisition and assessment: practical implications of research Technological influence on models based practices Concepts and critical reflections on Digi-​tech in PE Technological innovations for professional development

Part I: Skill acquisition and assessment: practical implications of research In the first part of the book we will start with concrete examples and applications of digital technology (such as video feedback or the use of apps for assessment), that are strongly integrated with the scientific knowledge that is available at the moment. Zhang and Li (Chapter 2) introduce the various uses of digital video and self-​modeling in physical education, and provide a comprehensive overview of evidence informed practices of digital video and self-​modeling. The authors present a variety of digital video-​based teaching skills to promote physical education teachers’ teaching competences. With a focus on skill acquisition, Kok and Van der Kamp (Chapter  3) address the opportunities offered by digital video in relation to self-​ regulation skills and motor learning in physical education. Self-​regulated learning –​such as learning with self-​controlled video feedback –​is the central focus in this chapter. The authors show that self-​controlled video feedback not only benefits students’ motor learning and motivational beliefs in laboratory settings. They also stress the critical advantage of digital video use on a tablet or smartphone, and that students can record, watch and evaluate performance independently or in small groups, without the need for continuous guidance of the teacher. Van Rossum and Morley (Chapter 4) explore the use of digital technologies for the assessment, recording and monitoring of children’s movement competence within primary school physical education. The authors articulate how they encountered experts’ and users’ dilemmas and how these are overcome. Van Rossum and Morley also provide some useful frameworks for further examination of the uses of digital technology and establish a platform for future practice and research in this field. Chapter 5, authored by Sargent and Casey, examines a case study of a PE teacher who embedded digital technology into his teaching. Guided by appreciative inquiry, this chapter draws on this teacher’ views and experiences, and the views of others in his school, regarding digital technology use, in an effort to understand the factors and experiences that influence how and why he uses digital technology.

12  van Hilvoorde and Koekoek

Part II: Technological influence on models based practices The second part consists of contributions that focus on the role of technology in models based practices. Sinelnikov (Chapter  6) discusses how current technological advances can inform a model-​based practice such as Sport Education, and how it can support physical education teachers and students in its implementation. The chapter provides examples and discussion of how digital technologies can be incorporated in educational processes. In addition, André (Chapter 7) presents a few practical implementations of the Sport Education season while using social media, such as wikis and Facebook. The chapter provides a description on how these technologies can be integrated in the teaching of the SE season while seeking to extend the students experience beyond gym time. Hopper, Sanford and Fu (Chapter  8) explore key concepts used in the design of videogames and consider how these can inform the application of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) with the Sport Education model (SEM) to create an ecological approach to learning. They suggest that a combination of the TGfU/​SEM approaches, informed by video game design, can help realize ecological learning approaches to teaching games in PE.

Part III: Concepts and critical reflections on Digi-​t ech in PE The third part of the book discusses theoretical concepts and contains critical reflections on the use of Digit-​tech in physical education. Kucklick and Harvey (Chapter 9) explain how Clark’s (2003) categorization of opaque and transparent technologies provides a guiding theoretical framework for physical education teachers’ technology integration from a social-​behavioral perspective. The authors critically analyze three highly contextualized stories of physical education teachers use of video-​based and wearable fitness technologies, which highlight how the nature of the technology (i.e., opaque or transparent) influences student learning. Van Doodewaard and Knoppers (Chapter  10) examine how the use of video technologies can influence judgments of bodies, often called surveillance. They describe explicit and implicit discourses about bodies and explore how body surveillance based on digital technologies may strengthen and challenge social inequalities in PE. Chapter 11, written by Walinga, Consten, van Driel and van der Kamp, introduces an operational model to support PE teachers developing a digital pedagogy. The model describes the students’ learning phases and advises PE teachers about the use of digital technology tailored to the students’ learning phase. In Chapter  12, Bowes and Swanwick provide a brief overview of the learning theory connectivism and show how, in an educational landscape now saturated with digital technologies, it continues to offer practitioners

Next generation PE  13

the most useful framework for thinking about teaching and learning. They explore documents that serve to propagate ideas about pedagogy and structure expectations for teaching and learning in New Zealand’s schools. Part IV: Technological innovations for professional development The fourth part of the book presents technological developments that occur at PETE faculties. Neutzling, Pagnano Richardson and Sheehy (Chapter 13) explore the potential and possibilities of using virtual reality simulation in a physical education teacher education program. They illustrate how virtual reality simulation is embedded throughout their curriculum and present the most salient impacts of using virtual reality simulation. Marron and Coulter (Chapter  14) explore how two initial teacher educators (ITEs) became empowered, through situated learning, to integrate iPads into their teaching to enhance learning in pre-​service generalist teachers’ elementary physical education modules. In preparation for the integration of technology, the ITEs found that “time” was their most valuable commodity. In the last chapter of the book, Dania (Chapter 15) reviews and synthesizes literature relevant to e-​mentoring and examines its relevance to the design of physical education teacher education (PETE) programs. The example of a PE practicum mentoring program is used as a point of reference for shaping the discussion around the role of technology in promoting community-​ based collaborative learning.

Discussion Questions 1.  Describe the kind of new technology that you (want to) use in your PE classes and how it emulates your pedagogical goals 2.  What are your personal considerations, as teacher or scholar, when you decide whether or not to adopt a technological innovation within your PE context? 3. When considering the TPACK framework and the overlapping circles, what questions do you find to be the most relevant for creating a rich learning environment for students?

Acknowledgement The initiative for this book is partly based on insights from a national research project about the use of digital technology in physical education in the Netherlands. We’d like to thank the colleagues and students from the PETE faculty Calo at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences (Zwolle) and Vrije Universiteit (Amsterdam) who were involved, as well as the

14  van Hilvoorde and Koekoek

physical educators and their students who participated, for their inspiring contributions. Many of their insights and perspectives helped us with the construction of this book and provided us with valuable reflections to write this chapter.

References Casey, A., Goodyear, V.A., & Armour, K.M. (2016). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: Pedagogical cases. London: Routledge. Casey A., Goodyear, V.A., & Armour, K.A. (2017). Rethinking the relationship between pedagogy, technology and learning in health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 22, 288–​304. Clark, A. (2003). Technologies to bond with. In: A. Clark, ed. Natural-​born cyborgs:  Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. New  York, NY: Oxford University Press, 35–​58. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines:  The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Dowrick, P. W. (2012). Self modeling: Expanding the theories of learning. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 30–​41. Gard, M. (2014). eHPE: a history of the future. Sport, Education and Society, 19, 827–​845. Hendrix, E. (2005). Permanent injustice:  Rawls’ theory of justice and the digital divide. Educational Technology & Society, 8, 63–​68. Koekoek, J., Van der Mars, H., Van der Kamp, J., Walinga, W., & Van Hilvoorde, I. (2018). Aligning Digital Video Technology With Game Pedagogy in Physical Education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 89 (1), 12–​22. Koehler, M.J. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (1), 60–​70. Lupton, D. (2015). Data assemblages, sentient schools and digitised health and physical education (response to Gard). Sport, Education and Society, 20 (1), 122–​132. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–​1054. Pluim, C., & Gard, M. (2016). Physical education’s grand convergence: Fitnessgram®, big-​ data and the digital commerce of children’s health. Critical Studies in Education, 1–​18. Pot, N., Van Hilvoorde, I., Afonso, J., Koekoek, J., & Almond. L. (2017). Meaningful movement behavior involves more than the learning of fundamental movement skills. International Sports Studies. Journal of the International Society for Comparative Physical Education and Sport, 39(2), 5–​20. Révész, G. & Hazewinkel, J.F. (1924). The didactic value of lantern slides and films. British Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 184–​197. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand:  knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–​14.

Next generation PE  15 Ste-​Marie, D.M., Law, B., Rymal, A.M., Jenny, O., Hall, C., & McCullagh, P. (2012). Observation interventions for motor skill learning and performance: An applied model for the use of observation. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5, 145–​176. Ste-​Marie, D.M., Vertes, K.A., Law, B., & Rymal, A.M. (2013). Learner-​controlled self-observation is advantageous for motor skill acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 556. Van Hilvoorde, I. (ed.) (2017). Sport and Play in a Digital World. London: Routledge. Whitehead, M. (ed.) (2010). Physical Literacy throughout the lifecourse. Abingdon: Routledge.

Part I

Skill acquisition and assessment Practical implications of research

Chapter 2

Digital video and self-​m odeling in the PE classroom Tao Zhang and Hongxin Li

Introduction In modern times, technology changes rapidly. It has been applied into many professional fields, including physical education (PE). Among all the areas of technology, video technology, particularly digital video and self-​modeling, are gaining more attentions in the PE classroom. The uses of digital video and self-​modeling that are most pertinent and effective include video demonstration, providing videotape feedback, recording and analyzing students’ movement, and self-​review and feedforward for improving students’ motor skills (Banville & Polifko, 2009; Darden, 1999). Previous research evidence has indicated that information acquired through our eyes takes up as high as 70  percent of the total amount reaching our brains (Mohnsen, 2010). Students often pay more attention to the video demonstration because they are easily attracted by the moving images (Ranker & Mills, 2014). The use of video technology in PE was developed in early 1980s and continued to expand its practical application, touching teaching and learning in PE and other subjects (Dowrick, 2012). With the progress of era and the advanced development of video technology, many uses of video technology in PE have become well known, such as electronic portfolio, video assessment, video feedback, and video-​modeling. Although there are various applications of digital video and self-​modeling, PE teachers often feel they need more knowledge on how to use the video technology efficiently in PE classroom. There is also a need for the students to know the utility of video technology so that they can take full advantage of the digital video and self-​modeling. Video self-​modeling is “a form of observational learning with the distinction that the observed and the observer, object, and subject, are the same person” (Dowrick, 2012, p.  31). Most commonly, these images are captured on video, and the viewer can watch the video repeatedly to learn skills or adjust their learning environments into a challenging environment. By using this way, they can train themselves or enhance their skills (Eberline & Richards, 2013). There are two forms of video self-​modeling in

20  Zhang and Li

PE classroom: feedforward and self-​review. Usually feedforward is used in instructional or clinical settings when students have not acquired the skills. On the other hand, self-​review refers to students watching their best performance of the skills (Dowrick & Biggs, 1983). By using either way of video self-​modeling, students in PE settings have the potential to learn the new motor skills and improve their motor skill proficiency. Recently, modeling of human body’s simulation is a good way to help students gain skills faster in the field of PE.

Theoretical framework Social cognitive theory is a strong theoretical framework to examine the uses of digital video and self-​modeling in the PE classroom (Bandura, 1986, 2001). Based on the perspective of social cognitive theory, an individual’s observational learning process can be influenced by the relationship between the individual and the environment. That is to say, students can learn their behavior from watching others’ demonstration or from the digital videos. Moreover, students should pay attention to the motor skills and motivate themselves to reproduce the observed skills in order to enhance their personal perceptions and self-​efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 1997). There are four conditions that describe these cognitive processes: (1) attention to demonstrated behavior; (2)  retention in memory; (3)  reproduction of the behavior; and (4)  motivation to enact the previously observed behavior (Bandura, 1986). In those conditions, learning by observation can take place (Dowrick, 2012).

Digital video Electronic video portfolio Portfolios provide an opportunity for teachers to clarify and refine ideas about teaching over time (Borko, Michalec, Timmons, & Siddle, 1997; Lyons, 1998). Because portfolio is the key for teachers’ reflection, its development has received much attention for teachers in the PE classroom (Deglau & O’Sullivan, 2006; Senne & Rikard, 2004). In recent years, more PE teachers choose to use student-​centered teaching approach, so student portfolios could also be important for student learning in PE. Electronic video portfolio is a “collection of work that a learner has collected, selected, organized, reflected upon, and presented to show understanding and growth over time” (Barrett, 2006, p. 1). In PE settings, electronic learning portfolios are regarded as an important tool, and through the portfolio, practical learning in physical education can be evaluated and the assessment for student learning could be incorporated into teaching and learning (Nagro et al., 2016).

Digital video and self-modeling  21

For example, Weir and Connor (2009) carried out a two-​year project and investigated how digital video used in PE affects the students in 12 Irish schools. In Phase 1 of this study, 31 student portfolios were compiled with the use of Keynote presentation software. When asked in which part they learned most, students answered that they felt that most learning had taken place when compiling the portfolios with digital video cameras. During Phase 2 of their project, aspects of assessment for learning were used aiming to investigate the potential of video technology assisting formative assessment in PE. Students set their own learning objectives and assessed their own learning on a regular basis. Electronic portfolios were produced and the quality of the work proved the educational validity of integrating technology into assessing student learning in PE. Meanwhile, students showed their development and learning during the development process of their portfolios and found these electronic portfolios interesting and enjoyable (Weir & Connor, 2009). In addition, digital video portfolios can be also used to help with PE teachers. Teachers were encouraged to edit the video of their teaching, so that they could examine multiple perspectives and identify a rational for alternative solutions. In this case, videos for PE teachers served as a stimulus-​rich visual/​auditory diary of their teaching activities. These videos can help them for their reflection of teaching. In Romano and Schwartz’s study (2005), three technology tools (videotaping teaching, online discussions, and electronic portfolio development) were introduced to first-​year teachers, and those tools were designed to encourage teachers’ reflections on teaching. In this study, portfolio development was taught in the meetings and teachers got the instruction on how to create an electronic portfolio and how to use the tools and organization structures. They had the freedom to create their own portfolio using web design software such as Dreamweaver and FrontPage based on their personal preferences and needs. When they had a good preparation for their portfolio, their individual videotapes for their classroom teaching were recorded. Followed by each videotape, there were three individual interviews conducted to assess teachers’ perspective on which technology worked better and how technology improved their teaching skills. Within those three technology tools, video teaching provided the most meaningful reflection on teachers’ teaching practice. The teachers felt appreciative to see their teaching behavior when they were teaching, and it was helpful for them to notice their development in different timelines (Romano & Schwartz, 2005). Digital video used for assessment Assessment has been recognized as one of the most effective ways to support and enhance student motivation and achievement in PE (Palao et al., 2015). Apart from being used in teaching progression and learning process, video

22  Zhang and Li

technology can also be applied to facilitate student assessment in PE. As we mentioned earlier, digital video can assess teachers’ acquirement of their teaching skills in PE classroom. For students, previous research have indicated that the incorporation of digital video into PE classroom has a motivational effect on students (da Luz Dias, Moraes, & Leite, 2014; Post, Aiken, Laughlin, & Fairbrother, 2016). This method is especially suitable for PE classroom since much of the learning contains motor skills and can only be demonstrated through practical performances. Digital video can facilitate assessment because it possesses the ability to provide augmented feedback for motor skill acquisition. Students who see their own performance with video feedback result in a better understanding of the correct demonstration and helps reduce errors in movements to enhance performance. Consequently, using video feedback can offer students a self-​regulating environment, help them build self-​assessment abilities, and reinforce the effectiveness of video feedback (O’Loughlin, Chróinín, & O’Grady, 2013). In addition, PE teachers can also use digital video to evaluate their teaching skills. They can use the video recorder app on the iTouch, and record their teaching performances onto the device by wearing it on the chest. Finally, PE teachers can also record their teaching performance by using a camera, later they can save their videos and copy them to computers for analyzing (Kelly & Bishop, 2013). Video feedback The use of video recording in the PE classroom and gymnasium gained more attention in recent years. Among all the methods of taking advantage of video technology for the benefit of better PE, video feedback has been proven that it can increase students’ ability to learn and perform motor skills (Boyce, Markos, Jenkins, & Loftus, 1996; Deakin & Proteau, 2000; Martindale, Ryan, & Marzilli, 2001). Videotaped performances and practices are regularly used by PE teachers throughout the world to assess, demonstrate, and motivate their students (Seifried, 2005). Video recording devices have been used in PE for a long time. Various ways that PE teachers could use video cameras in the classroom setting are suggested (Banville & Polifko, 2009). Specifically, a teaching assistant or a student can be assigned to operate the digital camera to free the teacher so that one-​on-​one feedback could be provided since the teacher can circulate among the students. The students’ movements can be videotaped and then the teacher can make customized comments on their performance so that every student has the opportunity to visualize their strengths and weaknesses. To a great extent, students’ learning is influenced by the teaching styles used by teachers. Teaching styles containing video technology can help students make a positive participation in PE and develop their physical fitness (Al-​Haliq et  al., 2014). It is notable that work on the video-​based

Digital video and self-modeling  23

learning in PE has shown the increased student motivation as a significant advantage of integrating video technology into PE (Kibble & Cayley, 2003). A model for teaching and learning involving video technology was presented by Schwartz and Hartmann (), in which they outlined four major outcomes for learning with video technology: engaging, doing, seeing, and saying (Schwartz & Hartmann, 2007). Specifically, when video shows targeted knowledge and explain subsequent instructions, students’ interest is raised and consequently they engage in the learning process. The “doing” refers to the human behavior presented by the video shown by the teacher. Students see new things or familiar things presented in different ways while video devices simultaneously provide audio knowledge which represents the “saying” (O’Loughlin et al., 2013). Feedback serves as a way to motivate students, increase their learning, and reinforce their behavior (Darden, 1999). Capturing students performing using digital cameras and then allowing them to see the video clips immediately after their performance is a very effective way to provide feedback (Kibble & Cayley, 2003). It is said that the best way for students to improve their motor skills is to see their own performance with immediate feedback and personalized instruction by the teachers. Some cognitive processes such as self-​talk and anxiety can influence students’ performance, which can be highlighted by videotape feedback. While students’ motivation, enthusiasm, and effort in learning can be increased, videotape feedback can also contribute to getting rid of ingrained negative behaviors (Darden, 1999). With the digital videos from different angles, students’ performances can be shot and replayed immediately in a slow motion after their performance. Teachers can give detailed comments on the performance and provide instructions for students to improve themselves, and students could have a better sense to determine the acceleration, velocity, etc., of the targeted object or body part, so that they can better improve their motor skills (Mohnsen, 2010). For instance, when providing feedback to students who are learning a motor skill, a key principle is that the feedback should be provided on the characteristics of the movement pattern (Darden, 1999). Therefore, by watching students’ video performance in a slow motion with different angles, teachers can describe the characteristics in detail (i.e., “the length of step,” “which direction they should move to before shooting”). New video devices, such as vodcasting, can also be fully taken advantage of by students. Students can watch the vodcasts made by their teachers containing recorded lectures to review for tests or listen to the class when they cannot be present in the PE classroom (Shumack & Reilly, 2011). Students’ mental practice can be enhanced by vodcasts of specific skills through watching the video and then imagine themselves performing the skills according the demonstration. Emphasis on fundamental or more advanced motor skills can be acquired by students through watching vodcasts in their smart phone whenever it is and wherever they are. Rules,

24  Zhang and Li

strategies, and safety instructions can be repeated by vodcasting so that students can memorize those (Shumack & Reilly, 2011). Motor skills that must be memorized in a certain order, such as in gymnastics or martial arts, can also be made into vodcasts so that students can conveniently view them repeatedly whenever they have questions about the sequence or the correct demonstration. It is evident that video feedback can be also used to improve PE teachers’ teaching skills. Although PE teachers are good at some motor skills, it is difficult for them to be proficient in every motor skill (Mohnsen, 2010). Under such circumstances, a short video can serve as a substitute for teacher demonstration in PE classroom, and can be even more effective because it can be played as many times as students need until they fully master the motor skills in PE classroom. In exemplary lessons, the teachers can play a video to motivate students and connect the previous lessons with the new lessons. While introducing new concepts, videos are also very helpful since they visualize certain definitions so that students can better understand them without painstakingly imagining the true meaning of a relatively obscure sentence. Model demonstrations can contribute to the learning of those students who have limited language proficiency or those who can only acquire knowledge through visualization. Thinking digital video to another level, Mohnsen (2010) reported that when teaching volleyball skills, if using digital video to show a volleyball game in a slow motion, PE teachers can point out the effective fake spike carried out by the offensive team in accordance with the defensive set up.

Self-​m odeling When focusing on PE settings, Amara and colleagues (2015) conducted a study to examine the effect of video self-​modeling on students’ learning of hurdle clearance skills. In this study, students from two classes participated in a ten-​week hurdle clearance learning cycle in the academic year 2014–​ 2015. With regard to the control group, they learned the hurdle clearance skills with instructor’s verbal instructions without video support, whereas the self-​modeling group, besides verbal instruction their learning process was also conducted by video feedback with self-​modeling, expert-​modeling, and model’s superposition to correct technical faults. As a form of observational learning, self-​modeling has the distinguishing where observer, object, and subject are the same person (Dowrick, 2012). In expert-​ modeling, observer received the video feedback by observing an expert performing the skill (Boyer et  al., 2009). In the last form, model’s superposition, observers learn by comparing the self-​modeling with the expert modeling (Amara et  al., 2015). After the evaluation process and the data analyses, the results showed that both verbal feedback and video feedback worked well on improving students’ learning and performance in hurdle clearance.

Digital video and self-modeling  25

Furthermore, students in video feedback group improved their skill more than students in verbal instruction group (Amara et al., 2015). Many studies of self-​modeling in teaching sport and gymnastic-​related skills were conducted for the past years. For example, Obrusnikova and Rattigan (2016) provided guidelines to physical educators and practitioners on the ways of implementing self-​ modeling in their instructions, and teachers could help students promote the acquisition of fundamental motor skills. In this study, Obrusnikova and Rattigan introduced eight steps to help educators organize the implement of self-​modeling, including “identify the target skills, select the learning cues, select the video equipment, select the video model, create the video, select and arrange the setting, monitor progress, and fade use” (Obrusnikova & Rattigan, 2016, p. 26). Ste-​Marie and colleagues (2011) conducted a study to examine the effectiveness of a self-​modeling intervention in balance beam performance. Based on the self-​regulation framework, the researchers used self-​modeling video to record participants’ performance on a beam. Participants were female gymnasts between the ages of 9 and 16. After recording the performance, Dartfish Pro Software was used to edit participants’ videos to create their self-​modeling videotapes. At the pre-​intervention phase, participants were asked to redo a skill till they had obtained the highest quality of their performance, and their skill was recorded by a digital camera as their beam line. During the intervention process, there were two experimental competitions in which gymnasts received the self-​modeling video whereas the groups in the other two competitions didn’t receive their video for self-​modeling. Participants in experimental competitions watched their self-​modeling video for three times before the warm-​up. Then, after the warm-​up, experimental condition participants complete watching their self-​modeling video for a final time. For the control condition, the gymnasts did their regular preparation. After the data analyses, the results showed that gymnasts’ scores were significantly higher for the competitions in which they viewed their video compared with those gymnasts who didn’t watch self-​modeling videos. In addition, many gymnasts confirmed that by watching their self-​modeling videos, they had gained confidence in their ability to perform as well as they were in the videos (Ste-​Marie, Rymal, Vertes, & Martini, 2011). In addition, Rymal and Ste-​Marie (2017) conducted a study which includes a replication of the findings of Ste-​Marie et al. (2011). They investigated the effectiveness of self-​modeling on the performance of gymnastic athletes. However, the feedforward video self-​modeling had no benefits on performance or self-​ regulatory processes. As for those athletes who had lower visual imagery ability, feedforward video self-​modeling may be helpful for their performance (Rymal & Ste-​Marie, 2017). The work on children’s skill acquisition in learning trampoline skills led to another study on video self-​modeling (Ste-​Marie, Vertes, Rymal, & Martini, 2011). To be specific, the experiment consisted of three phases:  pre-​test phase, acquisition phase, and retention

26  Zhang and Li

test. At the pre-​test phase, a video camera was set up on a tripod at a 90° angle to the trampoline, so that the performance of the participants could be captured. The video footage from the practice trails were used to create those feedforward self-​modeling videos by recording participants’ best performance of each skill. Next, during the acquisition phase, at the beginning of the acquisition day participants viewed their feedforward self-​modeling video three times whilst children in control group heard the verbal instruction three times. A total of ten practice trials occurred and researchers recorded the last trial to measure their performance. In the middle of those ten trails, participants from the experimental group watched their feedforward self-​ modeling video three times again. In the retention test phase, there was not any feedforward self-​modeling video provided. After the data analyses, the results indicated that children who viewed their video acquired the skill better than the children who only received the verbal instruction (Ste-​Marie et al., 2011). Another intervention study was to examine the self-​modeling on children’s self-​regulation of learning and swimming performance (Clark & Ste-​Marie, 2006). In this study, participants were divided into three groups:  self-​ modeling group, self-​ observation group, and control group. After the intervention, the results showed that self-​modeling group demonstrated a higher swimming performance compared with self-​observation group and control group. Besides, children in self-​modeling group showed a greater self-​satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Self-​modeling also applies to the acquisition of motor skills of middle school children with intellectual disabilities. Obrusnikova and Cavalier (2017) investigated the effectiveness of video-​modeling on the acquisition of the standing long jump. The result showed that using self-​modeling could lead to improved acquisition and maintenance of the fundamental motor skills by the students with moderate intellectual disabilities.

Potential challenges It is well-​documented that Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a meaningful framework for teachers as they begin to use digital technology to support teaching and learning in the classroom (Mishra & Kohler, 2006, 2009). This model highlighted that what we teach (content) and how we teach (pedagogy) are the basis for any instructional technologies that we plan to use to enhance students’ learning in PE classroom. According to the TPACK framework (see Figure 1.1), there are three different types of knowledge:  Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK; a type of knowledge that teachers have about their contents and they have about how teach that specific contents such as basketball and baseball in PE classroom), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK; a type of knowledge that teachers develop to identify the best technology to support

Digital video and self-modeling  27

a particular pedagogical approach, such as digital video and self-​modeling in PE classroom), and Technological Content Knowledge (TCK; a type of knowledge that teachers acquire to help identify the best technologies to support their students as they learn content such as Gymnastics or Yoga in PE classroom). As an important technological pedagogical knowledge, how to incorporate digital video and self-​modeling into PE is under-​researched. Many studies focused on the describing the uses of digital video and self-​modeling rather than discussing their drawbacks. Despite all the benefits of incorporating video technology into PE classroom, some researchers view it with skepticism. A  negative impact of videotape feedback on students’ overall performance has been noticed. Like verbal feedback, videotape feedback also has the tendency to disrupt students’ performance caused by a change in biomechanics or even the cognitive effort linked to these changes (Suby, 2009). Some students would show the signs of anxiety when they use videotape feedback as a means of learning and assessing partially because self-​ images are naturally anxiety-​provoking. Therefore, videotape feedback was only suitable for those students who have a thorough understanding of exactly what a desired motor skill should look like. What’s more, the level of the performer, type of motor skill or movement, instructor-​provided feedback, and frequency of watching can all be influencing variables that can define the effectiveness of using videotape feedback and ineffective uses do exist (Suby, 2009). Although videotaping can enhance students’ motor skill learning and PE teachers’ teaching skills, it can also be burdensome since it’s time consuming and financial demanding. Due to the limitations of the devices and teachers’ inexperience, some students in the class were not even in the videotape. Therefore, to guarantee the quality of the videotape, professionals should be hired to set up the devices and operate the camera, assuming that the school has enough budget to purchase all the equipment required. When videotaping is used as a method of providing feedback to evaluate students’ performance, a considerable amount of time is inevitable to record their performances. The viewing process is also very critical. If the PE teacher plays the videotape in class, one-​on-​one instruction cannot be guaranteed because there is not enough time to pause for every student to evaluate and comment on their performances. On the other hand, if the video feedback is not provided right after the students’ practice, it will become inefficient when students are not able to effectively correct the problems due to the fading of their memories. A software named iMovie can be used to offer students a personalized file instead of the one with all the students in it (Obrusnikova & Cavalier, 2017). Students can focus on their own performances and better recognize their strengths and weaknesses, thus reflect on it more effectively. However, the making of the personalized file requires teachers to use the software to edit the recorded information for each student, which means

28  Zhang and Li

they have to spend a large amount of time on it assuming they have already been trained to master the editing skills.

Implication and conclusions With the challenges of the digital video and self-​modeling, it might be difficult for PE teachers to achieve the goals of PE. Therefore, PE teachers should make rules on how to use the devices, and utilize video technology to keep students focusing on the learning objectives in the PE classroom. Second, digital video and self-​modeling can be used as teaching and coaching device in a variety ways. Due to the development of recording devices and different available recording apps, there is a need that PE teachers should have the knowledge and skills on how to choose suitable software/​apps and how to implement the video technologies into their own teaching practices. Third, to guarantee the quality of the videotape, professionals should be hired to set up the devices and operate the camera, assuming that the school has enough budget to purchase all the equipment required. In conclusion, we provide a practical introduction on how digital video and self-​modeling can be used by teachers and students in the PE classroom in this chapter. Video technology has provided several different approaches for PE. By using digital video and self-​modeling, PE teachers can demonstrate skills precisely, assign their time more wisely, reflect themselves effectively, and provide students more precise and non-​judgmental feedbacks. Although there are some challenges in the application of digital video and self-​modeling in the PE classroom, PE teachers should understand video technology deeply and make good use of them.

Discussion questions 1.  What are the similarities and differences between digital video and self-​modeling in the PE classroom? 2.  How are you going to prepare students for the assessment if you plan to use digital video to assess students’ performance?

Further reading Geoghan, D. (2017). Visualizing Technology. (5th ed.). Pearson Higher Ed. Casey, A., Goodyear, V. A., & Armour, K. M. (2016). Digital Technologies and Learning in Physical Education:  Pedagogical Cases. London, England: Routledge.

Digital video and self-modeling  29

Harris, J. & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-​based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (ed.) Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99–​108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).

References Al-​haliq, M. A., Oudat, M. A., & Al-​taieb, M. A. (2014). The effect of using video on developing physical fitness of physical education students at the Hashemite University. Asian Social Science, 10(1), 21–​27. Amara, S., Mkaouer, B., Nassib, S. H., Chaaben, H., Hachana, Y., & Salah, F. Z. B. (2015). Effect of video modeling process on teaching/​learning hurdle clearance situations on physical education students. Advances in Physical Education, 5, 225–​233. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:  A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-​Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-​efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–​ 26. Retrieved from http://​​ docview/​ 205845107?accountid=7113. Banville, D. & Polifko, M. (2009). Using digital video recorders in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 6, 17–​21. Barrett, H. (2006). Using electronic portfolios for classroom assessment. Connected Newsletter, 13(2), 4–​6. Bergin, J. (2016). The Effects of Self-​Assessment Using Coach’s Eye on Perceived Competence in Elementary Physical Education. Bridgewater State University, Unpublished Master’s Theses. Bridgewater, MA. Borko, H., Michalec, P., Timmons, M., & Siddle, J.  (1997). Student teaching portfolios: A tool for promoting reflective practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 345–​357. Boyce, B.  A., Markos, N.  J., Jenkins, D.  W., & Loftus, J.  R. (1996). How should feedback be delivered? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(1), 18–​22. Boyer, E., Miltenberger, R. G., Batsche, C., Fogel, V., & LeBlanc, L. (2009). Video modeling by experts with video feedback to enhance gymnastics skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 855–​860. Calandra, B., Gurvitch, R., & Lund, J. (2008). An exploratory study of digital video editing as a tool for teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 137–​153. Casey, A. & Jones, B. (2011). Using digital technology to enhance student engagement in physical education. Asia-​Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 2(2), 51–​66. Clark, S. E. & Ste-​Marie, D. M. (2007). The impact of self-​as-​a-​model interventions on children’s self-​regulation of learning and swimming performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(5), 577–​586.

30  Zhang and Li Da Luz Dias, R., Moraes, M. C., & Leite, L. L. (2014). Video production and video tutorials in professional health education: A mobile learning experience. International Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics, 9(3), 72–​80. Darden, G. F. (1999). Videotape feedback for student learning and performance: A learning-​stages approach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(9), 40–​45. Deakin, J. M. & Proteau, L. (2000). The role of scheduling in learning through observation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(3), 268–​276. Deglau, D. & O’Sullivan, M. (2006). Chapter 3: The effects of a long-​term professional development program on the beliefs and practices of experienced teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25(4), 379–​396. Dowrick, P. W. (2012). Self modeling: Expanding the theories of learning. Psychology in the Schools, 49(1), 30–​41. Eberline, A. D. & Richards, K. A. R. (2013). Teaching with technology in physical education. Strategies, 26(6), 38–​39. Finkenberg, M. E., Ryan, S., Marzilli, S., & Martindale, T. (2001). Using digital cameras to assess motor learning. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(8), 13–​16. Hurd, A. R. & Garrahy, D. A. (2009). Video assessment: A high-​tech approach to teaching leadership skills in recreation. SCHOLE:  A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 24, 162–​168. Kelly, L. & Bishop, J. (2013). Remote video supervision in adapted physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(1), 26–​29. Kent, A. M. & Simpson, J. L. (2010). Interactive videoconferencing:  Connecting theory to practice for preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 12–​21. Kibble, S. & Cayley, S. (2003) Using video cameras in physical education. Available at: http://​​research/​pe_​ict_​event/​downloads/​steve_​kibble/​ Using%20Video%20Cameras%20in%20Physical%20Education.pdf (last accessed February 1, 2018). Lyons, N. (1998). Portfolios and their consequences: Developing as a reflective practitioner. In N. Lyons (ed.), With Portfolio in Hand: Validating the New Teacher Professionalism (pp. 247–​264). New York: Teachers College Press. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–​1054. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Too Cool for School? No Way! Using the TPACK Framework: You Can Have Your Hot Tools and Teach with Them, Too. Learning and Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14–​18. Mohnsen, B. S. (2010). Using Technology in Physical Education. (7th ed.). Cerritos, CA: Bonnie’s Fitware Inc. Nagro, S. A., Rosenberg, M. S., Carran, D. T., & Weiss, M. P. (2016). The effects of guided video analysis on teacher candidates’ reflective ability and instructional skills. Teacher Education and Special Education:  The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 40(1), 7–​25. Obrusnikova, I. & Rattigan, P. J. (2016). Using video-​based modeling to promote acquisition of fundamental motor skills. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 87(4), 24–​29.

Digital video and self-modeling  31 Obrusnikova, I. & Cavalier, A. (2017). An evaluation of videomodeling on fundamental motor skill performance of preschool children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 1–​13. O’Loughlin, J., Chróinín, D., & O’Grady. (2013). Digital video:  The impact on children’s learning experiences in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 19(2), 165–​182. Palao, J. M., Hastie, P. A., Cruz, P. G., & Ortega, E. (2015). The impact of video technology on student performance in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 51–​63. Perez, K., Swain, C., & Hartsough, C. S. (1997). An analysis of practices used to support new teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(2), 41–​52. Post, P. G., Aiken, C. A., Laughlin, D. D., & Fairbrother, J. T. (2016). Self-​control over combined video feedback and modeling facilitates motor learning. Human Movement Science, 47, 49–​59. Pyle, B. & Esslinger, K. (2014). Utilizing technology in physical education: Addressing the obstacles of integration. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(2), 35–​39. Ranker, J. & Mills, K. (2014). New directions for digital video creation in the classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(6), 440–​443. Romano, M., & Schwartz, J. (2005). Exploring technology as a tool for eliciting and encouraging beginning teacher reflection. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 149–​168. Rymal, A. M., & Ste-​Marie, D. M. (2017). Imagery ability moderates the effectiveness of video self modeling on gymnastics performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 29(3), 304–​322. Schwartz, D. L. & Hartman, K. (2007). It’s not television anymore:  Designing digital video for learning and assessment. In Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. J. (eds.), Video Research in the Learning Sciences (pp. 335–​348). New York: Erlbaum. Seifried, C. (2005). Using videotaped athletic contests within Mosston’s teaching methods. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 76(5), 36–​38. Senne, T. A. & Rikard, G. L. (2004). A developmental intervention via the teaching portfolio:  Employing the teaching/​learning framework. Journal of Teaching in physical education, 23(1), 88–​104. Sherin, M. G. & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–​491. Shumack, K. & Reilly, E. (2011). Video podcasting in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82(1), 39–​43. Ste-​Marie, D. M., Rymal, A., Vertes, K., & Martini, R. (2011). Self-​modeling and competitive beam performance enhancement examined within a self-​regulation perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(3), 292–​307. Suby, J. (2009). The Use of Videotape Feedback in Physical Education. United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. Tiernan, P. (2015). An inquiry into the current and future uses of digital video in University teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 20(1), 75–​90. Weir, T. & Connor, S. (2009). The use of digital video in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 155–​171.

Chapter 3

Adopting self-​c ontrolled video feedback in physical education A way to unite self-​regulation skills, motivational beliefs, and motor skill learning Marjan Kok and John van der Kamp

‘The best teachers are those who show you where to look, but don’t tell you what to see’ (Alexandra K. Trenfor)

Introduction Using instructions, demonstration, and feedback are at the heart of motor skill learning in physical education (PE). Nowadays, digital video applications are available to augment this. For example, digital video provides PE teachers the opportunity to carefully prepare, select (and edit) models for instruction, in addition to using live models. It also allows students to watch their own performance for immediate feedback, in addition to the teacher’s verbal feedback. In fact, there are many applications available (e.g., Coach’s Eye, Ubersense, Dartfish) that permit the concurrent presentation of a model and the student’s own performance using a split screen. This allows students to compare their own performance to the model. Other features in digital video enable to focus on relevant aspects of the performance. Teachers and students can watch the performance in slow motion, scroll back and forward as the performance unfolds, zoom in and out, identify and emphasize relevant aspects with highlights or arrows, and so on. In other words, digital video can support the student in preparing, monitoring, and evaluating performance, and then, in turn, prepare subsequent performance, perhaps in a somewhat modified form. In this way, digital video can, by getting students actively involved, serve as a tool that enables and promotes self-​regulation skills. Nonetheless, before using digital video in PE, we must ask whether it genuinely can enhance students’ motor and self-​regulation skills, and if so, when teachers can best adopt it and for what purpose. This chapter addresses the opportunities offered by digital video in relation to self-​regulation skills and motor learning in PE. We address the opportunities and hurdles for applying self-​controlled modeling and feedback in PE. Before doing so, we first provide a selective overview of

Adopting self-controlled video feedback  33

the motor learning literature that addresses self-​ regulation in general, and so-​called self-​controlled video modeling and feedback in particular. These studies mostly involve adults and children in laboratory tasks, but we also present recent work that addresses more typical PE activities, such as trampoline jumping. We then identify the challenges for using digital video to stimulate self-​controlled modeling and feedback in PE. Next, Zimmerman’s (2000) self-​regulation of learning model is adopted to deepen our understanding of the observed benefits of self-​control, and to provide a framework for recommendations for applications of digital video for exploiting self-​controlled modeling and feedback and other self-​ regulation principles.

Current research on self-​c ontrolled video feedback in adults and children Research shows that self-​controlled video modeling and feedback enhances motor learning in adults (Aiken et al., 2012; Janelle et al., 1997). In the typical research paradigm for self-​controlled modeling and feedback in motor learning, learners deliberately choose after each attempt whether or not to obtain feedback. Digital video applications allow students to watch and evaluate immediately after their performance, including a comparison of their performance and the model’s performance. Self-​ controlled modeling and feedback differs from traditional approaches, because rather than having the teacher (or for that matter, the experimenter) to decide when to provide instruction or feedback (i.e. externally controlled feedback), the students make this decision themselves. In the classic study of Janelle et  al. (1997), participants practiced throwing a tennis ball to a target with their non-​dominant hand. They received feedback about movement form through traditional videotape replay accompanied by verbal cueing and feedback by the experimenter. Participants who self-​controlled timing and frequency of their feedback learned the skill better –​shown by better form scores and throwing accuracy during retention –​than participants who received an identical feedback schedule but externally controlled, that is, determined by the experimenter and thus without the opportunity to self-​control the feedback (i.e., the yoked group). Similar advantages of self-​control have been found in studies that involved verbal feedback (Carter & Patterson, 2012; Chiviacowsky, 2014; Fairbrother et  al., 2012; Grand et  al., 2015; Hansen et  al., 2011; Lim et al., 2015; Patterson et al., 2013; Patterson & Carter, 2010; Tsai & Jwo, 2015). Besides the positive effects of self-​controlled feedback on motor performance and learning, some authors (Chiviacowsky, 2014; Grand et al., 2015) have also reported positive effects of self-​controlled feedback on motivational beliefs. Chiviacowsky (2014) found that participants who received self-​controlled verbal feedback on the outcome (i.e., knowledge

34  Kok and van der Kamp

of results) of a coincident-​anticipation timing task reported higher self-​ efficacy after practice compared to their yoked counterparts. Similarly, Grand et al. (2015) reported higher intrinsic motivation for participants who were able to self-​control knowledge of results in a throwing task with the non-​dominant hand. It is not self-​evident that self-​controlled video feedback can be as effective for children or teenagers (i.e., the participants of PE) as it is for adults. Possibly, children and teenagers respond differently to self-​controlled practice conditions because development of executive functions, such as working memory and attention (Gathercole & Alloway, 2008), is still on-​going. Self-​ controlled video feedback requires at least that children can monitor performance and retain information on its key aspects to decide whether or not to request feedback. In young children with less developed working memory and attention, these requirements may more likely result in working memory being overloaded and/​or attention being insufficiently focussed, and thus hinder motor skill learning. Ste-​Marie et al. (2013, 2016) studied the effects of self-​controlled feedback in 11-​year-​olds. In these studies, the children practiced progressively difficult jump sequences on a double mini-​trampoline and received self-​ or externally-​controlled video feedback on the quality (i.e., knowledge of performance) of their jump sequence. These studies were conducted at a summer camp, which is a much more representative context than earlier laboratory studies. When feedback was requested or imposed, children watched their jump sequence together with the experimenter. The experimenter verbally cued what aspect of movement execution needed attention and subsequently provided verbal prescriptive feedback on this aspect (i.e., knowledge of performance). Similar to what Janelle et  al. (1997) reported for adults, Ste-​Marie et  al. (2013, 2016) found positive effects of self-​controlled feedback; children who self-​controlled feedback showed a greater cumulative progression in task-​difficulty. These positive effects of self-​control in children are further supported by studies that included self-​controlled verbal feedback on motor learning in 10-​year-​old children (Chiviacowski et al., 2008) and 7–​10-​year-​old-​children with Cerebral Palsy (Hemayattalab et al., 2013). Besides the positive effects of self-​controlled video feedback on motor learning, Ste-​Marie et al. (2013) reported higher increases in self-​efficacy during acquisition and higher ratings of perceived success and perceptions of intrinsic motivation during retention as a result of self-​controlled video feedback. To summarize thus far, allowing adults and children (aged 7–​11) self-​ control over when and how often they can look back, that is, to let them self-​regulate the timing and frequency of feedback, benefits motor learning. Moreover, some studies have also reported a positive influence of this self-​ controlled feedback on motivational beliefs such as perceived success, self-​ efficacy, and intrinsic motivation.

Adopting self-controlled video feedback  35

Self-​c ontrolled digital video modeling and feedback in PE: opportunities and hurdles The observed benefits of self-​control on motor learning and motivational beliefs are, without a doubt, highly relevant to PE. In the Netherlands, for example, the overarching aim of PE is explicitly defined as ‘to enhance student competence to take part in physical and sport activities’ (Brouwer, 2012). Motor learning, self-​regulation, and positive experiences are explicitly put forward as key aspects for accomplishing this objective. Naturally, the observed benefits of self-​control for motor competence and motivational beliefs, such as self-​efficacy, are important prerequisites for taking part in future motor activities. Hagger et  al. (2001), for example, showed in an extensive study that self-​efficacy is a strong predictor of physical activity intention in 12–​14-​year-​old teenagers. Moreover, Gao et al. (2011) found that self-​efficacy explained 28% of the differences in the measured amounts of physical activity during a PE lesson among 10–​14-​year-​old teenagers. Yet, despite the striking outcomes of self-​ controlled (video) feedback studies, it remains to be proven that these positive outcomes also hold in genuine PE settings. The vast majority of the self-​controlled modeling and feedback studies using digital video are conducted in science laboratories, in which the experimenter provides instruction and/​or feedback on the request of the participant. Van der Kamp et al. (2015) have previously pointed out a practical and important discrepancy between laboratory and educational settings: experimental studies typically involve one single individual learning per session, whereas a PE teacher typically deals with numerous students at the same time. For many activities, it is simply impossible for a PE teacher to provide individual feedback and guidance at the moment students ask for it. A  huge advantage of digital video through tablet or smartphone is therefore that students can record, watch and evaluate on their own or in small groups, without the continuous guidance of the teacher. Although this may be appealing from a social and pedagogical perspective, it can be questioned whether feedback quality meets the standard to facilitate motor learning: video feedback is only effective with additional attentional cueing, especially in children, guiding the learner to the relevant aspects in the display (for overviews, see Hodges & Ste Marie, 2013; Ste Marie et al., 2012). Van der Kamp et al. (2015) proposed various methods –​most of which remain to be verified  –​to apply self-​controlled feedback in groups. One method would be to give students more responsibility over their learning process (by analyzing and evaluating videos with peers) but in combination with incorporation of learning tools that provide focus and guidance. Digital applications on tablets provide the opportunity to edit recordings of movement activities, for example by adding arrows, highlights, or auditive information (i.e., verbal instruction) for cueing important aspects of movement execution. Prior to the lesson, PE teachers can edit or select

36  Kok and van der Kamp

modeling examples in such a way that they help guiding the students’ attention to focus on points of a particular PE lesson. With such modeling examples available, students can more easily compare these examples with their own movement performance by using video feedback applications (e.g., split screen and slow motion). However, research on the effect of cued movement examples in general, and in PE in particular, is scarce. Janelle et al. (2003), had adult participants practice a soccer accuracy pass. In this study, one group received only verbal instruction of the pertinent aspects of the execution of the pass, a second group received this verbal instruction combined with a video model executing the pass, a third group received verbal instruction, in which the video model was accompanied with visual cues (i.e. directional arrows superimposed on the video to indicate the pertinent aspects), and finally a last group received verbal instruction and the video model with both visual and verbal attention cues. In retention, one day after practice, the group that viewed the video with both the verbal instructions and the visual cueing were more accurate and demonstrated better movement form than the other groups. It is not clear, however, if this would hold for children. Van der Kamp et al. (2015) also suggested an alternative method to provide attentional cueing with modeling examples: eye movement modeling examples (EMMEs; Jarodzka et  al., 2010; Jarodzka et  al., 2013). With EMME, the displayed actions of the model are overlaid with a highlight that reflects the teacher’s spatio-​temporal gaze pattern watching the model and providing instruction. Hence, the resulting video of the model includes both a highlight of the teacher’s eye movements and an audio with the accompanying instructions and attentional cueing. EMME has been shown to improve observational learning in a pattern recognition task in children (Jarodzka et al., 2010, 2013) and to improve visual search strategy in adult goal keepers (Savelsbergh et al., 2010; Ryu et al., 2013). Duivenvoorden and Van der Kamp (2016) explored the use of EMME in PE students’ learning a trapeze dismount, and did not find evidence for superior learning with EMME. Naturally, as with the other proposals, more research is needed to verify that the use of digital video applications can indeed stimulate self-​regulated learning in PE, and enhance motor performance and learning relatively independent from the continuous guidance of the teacher. To conclude, generally positive outcomes of adopting self-​ controlled video modeling and feedback are relevant to PE. However, it is also clear that successful application in PE requires augmented guidance to the pertinent aspect of the students’ performance. This guidance is not always available from the teacher. In this respect, digital video provides promising applications to support the teacher. Clearly, more research in PE settings is needed to substantiate these promises. Furthermore, for students to monitor and evaluate their performance (i.e., independent from the teacher by using digital video) likely requires more self-​regulation skills in PE setting than in the typical laboratory setting. Hence, to further promote self-​regulation

Adopting self-controlled video feedback  37

in PE, it is important to understand how self-​regulation affects motor skill learning. The next section explores this in the context of Zimmerman’s self-​ regulation model (2000), and will also point to application of digital video other than self-​controlled feedback.

Zimmerman’s self-​r egulation model: understanding the benefits of self-​c ontrolled (video) modeling and feedback As described above, self-​ controlled timing of feedback increases motor learning and motivational beliefs. However, the precise intricacies underlying these positive effects are not well understood. Researchers have visited various theoretical models, such as the self-​regulation of learning model of Zimmerman (2000) (e.g., Ste-​Marie et  al., 2013, 2016) and the self-​determination theory of Ryan and Deci (2007) (e.g., Sanli et al., 2013). Here, we largely focus on the former self-​ regulation model. According to Zimmerman (2000), the ability to (learn to) self-​regulate is the most important quality of mankind, because it enables adaptation to ever-​ changing circumstances. Self-​regulatory skills permitted our ancestors to survive despite of altering conditions. And also in today’s (high-​tech) environment, the capacity to self-​regulate is crucially important for learning. Dent and Koenka (2016), for example, showed in a meta-​analysis that academic performance of students in elementary and secondary school is significantly correlated with self-​regulatory skills. And also for motor performance and learning, several studies have shown that motor performance, motor learning and motivational beliefs are closely interwoven with self-​ regulatory skills (Cleary et al., 2006; Kolovelonis et al., 2011; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1996). Zimmerman’s (2000) self-​regulation of learning model structures self-​ regulatory processes in three cyclical interdependent phases: a forethought phase, a performance phase and a self-​reflection phase (see Figure 3.1). The forethought phase involves processes and beliefs that precede and prepare movement performance. It encompasses task analyses and the associated self-​regulatory processes of goal setting and strategic planning. For example, a student who practices shot putting strives to put the shot further than the previous attempt (goal setting) and plans to achieve this by performing the arm action in a more upward direction (strategic plan). Furthermore, underlying these forethought processes are important motivational beliefs, such as self-​efficacy (e.g., the student believes she is able to put the shot further), outcome expectations (e.g., the student believes that putting the shot further will eventually lead to a good course grade), intrinsic interest (e.g., the student believes that shot putting is an enjoyable and challenging task) and goal orientation (e.g. this student wants to improve shot putting and is not concerned about his performance in relation to class-​mates). Subsequently, the performance phase refers to processes that occur during movement

38  Kok and van der Kamp

Forethought phase Task analysis Goal setting Strategic planning Self-motivational beliefs Self-efficacy Outcome expectations Intrinsic interest/value Learning goal orientation Self-reflection phase

Performance phase

Self-judgement Self-evaluation Causal attribution

Self-control Imagery Self-instruction Attention focusing Task strategies

Self-reaction Self-satisfaction/affect Adaptive/defensive

Self-observation Self-recording Self-experimentation

Figure 3.1  Phases and subprocesses of self-​regulation. Modified from Zimmerman (2002).

performance and influence perception and action. The performance phase involves the self-​regulatory process of self-​control (e.g., the student ‘talks’ herself through the different phases of movement execution by focusing and visualizing the desired direction of arm movement during shot-​put execution or by trying to ignore the distracting voices of class-​mates) and self-​ observation (e.g., the students sees and feels that the arm goes in a more upward direction, which is accompanied with a slightly painful feeling). The third phase, the self-​reflection phase, involves self-​regulatory processes that occur after performance and affect a learner’s response to movement performance. The self-​regulatory processes of self-​judgement (e.g., the student who sees that the shot put did not land as far as attempted thinks that the painful feeling is undesirable and results from an inadequate technique) and self-​reaction (e.g., the student is dissatisfied with the shot-​put performance and assumes that task strategy needs adaptation) are part of the self-​reflection phase. During self-​regulated learning, the learner repeatedly goes through this self-​regulatory cycle. Thus, self-​reflections influence forethoughts (e.g., the student thinks of altering the technique by letting the elbow follow the hand) and accompanied motivational beliefs (e.g., the

Adopting self-controlled video feedback  39

student believes that adopting this particular strategy will eventually lead to accomplishment of the task goal). According to Zimmerman (2000), the quantity and quality of the applied self-​ regulatory processes during learning influence the learner’s achievements and motivation. Furthermore, self-​regulatory skills and motivational beliefs are supposed to influence each other reciprocally. Hence, the learner cannot profit of self-​regulatory skills if she is not motivated to use them. In turn, applying self-​regulatory skills can affect motivational beliefs. To be more precise, motivation stems from self-​evaluative reactions (self-​ reflection phase) in relation to the setting of goals (forethought phase) and the achieved behavioral outcomes (performance phase). For example, attributing errors to the particular learning strategy, instead of motor ability, is effective for sustaining motivation, because a strategy is perceived as modifiable cause, whereas inborn motor ability is not. The student learning a shot put is more likely to practice and persevere (i.e., go through the self-​ regulatory cycle once more) if she thinks that the painful feeling is caused by an ineffective movement form, rather than thinking her body is not build for shut putting. Finally, setting proximal goals in the forethought phase makes learners more aware in the self-​reflection phase of the (subtle) progress they make in learning, which consecutively promotes self-​efficacy. In recap, Zimmerman’s self-​regulation of learning model can explain the positive interactions between self-​ regulation, (motor) performance and motivational beliefs, similarly to what has been observed in studies of self-​controlled video modeling and feedback. Furthermore, the circular structure of the self-​regulatory process features a feedback-​cycle. It is not entirely clear to what degree the constituent processes of self-​regulation are developmentally constrained. In this respect, recent work has suggested that primary and secondary school children do profit from interventions that are directed at improving processes such as goal setting (e.g., Goudas et  al., 2013). This having been said, Zimmerman’s self-​ regulation of learning model does seem a suitable framework for explaining benefits of self-​controlled video feedback. The next section addresses this explanation in more detail.

Explaining self-​c ontrolled feedback benefits: importance of self-​o bservation and -​r eflection Video delay applications allow streaming the students’ activity online and showing them on a tablet with a few seconds delay, which permits students to walk to the tablet and watch their performance (see Walinga et  al., ­chapter  11). They can decide whether or not to obtain feedback on self-​ observation to monitor whether (some aspect of) the performance unfolded as planned. As a consequence, self-​controlled learners are likely to show heightened attention towards available performance-​related information.

40  Kok and van der Kamp

Considering Zimmerman’s self-​ regulation of learning model (2000), the presence of the upcoming choice to request feedback from the video recordings would thus promote self-​observation during the performance phase and the subsequent self-​evaluation during the self-​reflection phase. Studies investigating the effects of self-​regulation in motor learning underline the importance of the performance and self-​reflection phase. Cleary et al. (2006) had college students practice a free throw in basketball during 12 minutes. Participants differed in the self-​regulatory phases they were instructed to use during practice. One group of participants was instructed to set goals (i.e., a process within the forethought phase), a second group was instructed to set both goals and use a self-​recording form to monitor the step(s) of the strategy they were focusing on while shooting (i.e., processes of both the forethought-​and performance phase), a third group was additionally instructed to make strategic attributions and adjustments following a missed throw (i.e., a combination of processes from the forethought-​, performance-​and self-​reflection phases), while a final group did not receive any instructions for using self-​ regulatory skills. The groups that were stimulated to use processes from two or three self-​­regulation phases outperformed the other groups, despite that they completed fewer practice attempts due to the extra time needed for self-​recording and -​reflection. Furthermore, in studies of Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1996) and Kolovelonis et al. (2011) participants who self-​recorded their performance (i.e., a process within the performance-​phase) and set goals during dart-​ throwing-​practice, outperformed participants who only set goals. In their study, Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1996) found that self-​recording directly enhanced self-​reactions and self-​efficacy beliefs. Similarly, it is plausible that the positive effects of self-​controlled video feedback are a result of the use of enhanced self-​observation (i.e., paying attention to performance, needed to decide whether or not feedback is required) and self-​reflection (i.e., evaluating performance and make judgments about causes that underlie success or failure). In line with the above, there is growing evidence to support the hypothesis that the positive effects of self-​controlled feedback can be explained by the enhanced processing of intrinsic feedback (Carter et  al., 2014; Carter & Ste-​Marie, 2017; Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2005; Grand et  al., 2015). Carter and Ste-​Marie (2017), for example, hindered feedback processing by giving the participants an additional cognitive task immediately following movement execution (i.e., the self-​reflection phase). As a result, the typically observed motor learning benefits of self-​controlled feedback were eliminated. In the study of Grand et al. (2015), participants practiced throwing with the non-​dominant arm towards a visually occluded target. They received visual feedback about throwing accuracy displayed on a computer monitor, followed by verbal accuracy feedback of the experimenter. Feedback was either provided on the participants’ request (i.e.,

Adopting self-controlled video feedback  41

the self-​controlled group) or imposed by the experimenter (i.e., the yoked externally-​controlled group). Grand et al. (2015) showed that participants in the self-​control group exhibited larger feedback-​related brain activity in comparison to participants in the yoked externally controlled group. This indicates that self-​controlled feedback was associated with greater feedback processing. Because feedback processing (as measured by brain activity) also predicted transfer test performance, self-​controlled feedback is also likely to enhance self-​reflection. Alternative explanations for the benefits of self-​controlled feedback hold that self-​control directly promotes motivational beliefs (i.e., the forethought phase), rather than having a direct influence on self-​observation and -​reflection phases. The self-​determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2007) is often invoked as the theoretical background for this conjecture (see Sanli et  al., 2013 for an overview). The self-​determination theory discerns three basic psychological needs that facilitate motivation:  the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Learners with self-​control have a choice and are therefore hypothesized to experience more autonomy and increased motivation compared to learners who receive externally controlled feedback. A  second explanation that originates from the self-​ determination theory is that self-​ controlled feedback leads to a higher level of perceived competence. This higher level of perceived competence stems from observations that learners with self-​control tend to request feedback after relatively good trials (Chiviacowsky, 2014; Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002; Fairbrother et  al., 2012). Furthermore, feedback after relatively good trials has been shown to improve participants’ judgments of motor learning (Carter et  al., 2016) or actual motor learning (Chiviacowski & Wulf, 2007; Saemi et  al., 2012). This having been said, Chiviacowsky (2014) has found evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that benefits of self-​controlled feedback originate from higher levels of perceived competence. In this study, adult participants were required to perform an anticipatory coincident timing-​task in blocks of six trials. After every block of trials, participants with self-​control choose on which two trials they wanted to receive feedback. The yoked participants in this study received feedback according to the relative accuracy of trials (i.e., similar accuracy as the participant in the self-​control group to whom they were yoked). As a consequence, the groups primarily differed in the amount of self-​ control, but received feedback about trials which were performed with a similar level of quality. Participants with self-​control reported greater self-​efficacy after practice and performed with greater accuracy during retention. Thus, according to Chiviakowsky (2014), the increased autonomy seemed of greater importance for explaining benefits of self-​controlled feedback, than the feelings of competence induced by the success in trials on which they received feedback. Evidence from

42  Kok and van der Kamp

Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005) and Carter et al. (2014), however, do not support the increased autonomy hypothesis. In these studies, participants in two intervention groups could choose timing and frequency of feedback. However, one group had to choose before every trial whether they wanted to receive feedback, whereas the other group decided after the trial. Although both groups had the same amount of autonomy with respect to timing and frequency, the group that decided upon feedback after the trial showed better performance during a delayed transfer test compared to the group that had to choose before the trial. Thus, it seemed that information about performance accuracy played an important role in explaining self-​controlled feedback benefits. In summary, despite the rationale for a direct effect of self-​controlled feedback on motivational beliefs, the evidence is not unequivocal. It appears that a direct effect of self-​controlled feedback on the depth of processing of performance related information is most plausible. In Zimmerman’s self-​ regulation of learning model, this refers to a direct impact of self-​­controlled video feedback on the regulatory processes of self-​observation (i.e., performance phase) and self-​ judgment (i.e., self-​ reflection phase), which in turn  –​but indirectly  –​promote motivational beliefs (i.e., forethought phase) and motor performance. However, additional research efforts are needed to further test the direct influence on motivational beliefs, which currently cannot be ruled out.

Increasing self-​c ontrol in self-​c ontrolled video feedback Self-​ controlling the timing and frequency of feedback (and modeling) is an example par excellence for the additional value that digital video applications can have for PE, if appropriately implemented, of course. Yet, although self-​controlled feedback  –​as it has been applied in the scientific literature –​calls upon self-​regulation, the use of self-​regulatory skills is relatively limited:  only the moment and frequency of video feedback is up to the learner/​student to decide, the experimenter/​teacher is typically responsible for analyzing the recordings, deciding about the type and content of feedback, and conveying this to the learner/​student. Clearly, digital video provides the opportunity for a broader incorporation of self-​ regulatory skills in adopting self-​controlled video feedback in PE. And, as we stated before, a more encompassing incorporation of self-​regulatory skills may be necessary for effective application of self-​controlled feedback in a PE context. One of them is using editing tools to guide students’ attention to relevant movement aspects. In this concluding section, we discuss a few alternatives that can relatively easily be implemented by PE teachers. The processes of self-​evaluation and causal attribution can be addressed if students actively analyze the video recordings themselves. For optimal use

Adopting self-controlled video feedback  43

of self-​observation and self-​recording processes, PE teachers could stimulate evaluation of intrinsic information feedback on important movement characteristics –​e.g. simply by asking, or by using cue-​cards or self-​recording forms –​prior to comparison with video recordings. Furthermore, PE teachers can also guide and encourage students to use specific task-​strategies:  for instance, by setting specific sub-​goals for one or two aspects at the time (e.g., moving the arm in upward direction). Video feedback can then be used to evaluate progress and performance on this aspect by comparing recordings to earlier attempts or to a model (i.e., by using a split-​screen function). By doing this, teachers encourage causal attributions to task strategies (e.g., showing that indeed the arm moved more upward compared to earlier performances, and reinforcing that this form resulted in increased shot-​put distance) instead of ability. This also benefits self-​motivational beliefs of students and stimulates going through the self-​regulatory cycle once more. In this way, video recordings and evaluation can lead to new (sub-​)goals and modified task-​strategies (i.e., forethought phase). In other words, PE teachers can use digital video applications to ensure that students set proximal and measurable goals in order to promote self-​motivational beliefs in subsequent self-​regulatory cycles. Clearly, adopting a broader incorporation of self-​regulatory skills in the application of self-​controlled feedback has a lot to offer (i.e., although we as researchers have job to do in further substantiating this), but also asks major changes both from students and teachers. For example, PE teachers would ideally monitor and guide the students’ self-​regulation of learning process, but may still want to intervene in the motor learning process when they think this is genuinely beneficial for the students. Despite this, available digital video allows the teacher to introduce self-​regulation in small, discrete steps, and along the way adapt its use to theirs and students’ preferences. Moreover, platforms emerge that share libraries with (edited) video models among teachers and significantly reduce a teacher’s preparation time. To conclude, video and digital video applications are highly valuable means for facilitating self-​ regulatory processes during motor learning. Self-​regulated learning  –​such as learning with self-​controlled video feedback  –​benefits motor learning and motivational beliefs in laboratory settings: benefits that are very relevant for PE. As mentioned before, applying self-​controlled video feedback in a PE setting requires more responsibility for the student and adoption of additive guiding techniques and tools in class. Considering the current insights and evidence on the effects of self-​ regulation on learning, this is anticipated to have positive effects on both the students’ motivational beliefs and motor skill learning. Yet, we also call for more research on self-​regulation in general –​and self-​controlled video feedback in particular –​to verify that digital video applications can fulfill their promises in genuine PE contexts.

44  Kok and van der Kamp

Discussion questions 1. What are the effects of self-​controlled (video)feedback in l­aboratory settings? 2. Which self-​regulatory processes are addressed if students use self-​ controlled video feedback to optimize motor performance? 3. Would you apply self-​controlled feedback in your PE lessons? How much and which guidance would you provide to the students and what leaves you up to the students themselves?

Further reading Ommundsen, Y. (2007). Self-​ regulation and strategic learning:  the role of motivational beliefs and the learning environment in physical education. In: J. Liukkonen, Y. Vanden Auweele, B. Vereijken, D. Alfermann, & Y. Theodorakis (eds.), Psychology for physical educators (pp. 141–​173). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Sanli, E. A., T. T. Patterson, S. R. Bray, & T. D. Lee (2013). Understanding self-​ controlled motor learning protocols through the self-​determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 611. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-​ regulation:  a social cognitive perspective. In:  Boekaerts, M., P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (eds.), Handbook of self-​regulation (pp. 13–​39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

References Aiken, C. A., Fairbrother, J. T., & Post, P. G. (2012). The effects of self-​controlled video feedback on the learning of a basketball set shot. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 338. Brouwer, B., Houthoff, D., Massink, M., Mooij, C., Van Mossel, G., & Swinkels, E. (2012). Basisdocument. Bewegingsonderwijs voor de onderbouw van het voortgezet onderwijs. Zeist, Jan Luiting fonds. Carter, M. J. & Patterson, J. T. (2012). Self-​controlled knowledge of results:  age-​ related differences in motor learning, strategies, and error detection. Human Movement Science, 31, 1459–​1472. Carter, M. J. & Ste-​ Marie, D. M. (2017). An interpolated activity during the knowledge-​of-​results delay interval eliminates the learning advantages of self-​ controlled feedback schedules. Psychology Research, 81, 399–​406. Carter, M. J., Carlsen, A. N., & Ste-​Marie, D. M. (2014). Self-​controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance: a replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005). Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1325.

Adopting self-controlled video feedback  45 Carter, M. J., Smith, V., & Ste-​Marie, D. M. (2016). Judgements of learning are significantly higher following feedback on relatively good versus relatively poor trials despite no actual learning differences. Human Movement Science, 45, 63–​70. Chiviacowsky, S. (2014). Self-​controlled practice: autonomy protects perceptions of competence and enhances motor learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 505–​510. Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-​controlled feedback:  does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(4), 408–​415. Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2005). Self-​controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learners performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 42–​48. Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2007). Feedback after good trials enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(2), 40–​47. Chiviacowski, S., Wulf, G., Laroque de Medeiros, F., Kaefer, A., & Tani, G. (2008). Learning benefits of self-​controlled knowledge of results in 10-​year-​old children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79 (3), 405–​410. Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B. J., & Keating, T. (2006). Training physical education students to self-​regulate during basketball free throw practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(2), 251–​262. Dent, A. L., & Koenka, A. C. (2016). The relation between self-​regulated learning and academic achievement across childhood and adolescence:  a meta-​analysis. Educ Psychol Rev, 28, 425–​474. Duivenvoorden, J. & Van der Kamp, J. (2016). Video-​ modelling in Physical Education. Unpublished report Short-​term Education Research, NRO. Fairbrother, J. T., Laughlin, D. D., & Nguyen, T. V. (2012). Self-​controlled feedback facilitates motor learning in both high and low activity individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 323. Gao, Z. G., Lochbaum, M., & Podlog, L. (2011). Self-​ efficacy as mediator of children’s achievement motivation and in-​class physical activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113(3), 969–​981. Gathercole, S. E. & Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: a practical guide London: Sage. Goudas, M., Kolovelonis, A., & Dermitzaki, I. (2013). Implementation of self-​ regulation interventions in physical education and sports contexts. In H. Bembenutty, T. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (eds.), Applications of self-​ regulated learning across diverse disciplines:  A tribute to Barry J.  Zimmerman (pp. 383–​ 415). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Grand, K. F., Bruzi, A. T., Dyke, F. B., Godwin, M. M., Leiker, A. M., Thompson, A. G., Buchanan, T. L., & Miller, N. W. (2015). Why self-​controlled feedback enhances motor learning:  answers form electroencephalography and indices of motivation. Human Movement Science, 43, 23–​32. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2001). The influence of self-​ efficacy and past behavior on the physical activity intentions of young people. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 711–​725. Hansen, S., Pfeiffer, J., & Patterson, J. T. (2011). Self-​control of feedback during motor learning: accounting for the absolute amount of feedback using a yoked

46  Kok and van der Kamp group with self-​ control over feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43(2), 113–​119. Hemayattalab, R., Arabameri, E., Pourazar, M., Ardakani, M. D., & Kashefi, M. (2013). Effects of self-​ controlled feedback on learning of a throwing task in children with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 2884–​2889. Hodges, N. J. & Ste Marie, D. M. (2013). Observation as an instructional method. In: D. Farrow, J. Baker, C. MacMahon (eds.), Developing sport expertise: researchers and coaches put theory into practice. New York: NY Routledge. Janelle, C. M., Barba, D. A., Frehlich, S. G., Tennant, L. K., & Cauraugh, J. H. (1997). Maximizing performance feedback effectiveness through videotape replay and a self-​controlled learning environment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68(4), 269–​279. Janelle, C. M., Champenoy, J. D., Coombes, S. A., & Mousseau, M. B. (2003). Mechanisms of attentional cueing during observational learning to facilitate motor skill acquisition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 825–​838. Jarodzka, H., Van Gog, T., Dorr, M., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Learning to see:  guiding students’ attention via a Model’s eye movements fosters. Learning and Instruction, 25, 62–​70. Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder:  how experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20, 146–​154. Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M. & Dermitzaki. I. (2011). The effect of different goals and self-​recording on self-​regulation of learning a motor skill in a physical education setting. Learning and Instruction, 21, 355–​364. Lim, S., Ali, A., Kim, W., & Kim, J. (2015). Influence of self-​controlled feedback on learning a serial motor skill. Perceptual & Motor Skills:  Learning & Memory, 120(2), 462–​474. Patterson, J. T. & Carter, M. J. (2010). Learner regulated knowledge of results during acquisition of multiple timing goals. Human Movement Science, 29(2), 214–​227. Patterson, J. T., Carter, M. J., & Hansen, S. (2013). Self-​controlled KR schedules: does repetition order matter? Human Movement Science, 32, 567–​579. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2007). Active human nature: self-​determination theory and the promotion and maintenance of sport, exercise and health. In: M. S. Hagger, N. L.  D. Chatzisarantis (eds.), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-​Determination in Exercise and Sport (pp. 1–​19). Champaign: Human Kinetics. Ryu, D., Kim, S., Abernethy, B., & Mann, D. L. (2013). Guiding attention aids the acquisition of anticipatory skill in novice soccer goalkeepers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84, 252–​262. Saemi, E., Porter, J. M., Ghitbi-​Varzaneh, A., & Maleki, F. (2012). Knowledge of results after relatively good trials enhances self-​ efficacy and motor learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 378–​382. Sanli, E. A., Patterson, J. T., Bray, S. R., & Lee, T. D. (2013). Understanding self-​ controlled motor learning protocols through the self-​ determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 611.

Adopting self-controlled video feedback  47 Savelsbergh, G. J. P., Van Gastel, P. J., & Van Kampen, P. M. (2010). Anticipation of penalty kick direction can be improved by directing attention through perceptual learning. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 41, 24–​41. Ste-​Marie, D. M., Carter, M. J., Law, B., Vertes, K., & Smith, V. (2016). Self-​controlled learning benefits: exploring contributions of self-​efficacy and intrinsic motivation via path analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(17), 1650–​1656. Ste-​Marie, D. M., Law, B., Rymal, A. M., Jenny, O., Hall, C., & McCullagh, P. (2012). Observation interventions for motor skill learning and performance: an applied model for the use of observation. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(2), 1–​21. Ste-​Marie, D. M., Vertes, K. A., Law, B., & Rymal, A. M. (2013). Learner-​controlled self-​observation is advantageous for motor skill acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 556. Tsai, M. J. & Jwo, H. (2015). Controlling absolute frequency of feedback in a self-​ controlled situation enhances motor learning. Perceptual & Motor Skills: Learning & Memory, 121(3), 746–​758. Van der Kamp, J., Duivenvoorden, J., Kok., M., & Van Hilvoorde, I. (2015). Motor skill learning in groups: some proposals for applying implicit learning and self-​ controlled feedback. RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte, 39, 33–​47. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-​regulation:  a social cognitive perspective. In: M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (eds.), Handbook of Self-​Regulation (pp. 13–​39). San Diego, CA: Academic press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-​segulated learner:  an overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–​70. Zimmerman, B. J. & Kitsantas, A. (1996). Self-​ regulated learning of a motoric skill:  the role of goal setting and self-​ monitoring. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8(1), 60–​75.

Chapter 4

The role of digital technology in the assessment of children’s movement competence during primary school physical education lessons Tom van Rossum and David Morley

Introduction This chapter explores the use of digital technologies for the assessment, recording and monitoring of children’s movement competence within physical education (PE). Examined through the experiences of the authors to develop a movement assessment tool for primary school teachers, this chapter will outline the practical principles, and dilemmas, to consider for the design and creation of an assessment using digital technology for primary school teachers. This is to support a primary aim of improving children’s movement competence in the UK, which previous studies have highlighted as a major concern (Morley et al., 2015). Here, PE is contextualised around curriculum and policy guidance within the United Kingdom (UK), but it’s clear that there are principles that can be applied globally. PE curricular are different from country to country, with variations on purpose, delivery patterns, statutory status and specialism of workforce (Hardman, 2008). Whilst there are differences between the UK PE curricu­ lum and those found in other countries, there are equally as many similarities (Department for Education, 2013; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2015; Society of Health and Physical Educators America, 2016), particularly around the need for movement development in children’s early years experiences. Whilst the national curriculum for PE in the UK has undergone a number of minor modifications since its inception in 1992, what has remained constant is the focus on children’s movement competence, most typically couched under the auspices of activities such as games, gymnastics, dance and outdoor and adventurous activities. In the most recent PE curriculum for the UK, published in 2013, the emphasis on movement is obvious, where ‘pupils should develop fundamental movement skills, become increasingly competent and confident and access a broad range of opportunities to extend their agility, balance and coordination, individually and with others’ by teaching pupils to ‘master basic movements including running, jumping, throwing and catching, as well as developing balance, agility and co-​ordination’ (Department for Education, 2013).

The role of digital technology  49

Across a child’s schooling, it is the responsibility of schools and teachers to develop their own systems and processes to assess and monitor attainment. At secondary school, PE is delivered by specialist PE teachers, who are required to complete a minimum of one year specialist study to teach PE. However, typically, PE in primary schools is taught by generalist teachers, responsible for teaching all subject areas. Worryingly, these teachers typically only receive an average of six hours of PE specific training during their teacher-​training courses (Youth Sport Trust, 2016). Subsequently, assessment in primary PE is often sporadic and highly dependent on the differing competence and confidence of the class teacher (Harris, Cale, & Musson, 2012; Ní Chróinín & Cosgrave, 2013). The lack of statutory guidance and appropriate levels of teacher training for primary teachers in PE suggests that the mode and frequency of assessment in PE will be highly variable, resulting in significant differences across schools, regions and the nation as a whole. Whilst we can confidently suggest that children’s assessment within PE will be varied, what is less certain is the prevalence of technology within this environment and how technology is being used to enhance our understanding of children’s competence. In recent years, a small number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of adopting technology within assessment in PE (O’Loughlin, Chróinin, & O’Grady, 2013; Penney et al., 2012). Penney et al. (2012) demonstrated the positive effects of using digital technologies to assess skills-​based performance with 15–​18  year olds. In this study, it was found that digital technologies (in this instance, video recording) could feasibly be used to assess both the practical and theoretical aspects of PE within a range of activities. Similarly, O’Loughlin, Chróinin and O’Grady (2013) showed that video technology could be used to effectively assess primary aged children’s skill performance in PE, Further, the students involved in these studies felt that the use of self-​assessment using video was more engaging (O’Loughlin, Chróinin, & O’Grady, 2013) and the authentic nature of the assessment tasks allowed them to provide a better demonstration of their achievement (Penney et al., 2012). In recent times, the proliferation of digital technologies has led to the growing availability and technological advancement of hand-​held devices, such as tablets, phablets (a smaller tablet than, perhaps, an iPad) and mobile phones. Learning the functional uses of this technology, such as video capture and playback, touch screen magnification and focus, swiping and multi-​ screen viewing is now as commonplace as those skills that have dominated human behaviours previously; such as reading, writing and talking. This increasing availability and usage has meant that both teachers and children are more familiar with the routine usage of technology in their day-​ to-​day lives and what could previously be regarded as a barrier to using technology in enhancing learning has likely been reduced. In light of this change in learned behaviours, it is appropriate that we consider again the role of technology in assessing children in PE. Given the sustained emphasis

50  van Rossum and Morley

on developing the movement competence of children, using technology to enhance our understanding of children’s movement competence through assessment seems appropriate. It is widely accepted that assessment in PE is multifaceted, with interrelating components. Whilst assessment in PE has been defined by Hay and Penney (2009, p. 391) as ‘the collection and interpretation of information about students’ learning in PE’, this chapter explicitly distinguishes between the tasks performed by the learners and the recording and monitoring systems that are used by the teachers within the assessment. This is to enable a clear perspective on the role that technology can play within these separate, albeit interrelated, systems, in order to recognise the tangible and intangible developmental features that need to be considered for use in this field by teachers. It has long been understood that teacher-​led assessment, where teachers determine the focus and usage of the assessment, is crucial to effective teaching; operating as a key element in the Teaching-​Assessment-​Learning cycle (Carroll, 1994), providing the teacher valuable feedback to improve standards of learning (Black & Wiliam, 2010) and ensuring a strong relationship between these three message systems (Hay & Penney, 2013). Assessment protocols utilising digital technology, particularly app based software, have the capability to offer more opportunities for ‘authentic assessment’ to take place. Authentic assessment is defined as ‘assessment for learning’ (Hay & Penney, 2013), offering opportunities for children to be fully integrated through the establishment of an open environment, with co-​ created usage of assessment between the teacher and the learner. The ability to share clear learning outcomes via visual demonstrations, alongside verbal instruction and feedback, offers the potential to fully engage the child in the learning process rather than the teacher being seen as the sole beneficiary of the assessment process. Allowing children to interact with the app (e.g. filming their peers, self-​analysis of their filmed performance) would offer an environment for them to take ownership of their own learning. Using digital video for feedback and assessment in PE has been shown to enhance children’s motivation and improve their skill performance (O’Loughlin, Chróinin, & O’Grady, 2013). It is suggested that analysis of movement from video is beneficial for individuals with lower understanding and knowledge of the movement, as they are able to view the performance multiple times as well as play the video in slow motion (Knudson & Morrison, 2002). The importance of this is magnified within a process-​ oriented assessment, where the repeated viewing of the video from different angles could support untrained assessors to evaluate the quality of the movement. A  previous study involving PE teachers who have used video technology for assessment, demonstrated that the ability to highlight aspects of performances was a major benefit, as it allowed students to identify key learning points (Weir & Connor, 2009). The hand-​held nature of the tablet

The role of digital technology  51

would also enable the teacher to be mobile during the assessment and record the performance from different angles. In response to the unique challenges and environment that primary teachers contend with, as previously articulated, it is suggested that technology can be used appropriately to better support teachers’ subject knowledge and application of teaching within PE (Graham, Holt/​Hale, & Parker, 2013). Browne’s study (2015), gaining teachers’ perceptions of using app-​ based software to teach PE, highlighted that technology had a future in the subject but indicated that consideration is needed to understand how the software aligns with teacher’s knowledge and professional development. For this reason, this chapter focuses on the development, and inclusion, of digital technology for primary school teachers to assess within PE.

A collaborative approach: our experience At this juncture, it is important to define the area of assessing children’s movement competence and consider this within the context of a primary school setting. Existing movement skill assessments are either; (i) product-​ oriented, quantitative measures, focusing on what has been performed (e.g. the total number of successful catches) (for example, Bruininks-​Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005) or (ii) process-​ oriented, qualitative measures, focusing on the quality of the movement performed (e.g. behavioural criteria evaluating how the child caught the ball) (Start to Move Assessment Tool [Youth Sport Trust, 2017]; Test of Gross Motor Development –​Two [Ulrich, 2000]). A small number of assessment protocols incorporate both process-​and product-​ oriented assessment methods (for example, Movement Assessment Battery Children [Henderson et al., 2010]). Assessments that include process-​oriented measures provide the teacher with a greater indication of which aspects of the movement each child may need to develop (Tidén, Lundqvist, & Nyberg, 2015). However, they also require the assessor to have a prior knowledge and understanding of the movement skills undertaken. Typically, movement assessments are intended for use by clinicians, deeming them unsuitable for use by teachers in a PE environment (Cools et al., 2008; Giblin, Collins, & Button, 2014). In addition, traditional movement assessments typically monitor for deficiencies in children’s movement (Burton & Miller, 1998), and do not measure across the spectrum of children’s movement competency, or align with the PE curriculum framework (Department for Education, 2013). Owing to the emerging prominence of movement competence within primary school education directives worldwide (Department for Education, 2013; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2015; Society of Health and Physical Educators America, 2016), the shortage of a children’s movement assessment suitable for primary school teachers to use highlights a problem for educators. This is of particular importance as time spent in

52  van Rossum and Morley

PE provides an optimum opportunity for children to learn and develop movement competence (Morgan et al., 2013). It has been suggested that teachers become more involved in assessing children’s movement to enhance learning opportunities and support their development (Morley et  al., 2015). Therefore, the need for a suitable assessment method for primary teachers to use, led the authors to develop an assessment tool of children’s movement competence, that is both feasible and accurate, for use in PE lessons. A multi-​phase exploratory study was conducted to unpick the perceptions of primary school teachers and movement experts, combining academic and practitioner backgrounds, to understand the most effective and appropriate method of assessing movement competence for use by teachers, with children aged 4–​7 years. The combined expertise of primary school teachers, academics and practitioners provided a thorough examination of the subject area, that outlined a method of assessment utilising digital technology. To achieve the aim of exploring the potential for using technology in assessing children’s movement competence, we felt that, given the variability in expertise of teachers as already outlined, we needed to elicit their experiences. Furthermore, in light of the fact that very little research had been conducted in context-​specific assessment of children’s movement competence, we also felt the perspectives of movement experts were crucial to ensure that we were combining the needs of the teachers in a specific school PE context with the accurate assessment of children’s movement competence. The recommendations from teachers and experts of how resources using digital technology can be developed for primary school settings are discussed throughout the remainder of this chapter, and are entwined with the real-​life experiences of the researchers in developing the assessment tool. Assessment design process Drawing on the perceptions and experiences of primary teachers, discussed during the initial phase of exploratory interviews, a storyboard, demonstrating the key features and format of the intended movement assessment tool for teachers was created. The creation of the storyboard involved a three-​step process: (i) paper-​ based design demonstrating key functions and assessment process; (ii) simple electronic design demonstrating process, flow and interaction between pages; (iii) professional concept design created by digital design company. In the subsequent phases of research, involving teachers, academics and practitioners, the concept design of the storyboard (see Figure  4.1) was

The role of digital technology  53

Figure 4.1  Digitally created storyboard of movement assessment.

shared to provide a visual reference for the prospective assessment method. This approach was advantageous in stimulating discussion and focusing attention on the key topics of interest to inform the continued development of the assessment tool. We retained a group of teachers across all phases of the research whilst designing and testing the assessment tool. This allowed us to gain their feedback when we were faced with questions around the assessment protocol and app design. For example, during the design of the initial prototype, we felt it was important to consider the following three issues to ensure the assessment method was feasible for teachers: (i) the design of the scoring chart/​scoring process; (ii) the selection of suitable demonstration videos; (iii) using teacher-​appropriate language for the assessment criteria. In these instances, workshop activities were conducted with teachers to simulate real-​life situations in which a number of design options were presented to teachers to respond to. This process supported the design of a preferred and feasible method of assessment for teachers. The multiple

54  van Rossum and Morley

stages of our research program reflected the need to understand the needs and requirements of primary school teachers when assessing the movement competence of children, as well as establishing expert knowledge to understand the construction of an appropriate assessment for teachers to use.

Practical principles The following section highlights the practical principles (see Figure  4.2) indicated by teachers for the design and development of the movement assessment tool. These principles are informed by the perceptions of primary school teachers, exploring their experiences of assessing PE in primary school settings. They were established through interviews and focus group activities that took place with primary teachers during the course of the development of a movement competence assessment tool for primary school teachers to assess children aged 4–​7 years old. Through the section, we have used real-​life examples of how we engaged primary teachers during the research to construct the assessment tool that would be most attractive to them to use. These practical principles provide a starting point to guide the design of assessments and resources utilising digital technology from conception through to creation. From this foundation, the principles may be adapted to meet the specific requirements of the environment that the assessment will be used and may be a source of reference for developing and establishing assessment resources for primary and secondary schools.

Set-up time


Safeguarding Practical principles

Video recording

Data recording

Figure  4.2  Practical principles for primary teachers using digital technologies to assess movement competence.

The role of digital technology  55

Set-up time Limited time provided for PE within curriculum plans is a commonly occurring issue in primary schools. Therefore, methods to accelerate assessment processes in PE are attractive to teachers. To reflect on this, one primary teacher involved in our research study commented that ‘we need it to be quick and accurate without piling on the workload, because if we do they just won’t do it’. Time available to teachers is paramount for two reasons: (i) the time required to familiarise with the technology/​app, and (ii) the time to set up and conduct the assessment within the lesson. Firstly, assessment in primary PE in the UK is non-​statutory, with teachers feeling pressured to prioritise key subjects, such as numeracy and literacy, over other subjects with a lower status. The suggestion we received from teachers is that they frequently look to source resources to support their teaching of PE (e.g. Create Development, local authority training, YouTube), yet are not provided a lot of time to familiarise themselves with software and new applications. As such, teachers suggested that resources using digital technology requiring minimal initial instruction, training or familiarisation would be more attractive over resources requiring lengthy set-​up and instruction on how to use the software. The opportunity to include introductory videos upon start-​up is one advantage of app-​based software; enabling quick familiarisation and guidance for the appropriate use of the software. Again, the use of videos and images embedded within the app would be a beneficial source of information to assist teachers in understanding the expectations of the assessment tasks. Secondly, primary school teachers are limited in the time they have available for teaching PE, typically receiving 2 x 60 minute timetabled lessons each. Considering the time taken for children to get changed and travel to the PE area (e.g. sports hall, outdoor sport fields), actual time for PE can typically be reduced to 40–​50 minutes. Thus, significantly reducing teaching and learning time. Therefore, teachers prioritise the need for the assessment to load quickly and to require minimal set-​up time, so that they can maximise the time available to learning. One recommended feature was for the app to synchronise with the school’s database to load children’s information in bulk, eradicating the labour intensive method of inputting children’s information manually. Usability It is typical in primary schools that teachers conduct PE lessons without additional support in the lesson, creating an environment in which they are solely responsible for the teaching and supervision of the children in their class. Therefore, the time taken to focus on the app could be a distraction from their class to the detriment of the expected learning outcomes of

56  van Rossum and Morley

the lesson. Providing assessment resources requiring the teacher’s attention, could be judged as providing additional unnecessary distraction, however these resources could also be advantageous to teachers in reducing the emphasis on more time consuming and distracting methods currently in use (e.g. paper-​based resources). Assessments utilising digital technology are only beneficial to teachers if they are easy to use and are streamlined, making them easy to navigate and conduct within the lesson, thus reducing the potential distraction to teachers. Ultimately, the key to providing a simple, easy-to-follow process is for the use of the app to be self-​intuitive. As the use of digital technology has become customary in everyday use, adults and children have become familiar with common navigational tools and features within apps, such as icons and tool bars. Making these consistent within the app helped to ensure that the process is easy to navigate and follow. It is also important to consider the efficiency in which the user can navigate through the software, being able to quickly and efficiently switch between functions that are intended to be utilised at similar times. A second major benefit of utilising digital technology is the opportunity to include video demonstrations within the assessment. Demonstration videos of the assessment tasks would allow teachers to quickly familiarise themselves with the assessment and to deepen their understanding of the expected outcomes. We learnt from the primary teachers who reported limited confidence and understanding of assessing within PE, that they would feel better supported by this guidance if provided alongside clearly written assessment criteria. Teachers stated that if they were not confident in performing the assessment task, they would be able to show the demonstration videos to the children. These embedded demonstration videos would allow for consistency between teachers to understand the set up and performance of the assessment tasks. Data recording Once the purpose and objectives of the assessment are established, the next step is to consider what data is to be recorded and how the scoring process is to be presented on the screen. As mentioned previously, assessments of movement competence measure how a skill has been performed (process-​ oriented) or what has been performed (product-​oriented). The nature of process-​oriented assessments means that they provide a greater amount of feedback to the teacher that is valuable to inform the teaching-​learning-​ assessment cycle. The challenge of this style of assessment is that is does require a greater level of understanding of the assessment task by the assessor. On the other hand, product oriented assessments are simpler to conduct, requiring little understanding of the task by the assessor, however, the feedback provided is less valuable to support the teacher in planning future teaching activities to address the individual, specific, needs of the

The role of digital technology  57

children. The different nature of the two styles of assessment means that the process for recording scores may look very different within the app, as well as following a different sequence. The scoring process within the assessment will likely be determined by the purpose and anticipated outcomes of the assessment, as well as the performance metrics being measured. The nature of product oriented assessment means that the scoring process is often simple to measure and record. For example, counting the number of successful two-​handed catches, or recording the distance of a horizontal jump. The process of scoring these assessment tasks can be made very simple within the app, such as using a drop-​down selection for the result, input from keyboard or clicking pre-​ completed scoring boxes. Whereas, process-​oriented scoring measures the quality of the task being performed and typically relies on the assessor evaluating the performance based on pre-​written scoring criteria (see Research ­example 4.1). This presents a challenge when developing the screen content for the assessment. Specifically, the scoring page within the app must provide the assessor with sufficient information to allow them to make a reliable judgement based on their observation, and the process that they follow to score each performance must be simple and allow them to accurately score the performance within the lesson. App-​based assessment can be advantageous over paper-​based resources, as following the recording of a performance in a lesson, no follow up attention would be required (i.e. inputting scores into a spreadsheet or manually analysing the data to create completion or progress charts) by the teacher. Further, performance charts can be automatically generated within the app, providing a useful tool to teachers to track and monitor the progress of the children in their class.

Research ­e xample 4.1 Once we had established the scoring criteria for the movement tasks, we were still uncertain how the scoring process would be positioned on the screen to be used by teachers. Two scoring systems were identified to trial with teachers, each of which provided an alternative method of scoring the child’s competence within each task. Each of these options are presented below. In order to select the most appropriate system for teachers, we ran a focus group with a group of primary school teachers to trial the different option for the scoring process. Primarily, teachers responded that the grid scoring system was their preferred option, as this allowed them to more clearly identify the scoring criteria and select the score quicker, also, presenting the requirements for each of the developmental stages on the same screen helped the teacher to identify what the next steps were for the child. Furthermore, despite

58  van Rossum and Morley

the slow chart system seemingly offering an easier process due to the guide of answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the demonstration of competence within the task, teachers indicated that the additional clicks required on the screen and the processing that this would involve, would be too much of a distraction within the lesson.

Table 4.1  Option 1 –​Grid scoring system.

Arms/​ hands

Legs Body

Area of body to observe

Stage 1 (Early)

Stage 2 (Middle)

Stage 3 (Late)

Unsupportive arm position –​ e.g. Hands not positioned under directly shoulders Leg bent legs touching floor

Hands positioned under shoulders with elbows bent and/​ or fingers not facing away from body Legs elevated and straight, feet are not shoulder width apart Straight line from head to toes seen but not held with tension in body

Hands positioned under shoulders with fingers point away from body, arms straight

Body not held in straight line from head to toes

Preliminary question

Assessor’s response Yes


Are both legs elevated and straightened? No


Are both legs elevated and straightened? No


Yes Is there a straight line from head to feet?


Legs straight and feet shoulder width apart Body tension maintained with body in straight line from head to toes

Secondary question

Assessor’s response Yes

Are both feet shoulder width apart?


Stage 3 Stage 2

Stage 1

Are the arms straight and do the fingers point forwards (away from body)?

Yes No

Stage 3 Stage 2

Stage 1

Is the position maintained with good body tension? Stage 1

Figure 4.3  Option 2 –​Flow chart scoring system.

Yes No

Stage 3

Stage 2

The role of digital technology  59

Video recording Hay and Penney (2009) proposed that more authentic assessment within PE should bring the child as the central focus and involve them more in their own assessment. The teachers who trialled the prototype of the Start to Move assessment (Youth Sport Trust, 2017), reported that the use of video allowed their children to become more involved in the assessment process. The use of video recording and playback allowed the teacher to replay the performance back to the child for self-​assessment to take place. The use of video was also extended to enable peer-​assessment to take place between children. Through their involvement in self-​and peer-​assessment, children were able to become more involved in identifying their future learning and setting learning outcomes. It is evident that app based software aids in creating an open environment for assessment to take place, integrating children within the assessment process and partnering them alongside the teacher. This has obvious benefits for assessment protocols utilising digital technology, particularly app based software, as it offers more opportunities for ‘authentic assessment’ to take place, encouraging children to take ownership of their development. Despite the advantages discussed above, the use of video filming is only effective if it is suitably embedded within the digital technology. This means the software must be teacher friendly so that the recording and playback of videos can take place without considerable interruption to instructional time (Banville & Polifki, 2009).

Research ­e xample 4.2 Teachers trialing the Start to Move assessment tool (Youth Sport Trust, 2017) highlighted that the video recording function made up a key part of their assessment, and they referred to the video immediately after the assessment to provide feedback to the child. However, through testing the prototype version with teachers, we learnt that they felt teaching was impacted as the assessment scoring, video recorder and video playback pages in the app were not quickly navigated between. This early testing allowed us to make modifications to the assessment tool based on the recommendations of teachers. After these changes were made to the software, teachers were able to trial the new assessment process, and reported that by streamlining the navigation they were more likely to use the additional video features. Furthermore, teachers felt that as the navigational was made more efficient, they had more time to focus their attention on the individual and class, thus increasing the time they can spend assessing and supporting their children.

60  van Rossum and Morley

Safeguarding A final point that we considered was the need for the safe and ethical collection and storage of data. The establishment of digital technology opens the possibilities for video and still images to be recorded and saved. The use of such data within education settings must be secure and taken with the knowledge and agreement of the children involved. Further, the personal information of children and data collected must remain secure. To manage the security of the data collected within our app, we included Terms of Use, that each user had to agree to when accessing the app for the first time to create their account. These Terms of Use included reference to the appropriate collection of data, requiring the consent of the school’s headteacher, and gave permission for the children’s assessment scores to be uploaded to a database accessed by the research organization and developers of the app. To protect children’s personal information, their assessment data is anonymised when uploaded to the main database. School devices tend to have heightened security controls, and it is advisable to use a school-​owned device when possible. As a minimum, it is recommended that devices used to collect children’s assessments are password protected. This protects against unauthorised users accessing the children’s assessment scores and personal information, as well as protecting the privacy of the owner of the device. To further protect the video content recorded by the user, the app was configured so that all images were saved solely on the user’s device. Video images were only accessible via the device they were recorded on, and were not uploaded or stored online. These images remain the sole possession of the owner/​user of the device. We mention above about the benefit of app-​based assessment allowing engagement and involvement of children within the process. If they are handling the device during the lesson, you need to monitor and control your own personal information. Consider if you want to share your holiday images with your class!

Addressing practical issues and scientific challenges The previous sections have focused on the perceptions and experiences of teachers in the proposal of a model for the appropriate development of an assessment tool to effectively assess children’s movement competence. Although this presents an informed and feasible perspective on the creation of an appropriate assessment tool in this specific school context, there remain issues with the valid and reliable method of assessment being used, as conceived by the academic community. This section will present these

The role of digital technology  61 Table 4.2  Experts’ perceptions of considerations related to the development of a children’s (4–​7 years) movement assessment tool to be used by primary school teachers. Dilemma


Dichotomy For research purposes

Why are we assessing children’s movement? How should we do it? What should it look like?

Rationale/​ outcome Assessment setting Level of detail Nature of tasks

Measuring children’s movement competence Engineered

For educational purposes Relating assessment to teaching and learning Natural





(Used with permission from Morley et al. [2018])

issues in more detail and convey a perspective on the challenges that remain for subsequent research and development. Morley et al. (2018) postulated a number of dilemmas that exist in the development of a teacher-​oriented assessment of children’s movement competence. The way that these dilemmas emerged and were subsequently framed by participants provides an interesting characterization of the process of designing a movement assessment tool for a specific context and is useful in understanding the more detailed and specific comments regarding the dilemmas, which followed. As such, we present the ‘framing of dilemmas’ (Table 4.2) as a precursor to the presentation of the dilemmas themselves; these being, (a) Why are we assessing children’s movement? (b) How should we do it? and (c) What should it look like?

Why are we assessing children’s movement? Is it to measure children’s competence or improve teaching and learning? One of the main dilemmas experienced within the design and development of the movement assessment tool related to what we were trying to achieve. Were we trying to assess children’s movement competence for research purposes to capture and interrogate data or to inform pedagogy with an intention to have an impact upon children’s learning within PE? What is clear within this chapter, is that we were more concerned with the needs of teachers and how we could have an impact on their ability

62  van Rossum and Morley

to  assess and subsequently positively impact upon children’s movement competence. We felt that, whilst the quantification of a child’s movement competence is an important rationale for assessing children, to perhaps afford an understanding of the effectiveness of an intervention or to baseline children’s competence, the link to the enactment of the three messages of knowledge development (assessment, teaching and learning) was more important to achieve the project goal. The scientific challenge of ensuring a valid and reliable assessment is being used remains; whilst we are comforted by the likely validity benefits gained by eliciting the support of international experts in the development of the tool, we recognise that, without a more scientific appreciation of the validity of the tool we remain uncertain as to whether the tool is accurately measuring children’s movement competence in the way we believe it is. Further research is required to assess the validity of the tool; this could be achieved by using a convergent validity approach, in which an existing movement assessment protocol (for example, Test of Gross Motor Development, [Ulrich, 2000]) that has been previously validated, is used alongside our movement assessment tool to compare the accuracy of the tool in assessing aspects of children’s movement competence. Furthermore, issues of reliability remain with questions around whether a teacher can accurately assess children’s movement, in relation to a set of criteria within a unique and challenging context, with limited training and support. Indeed, the use of an app provides a multitude of opportunities no more so than remote and instantaneous access, but does leave the teacher somewhat isolated from the ability to share any concerns with colleagues in a way that a more formal, face-​to-​face, Continuing Professional Development opportunity might present. This suggests that the development of an app for a school-​specific context must endeavour to create a virtual community for users of the tool to share ideas for its use and elicit support, where necessary. Whilst this might not fully address inherent reliability issues when developing app-​based assessment software for use in educational environments, it might go some way to allowing teachers to compare and contrast their assessment practices with others and, in doing so, improve their ability to use the tool in an accurate way.

How should we do it? Should the assessment setting be ‘natural’ or ‘engineered’? The previous section presented scientific challenges concerned with the overarching principles of ‘purpose’ and ‘rationale’, when considering the development of an app to assess children’s movement competence in a primary school. When talking to experts in the children’s movement field, it became clear that there were other more detailed dilemmas that required

The role of digital technology  63

consideration in such a development process. This section will talk about the challenge of establishing an optimal setting for the movement assessment to take place and the following section will consider how to achieve a balanced perspective between a sufficiently detailed assessment (seen by some as complex) and an assessment that is simple enough to achieve the desired outcome and to be used by teachers. Most existing movement assessments involve an ‘engineered’ setting, in that the assessment is specifically manufactured to capture data related to children’s movement competence. In these types of assessments, participants typically perform a series of movement tasks, or a single task, in a specific order, in a circuitous manner. Parameters are placed on how the participant performs the task in the way that they must respond to an assessor’s instructions. However, this environment is not typical for children, as they are used to freely expressing their movement competence within more free-​flowing PE or playground activities. Therefore, establishing a natural setting, allowing children to move freely, could provide a more accurate measurement of a child’s movement competence. Hay and Penney’s (2009) notions of authenticity would certainly be more adequately met by the use of a natural setting for assessment, depicting an engineered form of assessment as not authentic in PE, due to its lack of connectedness with the real world. McEvilly et al. (2013) have raised similar concerns around the use of structured forms of movement assessment and note the potential discord that could result in using such engineered assessment with young children. The issue with the establishment of, and assessment within, a ‘natural setting’ is whether children would actually perform the types of movements required to assess their movement competence. Some assessments have moved towards more free-​ flowing manifestations of movement competence using uninterrupted, sequential, completion of movement tasks (for example, the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment [Longmuir et al., 2015]) and have been subsequently validated. However, there remains a question as to whether such assessments go far enough in offering a natural and dynamic setting in which children typically reside. Whilst such assessments are being trialled and developed, further challenges remain in establishing a setting in which children are afforded every opportunity to exhibit their movement potential and do not feel constrained in their performance by the pressures undoubtedly found in engineered settings.

What should it look like? What is the appropriate balance between simplicity and complexity? Requiring children to perform skills in isolation, as typically found in the majority of movement assessments (Ulrich, 2000; Folio & Fewell, 2000), is

64  van Rossum and Morley

time and resource intensive and requires a significant amount of expertise on the part of the assessor. Non-​specialist teachers of PE in primary schools, who lack confidence and competence in the subject area (Morgan & Hansen, 2007; Harris, Cale, & Musson, 2011) and are limited by the time that they have at their disposal, require a simple movement assessment tool. The use of technology in designing an assessment of children’s movement competence offers a direct response to ensuring a simple and accessible tool that can be used by teachers. Conversely, it might also present a barrier if it is too complex and responds more to notions of reliability and validity, rather than the feasibility of whether a teacher will use the tool, or not, because it is simple to use. Further research is required to compare the use of technology with more traditional forms of assessment (e.g. paper-​based recording, formative, non-​ criterion referencing) in a way that measures the added-​value of the use of technology in improving the ability of the teacher to assess children’s movement competence. Moreover, exploration of a teacher’s ability to subsequently provide learning experiences that improve a child’s movement, following the use of a technology-​based assessment is also merited as the assumption we have made is that our movement assessment tool, is prefaced on the tripartite relationship between assessment, teaching and learning; so we could reasonably expect that the teacher would use information gleaned from the movement assessment to guide subsequent teaching and learning experiences. There is also a need in the future to test the validity, reliability and feasibility of the assessment tool to determine the strength of the measurements in relation to existing assessment methods, as well as to understand its value for use by teachers.

Conclusions Digital technology is now becoming more commonly used by children and adults, and there will likely be a time in the future that technology is at the heart of teaching and learning. For the time being, the use of digital technology by teachers is limited by a shortage of appropriate resources for them to use. However, as we have detailed in this chapter, there is demand from primary teachers for assessment methods utilising digital technology. Further, if these methods are designed specifically for teachers, and teachers are involved in their development, then the attractiveness and appropriateness of digital technology resources for teachers to use can be increased. Our experiences of developing the Start to Move assessment tool (Youth Sport Trust, 2017), demonstrated that teachers are willing to embrace digital technology through the use of tablet devices, such as iPads, as long as these resources are simple to use and require minimal prior instruction. Teachers reported that including videos within the app would be beneficial as a point of reference, and that a function to capture videos would be attractive to record evidence and demonstrate children’s progress.

The role of digital technology  65

Primary teachers have a preference to utilise digital technology for assessment, although this should not be seen as an easy remedy or the only alternative to existing practice. However, it is possible that a digital app, providing video content and video capture, could enhance the child’s learning experience through the additional focus and subsequent support provided to teachers to develop children’s movement competence. For the use of digital technology to be effective, we discovered that a collaborative approach involving teachers and experts of the field (in this case, movement competence) in the development process was successful in creating an attractive and feasible resource for teachers to use. The implications of teachers having access to assessments embedded within digital technology appear positive, with the provision of suitable resources encouraging teachers to assess more within the subject. Taking this step may improve the teaching–​learning–​assessment cycle. Furthermore, the role of digital technology could streamline the assessment process, providing teachers more time to assess, and plan and deliver interventions. Up to now, primary teachers have been constrained to designing their own assessments, and/​or using paper-​based resources, which are time inefficient. Digital technologies involving authentic assessment could give children greater ownership of their learning and encourage them to be more aware of their competence.

Discussion questions 1. How will you adopt digital technology within your teaching practice to bring children into the heart of assessment opportunities within PE? 2. In an ever-​increasing technological world, how could digital technology shape assessment in PE settings in the future? 3. Consider a different assessment feature of PE (e.g. a team’s ability to attack in games), how could the principles we have used within this chapter discussing the design of a tool for assessing movement (see Figure 4.2) be used to construct that assessment?

Further reading Morley, D., van Rossum, T., Richardson, D. and Foweather, L. (2018). Expert recommendations for the design of a movement competence assessment tool for use by primary school teachers. European Physical Education Review. January 21st, 2018, DOI: 10.1177/1356336X17751358. O’Loughlin, J., Ní Chróinin, D., O’Grady, D. (2013). Digital video: The impact on children’s learning experience in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 19(2), 165–​182.

66  van Rossum and Morley

Penney, D., Jones, A., Newhouse, P., and Cambell, A. (2012). Developing a digital assessment in senior secondary physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17(4), 383–​410.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Youth Sport Trust for funding this project, in particular, Will Swaithes for his input. We would also like to thank Professor David Richardson and Dr Lawrence Foweather (Liverpool John Moores University) for their contribution to the research and design of the assessment.

References Banville, D. & Polifko, M. F. (2009). Using digital video recorders in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(1), 17–​21. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2010). “Inside the black box:  raising standards through classroom assessment.” Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–​90. Browne, T. (2015). A case study of student teachers’ learning and perceptions when using tablet applications teaching physical education. Asia-​ Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 6(1), 3–​22. Bruininks, R. H. & Bruininks., B. D. (2005). BOT2:  Bruininks-​oseretsky test of motor proficiency, Second Edition. AGS Publishing. Burton, A. W. & Miller, D. E. (1998). Movement skill assessment. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Carroll, B. (1994). Assessment in physical education: a teachers guide to the issues. London: Falmer Press. Cools, W., De Martelaer, K., Samaey, C., & Andries, C. (2008). Movement skill assessment of typically developing preschool children: a review of seven movement skill assessment tools. Journal of Sport Science and Medicine, (8), 154–​168. Department for Education (2013). National curriculum in England: PE programmes of study. Folio, M. R. & Fewell, R. R. (2000). Peabody Development Motor Scales (PDMS-​2). San Antonio, Texas: Therapy Skill Builders. Giblin, S., Collins, D., & Button, C. (2014). Physical literacy: importance, assessment and future directions. Sports Medicine, (44), 1177–​1184. Graham, G., Holt/​Hale, S. A., & Parker. M. (2013). Children moving: a reflective approach to teaching physical education. 9th Ed. New York, McGraw Hill. Hardman, K. (2008). Physical education in schools: a global perspective, Kinesiology, 40(1), 5–​28. Harris, J., Cale, L., & Musson, H. (2011). The effects of a professional development programme on primary school teachers’ perceptions of physical education. Professional Development in Education, 37, 291–​305. Harris, J., Cale, L., & Musson, H. (2012). The predicament of primary physical education:  a consequence of ‘insufficient’ ITT and ‘ineffective’ CPD? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17, 367–​381.

The role of digital technology  67 Hay, P. & Penney, D. (2009). Proposing conditions for assessment efficacy in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), 389–​405. Hay, P. & Penney, D. (2013). Assessment in physical education: a sociocultural perspective. London: Routledge. Henderson, S. E., Sugden, D. A., Barnett, A. L., & Smits-​Engelsman, C. M. (2010). Movement assessment battery for children-​2. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. Knudson, D. V. & Morrison, C. S. (2002). Qualitative analysis of human movement (Second edition). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Longmuir, P. E., Boyer, C., Lloyd, M., Yang, Y., Boiarskaia, E., Zhu, W., & Tremblay, M. S. (2015). The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy: methods for children in grades 4 to 6 (8 to 12 years). BMC Public Health, 15(1), 767. McEvilly, N., Atencio, M., Verheul, M., & Jess, M. (2013). Understanding the rationale for preschool physical education:  implications for practitioners’ and children’s embodied practices and subjectivity formation. Sport, Education and Society, 18, 731–​748. Morgan, P. & Hansen. V. (2007). Recommendations to improve primary school physical education:  classroom teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 99–​111. Morgan, P. J., Barnett, L. M., Cliff, D. P., Okely, A. D., Scott, H. A., Cohen, K. E., & Lubans, D. R. (2013). Fundamental movement skill interventions in youth: a systematic review and meta-​analysis. Pediatrics, 132, 1361–​1383. Morley, D., Till, K., Ogilvie, P., & Turner, G. (2015). Influences of gender and socioeconomic status on the motor proficiency of children in the UK. Human Movement Science, 44, 150–​156. Morley, D., van Rossum, T., Richardson, D., & Foweather, L. (2018). Expert recommendations for the design of a movement competence assessment tool for use by primary school teachers. European Physical Education Review, January 21st, 2018, DOI: 10.1177/1356336X17751358. Ní Chróinín, D. & Cosgrave, C. (2013). Implementing formative assessment in primary physical education: teacher perspectives and experiences. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(2), 219–​233. O’Loughlin, J., Ní Chróinin, D., & O’Grady, D. (2013). Digital video: the impact on children’s learning experience in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 19(2), 165–​182. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1–​ 8:  Health and Physical Education. Available at​eng/​curriculum/​elementary/​health.html. Penney, D., Jones, A., Newhouse, P., & Cambell, A. (2012). Developing a digital assessment in senior secondary physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17(4), 383–​410. Society of Health and Physical Educators America (2016). National PE standards. Available at​standards/​pe/​. Tidén, A., C. Lundqvist, and M. Nyberg. (2015). “Development and initial validation of the NyTid Test:  a movement assessment tool for compulsory school pupils.” Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 19(1), 34–​43. Ulrich, D. A. (2000). Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-​2), Austin, TX: PRO-​ED.

68  van Rossum and Morley Weir, T. & Connor, S. (2009). The use of digital video in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 155–​171. Youth Sport Trust. (2016). BUPA Start to Move: executive summary. Available at​sites/​yst/​files/​resources/d ​ ocuments/S​ TART%20TO%20 MOVE-​FINAL-​LORES.pdf. Youth Sport Trust. (2017). Start to Move Assessment Tool. Available at https://​​gb/​app/​movement-​assessment-​tool/​id1253503754?mt=8.

Chapter 5

Exploring pedagogies of digital technology in physical education through appreciative inquiry Julia Sargent and Ashley Casey

Introduction The utilization of digital technology (henceforth called DigiTech) to support teaching and learning in education has grown dramatically in recent years. In the UK, this had led to increasing interest from subject areas such as physical education (PE) and speculation over the potential future for teachers and students (see Future Foundation, 2015). Recently, increased attention has been afforded to PE teachers’ use and reflections of DigiTech (Casey et al., 2017b). Subsequently, there is an emergent picture of how DigiTech could be used in PE from a practical perspective. From a pedagogical perspective, what PE teachers think, say and do with DigiTech has received little attention (Lupton, 2015). Subsequently, little research has been conducted on PE teachers’ views of DigiTech. This dearth of research results in a field that is increasingly well versed in discussions about how DigiTech could be used in PE. Worryingly, this lack of research means the field appears less competent and confident having discussions about how and why DigiTech is actually being used. Little information exists about what shapes or contributes towards  digital technology-​orientated practices (Prestridge, 2017). Consequently, a more complex understanding of pedagogy and the places were learning, teaching and context converge with DigiTech is required (Casey et al., 2017b). This chapter reports on ‘Patrick’ (pseudonym). Patrick is a UK PE teacher who has embedded DigiTech into his practice. Our aim is to explore the views and experiences of Patrick regarding DigiTech use and to understand the factors and experiences that influence how and why he regularly uses DigiTech in his practice. Using a case study approach guided by appreciative inquiry, data are presented from appreciative inquiry interviews, interviews with colleagues (e.g. head teachers, IT managers, senior leadership and other PE teachers), lesson observations, field notes and school documentation. It is through exploratory steps, such as the ones we take in this chapter, that we can begin to appreciate PE teachers’ experiences and use of DigiTech and how they attempt to use it pedagogically. Failure to address such areas

70  Sargent and Casey

means that the field is in danger of repeating conversations around specific types of DigiTech without appreciating the wider educational milieu in which it is situated (Selwyn, 2017). Put differently, the chosen DigiTech is positioned unproblematically and is expected to work regardless of the context in which it is to be used (i.e. the social, cultural and economic realities of the school).This is particularly pertinent given the common rhetoric around the opportunities and challenge that lie behind the myths and rhetoric of DigiTech (Philips, 2016). By viewing DigiTech in a more general and appreciative sense (by this we mean valuing and perceiving those factors that surround practice), rather than focusing on specific DigiTech devices, we can develop new insights to guide and challenge our thinking about teachers’ practices with DigiTech. This chapter is presented in five sections. We first provide a brief discussion of the current literature base that links DigiTech, pedagogy and PE teachers. Second, we discuss the concepts of ‘pedagogies of technology’ and appreciative inquiry which underpin this chapter. Third, we discuss the case study teacher, techniques used to generate data and grounded theory. Fourth, we explore Patrick’s views and experiences regarding DigiTech use and the factors and experiences that influence his use. Finally, we offer some concluding remarks in relation to pedagogy and DigiTech and the implications of this work for PE researchers and practitioners.

DigiTech in PE In recent years considerable growth in the availability and use of DigiTech in education has raised questions around what place DigiTech should have in different subject areas. PE is no exception. The pedagogical relationship between DigiTech and PE is particularly important given discipline specific technologies such as video-​analysis, wearable devices and active video games (Enright et  al., 2017). The use of different types of DigiTech by students and teachers in PE has been the focus of many research studies. A small sample of DigiTech research includes: Exergaming (e.g. Meckbach et  al., 2013), the Nintendo Wii Fit (e.g. Perlman et  al., 2012), DartFish software, heart rate monitors, pedometers, CD players (Juniu, 2011; Thomas & Stratton, 2006) and wikis (Hastie, Casey, & Tarter, 2010). Our focus however, is not to engage in debates around the potential or current benefits of apps or specific devices for PE. Instead, and despite the increasing availability of DigiTech hardware and resources to support use, many questions pertaining to such use still exist (Krause, Franks, & Lynch, 2017). Research has focused on isolating the hardware (the technological device) rather than the ideas of the teacher behind its use. Arguably, one of the reasons DigiTech has not become customary or commonplace in PE may be a lack of focus on the pedagogy behind the use of DigiTech (Casey et al., 2017b).

Exploring pedagogies of digital technology  71

Less prominent, but nonetheless emergent discussions have been held which explore the opportunities for DigiTech use (Casey et al., 2017b) and teachers’ experiences of using DigiTech in their classrooms (Goodyear et al., 2014; Kretschmann, 2015). Bodsworth and Goodyear (2017) found barriers such as pupils’ expectations for learning, school technological restrictions and the introduction of a new pedagogical approach limited the use of DigiTech. Similar obstacles are also explored by Gibbone, Rukavina and Silverman (2010) who found that understanding the contextual factors that influencing use is a necessary foundation to furthering our understanding of the challenges pertinent to PE as a unique context. Consequently, there are many factors that influence how and why DigiTech is utilised in PE. Through research we are made aware of need to better consider the teacher and their uses of DigiTech in PE. So much so that it ‘appears that it is the teacher rather than the technology that influences digital technology use in schools (Starkey, 2011, p. 24). Pedagogical practice involving DigiTech is, therefore, also a ‘personalised pedagogy’ (Calderon et al., 2017, p. 100). In particular, pedagogy involving DigiTech involves ‘practitioners making critical and intelligent decisions about why, how and when to use (and not use)’ DigiTech (Fletcher et al. 2017, p. 114). Given this personalisation and the critical role of the teacher, it is concerning that there is a dearth of literature exploring how practices with DigiTech are shaped or change over time (Prestridge, 2017). Pedagogical beliefs will be constantly confronted and challenged by the growth of DigiTech (Sinclair, 2009). Thus, it is even more important that, as researchers and practitioners, we consider the on-​ going relationship between DigiTech and teachers and their pedagogical practices.

Pedagogies of technology Due to the pedagogical focus of this chapter, and the belief that pedagogy will be challenged by the growth of DigiTech, it is important to reflect on the existing literature. When referring to ‘pedagogy’, a term which possesses a variety of definitions, applications and meanings, we are referring to the connections between teachers and their teaching, learners and their learning and the knowledge in context (Armour, 2011). In the same way that neither DigiTech, or our debates about its use, are something ‘new’, the call for a pedagogical rather than a technological goal for integrating DigiTech in education is also not a new argument (Casey, 2014a). Watson (2001) argued that the cart had been placed before the horse in regard to pedagogy and DigiTech. In other words, decisions to use DigiTech have largely been driven by hardware and software rather than a pedagogical process. This is concerning because any DigiTech used by a teacher is influenced by the factors of curriculum, teaching and learning that surround its use.

72  Sargent and Casey

In positioning the concept of ‘pedagogies of technology’ in this chapter we are conscious of the perception that the two terms may be back to front. Placing pedagogy before technology reflects our wish that, as field, we consider ‘how we want to teach before we consider the technological means that we use to accomplish it’ (Dron, 2012, p. 25). In other words, to emphasise how DigiTech is used (pedagogy), not just what is used (technology). In their recent book, Casey et al. (2017b, p. 6) used a pedagogical cases framework to explore individual PE practitioner’s narratives around how and why they have used DigiTech. Each narrative is analysed by multidisciplinary experts to unpick the teacher’s pedagogical approach to DigiTech (see Sargent, 2018). They defined pedagogies of technology as: critically aware and technically competent pedagogies that can be developed in practice to maximise the latent potential of technologies to accelerate learning in meaningful ways that meet the individual needs of diverse learners. The starting point for a pedagogy of technology is a desire to do things differently, rather than to do the same things using ‘flashy’ tools and gizmos. In this chapter, pedagogies of technology are explored through Patrick’s developing use of DigiTech in his teaching. In seeking to examine Patrick’s desire to ‘do things differently’ (both in terms of teaching and learning) and explore his developing practice we used appreciative inquiry because it allowed us to appreciate the nuances of DigiTech use (i.e. techniques and sources of information) that aided his teaching and his students’ learning.

Appreciative Inquiry Appreciative inquiry was conceptualised in the field of organisational development and has been defined in different ways. Appreciative inquiry is a strengths-​based approach which seeks to illuminate the elements and factors in an individual and organisations practice that one believes enabled success (Pill, 2015). Appreciative inquiry, for our purposes, is viewed in alignment with scholars such as Enright et  al. (2014) and Watkins and Cooperrider (2000) as a philosophy rather than a specific set of techniques, methods or methodology. From this perspective, appreciative inquiry is viewed as an orientation grounded in identifying strengths rather than weaknesses. This perspective is underpinned by the belief that every culture, and every person in that culture, has strengths that can be amplified. This chapter is therefore concerned with the identification and exploration of aspects of Patrick’s practice that he believed contributed to his success with DigiTech. Building upon the emergent work of Gray, Treacy and Hall (2017), Pill (2015) and Hill et  al. (2015), our application of appreciative inquiry

Exploring pedagogies of digital technology  73

is underpinned by the ‘4-​D’ (discovery, dream, design and destiny) cycle (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001): (1) Discovery. In this stage participants identify, reflect on and discuss the reasons why they believe practice has worked ‘best’ or ‘efficiently’. (2) Dream. During this stage participants are asked to imagine themselves, their group, or community at its best and attempt to identify what could be. (3) Design. Having identified common aspirations or a common dream, participants are questioned to explore what the ideal situation would be. (4) Destiny. This stage is concerned with exploring what will be and working with participants to explore how the ‘best’ could be sustained. Appreciative inquiry philosophy can take varied paths and forms in research and one of its perceived strengths is that it can be adapted to a particular culture, context and environment (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006). Irrespective of context, however, the appreciative interview remains at the heart of the process (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001; Enright et al., 2014; Michael, 2005). Appreciative interviewing forms the basis of the discovery phase and is often the impetus for further inquiry. Therefore, while appreciative inquiry is not a technique or method, there are methods and questions which are more aligned with the approach (Hill et  al., 2015). The appreciative interview helps to bring to new data to light which highlight experience, values and strengths that can be collectively shared (Watkins & Cooperrider, 2000). Appreciative interviews differ from traditional interviews because rather than soliciting facts and opinions, these interviews seek examples, stories and metaphors (Shuayb et al., 2009). The purpose is to find the best moments, events and stories rather than fixating on a problem or area that needs solving. For example, discovering the strengths, resources and capabilities of Patrick’s practice (e.g. ‘what do you see as being some of the causes of success to your teaching with technology?’ and ‘what highlights have occurred for you when using technology in your teaching?’). Enright et  al. (2014) argue that PE and sports pedagogy scholars have sought to identify and understand what’s broken in PE creating a deficit based discourse. This perspective, in turn, has had a considerable influence on practice and how we consider topics such as pedagogy (Gray, Treacy, & Hall, 2017). Conversely, instead of focusing on what is ‘broken’ or ‘failing’ regarding DigiTech use, the emphasis through appreciative inquiry is driven by the desire to uncover and appreciate ‘what works’ for an individual. The focus is therefore around how and why Patrick believes that DigiTech has aided him in his practice and appreciating how he developed/​is developing his pedagogy of technology.

74  Sargent and Casey

‘Patrick’ Patrick volunteered for this study and was selected as a case study based on his self-​identified use of DigiTech. At the time of the study, Patrick (age 35–​40) had been teaching PE at Newton school (pseudonym) for ten years and had been head of department for four years. Patrick had remained at the same school since qualifying as a teacher. His use of DigiTech has varied over time but was now a regular part of his everyday teaching. Patrick had a strong belief in the value of DigiTech, developed his ideas through Twitter and shared his practice with others at his school. School setting Newton school is a community college (11–​18  years) in a small town in the North East of England. Newton is a co-​educational school with a large proportion of White British students and a small proportion of students for whom English is an additional language. It also has a high proportion of students eligible for pupil premium. Newton has a PE department of nine full-​time PE teachers. PE is a compulsory subject at Newton and students have an allocated hour a week on their timetables. Programmes for compulsory PE are structured through a multi-​activity approach and the National Curriculum. This was comprised of ‘main activities’ (e.g. Rugby and Netball), ‘additional activities’ (e.g. Dodgeball and Tchoukball) and fitness activities (e.g. HITT and Boxercise). Using DigiTech to support teaching and learning underpins many of Newton’s visions and priorities. For example, each pupil in Year 7 (age 11–​ 12) was given an iPad at the start of the academic year. This is in addition to each department having a set of iPads and every staff member having their own device. How did we generate our data? Data were generated by the first author using a variety of qualitative methods. These included four interviews guided by appreciative inquiry, school visits involving interviews with colleagues (e.g. headteacher, senior leadership team member, IT manager and PE teachers), follow up interviews, lesson observations, field notes and document analysis. How did we analyse our data? Data analysis was conducted using a constructivist approach to grounded theory. Constructivist grounded theory involves coding techniques that facilitate the analysis of actions and processes that are grounded in the data, but also acknowledges the existence of multiple social realities and

Exploring pedagogies of digital technology  75

the flexibility of the approach. Using Charmaz’s (2014, p. 15) criteria as a guide, data gathering and analysis were iterative in nature but involved a continuous shift between coded data and new data collection, analysis and coding, to trace and examine Patrick’s practice. Both initial and focused coding was used to identify and refine key actions and concepts which was further facilitated by memo writing. This constructivist approach can be characterised as a process of ‘constant comparison’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), which involved comparing data and developing analytic categories.

Findings and discussion Three main themes were constructed from the data analysis:  ‘Working within an embedded culture of DigiTech use’, ‘establishing routines’ and ‘keeping tasks simple’. The first theme ‘working within an embedded culture of DigiTech use’ shows how Patrick, the department and the school have developed a culture around being forward thinking and sharing ideas regarding DigiTech that they embedded into practice. The second theme, ‘establishing routines’ identifies how developing consistent routines of practice were vital in supporting both student and teacher learning with DigiTech. The third theme, ‘keeping tasks simple’ highlights how using simple strategies in certain scenarios allowed Patrick to increase the students’ physical activity and support the needs of his learners. Working within an embedded culture of DigiTech use At both an individual and department/​school level, a culture around the use of DigiTech was established and embedded. On an individual level, Patrick identified that his own developing culture consisted of his interest, being forward thinking and keeping up to date with DigiTech. Patrick self-​identified as being forward thinking and suggested that this was one of the factors promoting his use of DigiTech. He felt that this stemmed from his interest in DigiTech. In defining this term, Patrick explained that forward thinking was being: Happy to try new things, happy to change, happy to trial and then if things aren’t working, happy to say why. Patrick felt that forward thinking was quite natural because of his sporting background and an enduring aim to be innovative and creative in his teaching. This was similarly commented on by other colleagues who identified Patrick as ‘being ahead of the game’, ‘thinking outside the box’ and ‘being proactive –​always thinking what’s next?’. The starting point for a pedagogy of technology is a desire to do things differently (Casey et al., 2017b) and accepting that mistakes will be made; something that Patrick clearly exhibited. Whilst Patrick positioned himself

76  Sargent and Casey

as forward thinking, we do not suggest that this always equated to pedagogical development. That said, he felt that by looking forwards and keeping up to date with latest ideas and practices through social media he was constantly developing as a teacher. Similar to Armour et  al. (2017), Patrick saw it as a professional responsibility to find new ways to support learning. Searching through Twitter was a particularly beneficial practice for Patrick and, as purported by Gleddie et al. (2017), was a powerful tool for engaging in purposeful professional development. For Patrick using Twitter was pertinent as: Teachers are always that little bit further behind so it is important to find out what the kids are interested in and how you can use that and bring it into teaching. On a department/​school level, a developed culture was similarly established around being forward thinking but also sharing as a form of professional development and having consistent strategies around DigiTech use. An example of a whole school approach appears in school documents/​policy as ‘embedding technology into pedagogical strategies’ and ‘the development of a “new technologies culture” of teaching and learning’. Specifically, in a document explaining the overview of their recent iPad project, the school stated that they developed their own ‘i-​Pedagogy’. This was built around the use of ‘top apps’ and ‘Blooms Taxonomy’.1 Subsequently, the culture of DigiTech use in the school was underpinned by pedagogy and the consideration of what pieces and uses of DigiTech could be applied. Patrick, in considering these approaches, embedded the use of the Showbie app to allow students to apply and create work for assessment. This was supported not only through the accessibility of technology but also in the consistency of sharing as a form of development. A  continuous professional development (CPD) structure involved staff being willing to try and share ideas and learn through trial and error. This culture resulted in ‘everybody singing off the same hymn sheet’ and Patrick noting, both in the school and in his department, that: If things didn’t work we had a culture, we had a relationship amongst everybody to be brave enough to say actually we don’t like this. It doesn’t work. What are we going to do about it? We’d come up with a new idea and implement it. As shown in the literature, sustained CPD is important (see Patton, Parker, & Pratt, 2013) and would seem synonymous with forward thinking around DigiTech. The culture established by both Patrick and the department/​school was viewed by many colleagues as important in supporting DigiTech use. The head teacher identified that Patrick had ‘grown up in the culture and

Exploring pedagogies of digital technology  77

developed within the culture of the college’. In this sense Patrick’s established practices of being forward thinking and keeping up to date formed a supportive and consistent infrastructure around which he could develop his practice. As such, they formed a key foundation of his pedagogy of technology. Tondeur et al. (2008) posited the DigiTech policies and the views of the school have a significant effect on an individual’s use of DigiTech. With a culture of technology from Patrick and the school being in alignment, this was seen as important in ensuring that both Patrick and the students could see the value of DigiTech. Literature suggests that most teachers lack organisational support to integrate DigiTech effectively (Fullan, 2013) and under such conditions, teachers can fail to think pedagogically about technology (Casey et  al., 2017b). However, what Patrick’s case suggests is that when the individual and culture they work in support and encourage “do[ing] things differently”, a creative environment is fostered. This environment serves as a catalyst that helps teachers to develop pedagogies of technology. Factors such as regular CPD, consistent pedagogical ideas, leadership and supporting teachers’ exploration of DigiTech, aid and influence the developing creativity. Establishing routines Establishing routines around DigiTech for teaching and learning was vital for Patrick to ensure that students did not see DigiTech as a ‘novelty’. Patrick suggested that ‘as soon as your routines and expectations are embedded … for me it  [DigiTech] doesn’t become a gimmick’, a suggestion that was echoed in the interview with a member of the school’s senior leadership team. The routine nature of his practice meant that the pedagogical strategies utilised became consistent and were part of the normal practice culture. They were familiar to Patrick and his students: It’s those little routines and practices that you put in place that they [the students] follow and it’s the same with the iPads … as that process becomes more familiar to them it makes it more efficient. Drawing upon the work of Selwyn (2013) establishing consistent routines enabled Patrick and his students to teach and learn in more efficient ways. This example of practice corroborates the idea of Goodyear et al. (2017) whereby frequent, specific and repeated practice allow teachers (and in this case Patrick) to ‘support learning’, ‘offer individualised support’ and ‘stretch and challenge’ students learning. Thus, these findings support Goodyear et  al.’s (2017, p.  25) conclusion that ‘technology can be used to promote student-​centred learning activities’. One pedagogical strategy Patrick’s regularly used was flipped learning. Whilst flipped learning is not a pedagogical approach specific to DigiTech,

78  Sargent and Casey

for Patrick it was a consistent pedagogical strategy implemented by both the school and Patrick to support his use of DigiTech: [Flipped learning] makes the lesson longer by using ICT to extend the lesson… I could take a little video clip, share it with them and I could actually emphasise the points based on the lesson ready for the next one. This allowed Patrick and other staff members to ‘maximise learning time’ because the home work ‘directly linked to the next lesson so it’s like a journey … they [the students] can see the progress’. In explaining his use of flipped learning in PE further, Patrick elucidated: It was a case of a 50-​minute lesson becoming an hour and 20 minutes because I was expecting them to do a 30-​minute piece of homework … little Google forms … kahoot quiz would be the flipped learning resource ready for the next lesson. Straight away their homework was purposeful in my eyes; it has got a link to the lesson. Similar to Østerlie (2016) and Roth (2014), Patrick found that flipped learning can increase levels of physical activity because you can start the lesson immediately with practical activity as the students have conducted the explanation and understanding in their homework. The 50-​minute lesson time could therefore be used more ‘efficiently and effectively’ by establishing the routine of flipped learning. How flipped learning was delivered through two types of DigiTech is explored in Table 5.1: Whilst the use of flipped learning to supplement activity time was an established strategy, Patrick used a variety of different methods within this approach. This was illustrated when Patrick discussed how students could choose an app to reach the learning objective: They [the students] could present work in a different way, whether it’s a poster, a piccolage or comiclife, the end product, the outcome is the same but the tool that they’ve used is different. The variety of methods used in flipped learning meant that Patrick was constantly engaging in the assessment of students learning needs. Importantly, evidence from the local context (i.e. the practice occurring in the broader school) was used to drive his pedagogical actions (Goodyear et al., 2017). Patrick’s use of technology through flipped learning provided students with an environment where learning was an active process (occurring both inside and outside the school) whereby both teacher and student are involved in knowledge construction (Parker et al., 2017). In this sense Patrick was able to develop a pedagogy of technology which contributed in meaningful ways to meeting the needs of his learners.

Exploring pedagogies of digital technology  79 Table 5.1  Flipped learning through two types of DigiTech. Type of DigiTech (App/​Device)


How it was/​has been used

Showbie (app)

App used to create a platform for students to share work, annotate document/​pictures and teachers to mark and give a variety of feedback. Accessed on iPad device.

Padlet (online)

Online message board where users can post and have discussions on a virtual message wall.

• Support workflow and communication with students. • Capturing and submitting work (i.e. videos) for assessment –​ aided physical skill development. • Used in conjunction with other apps such as coach’s eye and book creator. • Mobile nature of app on device ideal for PE. • Used by Patrick to post questions for students to answer and videos to reflect upon for homework –​aiding video analysis techniques. • Students posting answers and discussion points based on viewing a video.

Keeping tasks simple Patrick expressed that the rationale behind his use of DigiTech, and why he believed it ‘worked’ for his teaching, was ‘keeping it simple’: Trying too much in different ways creates more challenge. I’ve just got a couple of simple methods that I believe work at this moment in time and actually they work better every year. Examples of ‘simple’ practice were replete in school documents, lesson observations and interviews. For Patrick, identifying instances where DigiTech ‘lent itself’ to trying simple DigiTech ideas was important. This included spending time to get students to understand ‘how to use an app’, showing performance videos in the changing rooms while students were getting changed and using apps in rest periods to assess learning. Patrick supported less physically able learners by engaging them with videos and performance analysis questions on an iPad. For Patrick, this was more than ‘ticking the ICT box but ticking the learning box as well because they are actively learning at the same time’. The students were ‘resting for a minute but they were learning or their mind was actively engaged on the task for that time’. Similar to Armour et al. (2017, p. 215), Patrick used iPads to add ‘pedagogical excitement’ with different groups of students to supplement

80  Sargent and Casey

their physical activity time. These practices are consistent with those in Armour et al. (2017) case study where the teacher endeavoured to focus on the learning rather than the teaching and tried to make learning interesting, relevant and personalised to meet the needs of each student. Thus, it was apparent in speaking to Patrick that he had identified key outcomes (i.e. reflecting on performances) for students to achieve before considering the means to achieve them. When considering DigiTech from this pedagogical perspective, iPads could be used in a way that was ‘engaging students and not being used as a gimmick’. A simple practice to ensure that learning is at the forefront might be allowing students to choose the type of equipment they would like to use to complete a task (Baert et al., 2017). Patrick explained how this involved ‘chunking it [getting students using apps] into little stages’ to ‘let them become masters or experts in that app’. In this sense Patrick scaffolded the use of DigiTech to ensure that students could take control of their own learning but were not inhibited by a lack of technological knowledge. Whilst the pedagogical vision might seem simple to achieve, the realities of the pedagogical use of DigiTech requires consideration of the preferences and skills of the student so that the learning outcome is not lost (Fletcher et al., 2017). In this regard, Patrick had clearly considered the learner and their learning, how to best deliver the content and the context in which this occurred. As conceptualised by Casey et al. (2017a), it is important to keep (or make) ideas simple if they are to stick and impact the practices of others (i.e. students). The idea of ‘keeping things simple’ ensured that that pedagogy was at the forefront of Patrick’s use of DigiTech and was a part of his routines of practice.

Concluding remarks From a pedagogical perspective, what PE teachers think, say and do with regards to DigiTech has received little attention (Lupton, 2015). In this chapter, we have provided an exemplar of how and why DigiTech is actually being used. In unpicking our understanding of pedagogies of technology as a concept for this chapter and, therefore, the spaces where teaching, learning and context converge, we have sought to appreciate how Patrick uses DigiTech in ways that aid both teaching and learning. In considering Patrick and his teaching, DigiTech has allowed Patrick to be innovative and creative whilst also considering the interest of his learners. In foregrounding the learner and their learning, Patrick had clearly considered the students expectations for learning and how DigiTech could be used to support their physical activity. This may, in some cases, involve starting with relatively ‘simple’ tasks and ideas which allow the teacher to support, (re) direct or assess the learning with DigiTech. It was only then that Patrick could use DigiTech as an aid to himself and his students in ways that were meaningful. In considering knowledge in the context of PE, we are struck

Exploring pedagogies of digital technology  81

by Patrick’s ability to relate to his institutional context in a way that meets his own and his students’ needs. Teaching is never seen to occur in a void (Quennerstedt, 2017), but often it would seem, when concerning DigiTech, that we often fail to appreciate the wider milieu in which a pedagogy of technology can operate (Selwyn, 2017). In essence, DigiTech ‘worked’ for Patrick because it was underpinned by establishing strategies beyond the ‘initial period of delight’ (Casey, 2014b, p. 30) and developing them into the working practice of both Patrick and the school. In reflecting upon the practical implications of our work, we are aware of the need (both as researchers and practitioners) to develop a knowledge-​base about what teachers learn, do and practice in order to create effective policies, training programmes and support practice. This is because it is ‘how’ practices are interpreted and negotiated between schools, practitioners and in the classroom that determine how they are developed and used. These should be considered as key influencers in the pedagogical use of DigiTech. Of course we are also aware of the challenges associated with a pedagogical approach to DigiTech e.g. the speed of innovation, the volume of ‘potential’ ideas, or pupils’ expectations for learning digitally. These challenges can equate to teachers’ developing concerns for, or fears of, using DigiTech. However, this encourages us, as researchers and practitioners, to ‘be brave’ in our thinking (Casey et al., 2017b, p. 250). This also involves consideration of what can be controlled and established. In the case of Patrick (and his personalised pedagogy of technology), this involved developing an attitude and approach that had established support networks and ensuring routines that allowed him to use DigiTech in simple but effective ways. In a more general sense, we have learnt that in order for DigiTech to become customary or commonplace in PE our focus must be on the pedagogy. Questioning at all times what outcomes DigiTech can help us to achieve rather than being driven by gimmicks seems key. Reflecting upon the outcomes of our use of DigiTech in relation to pedagogy is therefore important. Pedagogies of technology are not only about what is used or how DigiTech is used but also what is achieved. In this way, the focus shifts from teachers using DigiTech to student learning through DigiTech. We must remember, nonetheless, that this is an on-​going relationship; one where DigiTech is considered as part of the journey and not just the final destination.

Discussion questions 1. Using the recommended readings as support, what do you think are the steps required to develop a pedagogy of technology for PE? 2. What strategies would you consider in sustaining the use of DigiTech beyond the initial period of enthusiasm for you and your students?

82  Sargent and Casey

3. Can you identify any situations in your own practice where it could be appropriate to try and implement DigiTech? Remember if a situation would be best served by the use of zero technology then that’s still a pedagogical decision!

Further reading Prestridge, S. (2017). Examining the shaping of teachers’ pedagogical orientation for the use of technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26 (4), 367–​381. This paper provides insights into teacher beliefs that influence the use of DigiTech. Villalba, A., Gonzalez-​Rivera, M., & Diaz-​Pulido, B. (2017). Obstacles perceived by physical education teachers to integrating ICT. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), pp. 83–​92. This quantitative study (based in Turkey) analyses the perception of physical education teachers regarding obstacles to integrating DigiTech. Casey, A., Goodyear, V.A., & Armour, K.M. (2017b). Digital Technologies and Learning in Physical Education: Pedagogical cases. London: Routledge. This collection of case studies on PE practitioners explains how and why DigiTech is used in their practice.

Note 1 Using Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives (i.e. remember/​understand, apply, analyse, evaluate and create) the school mapped different apps and the ways they could be used towards these objectives.

References Armour, K. (2011). Sport pedagogy:  an introduction for teaching and coaching. Essex: Pearson. Armour, K., Evans, G., Bridge, M., Griffiths, M., & Lucas, S. (2017). Gareth:  the beauty of the iPad for revolutionising learning in physical education. In: A. Casey, V. Goodyear, & K. Armour (eds). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases (pp. 213–​231). London: Routledge. Baert, H., Winiecki, T., Madden, M., Bryan, R., & MacDonald, C. (2017). Tom: using digital technology in physical education to transform pedagogy. In:  A. Casey,

Exploring pedagogies of digital technology  83 V. Goodyear, & K. Armour (eds). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases (pp.191–​213). London: Routledge. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. In Cognitive domain, Vol. 1 (pp. 20–​24). New York: McKay Bodworth, H. & Goodyear, V. (2017). Barriers and facilitators to using digital technologies in the Cooperative Learning model in physical education. Physical Education and Sport pedagogy, 22(6), 563–579. Calderon, A., Lopez-​ Chicheri, I., Fernandez-​ Rio, J., & Sinelnikov, O. (2017). Antonio: ‘I really want them to be engaged and learn’. The use of social media in higher education. In: A. Casey, V. Goodyear, & K. Armour (eds). Digital technologies and learning in physical education:  pedagogical cases (pp.86–​104). London: Routledge. Casey, A. (2014a). Rethinking IT in physical education: Pedagogy before technology. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, 9(25), 3–​4. Casey, A. (2014b). Models-​based practice:  great white hope or white elephant? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(1), 18–​34. Casey, A., Goodyear, V. A., & Armour, K. M. (2017a). Rethinking the relationship between pedagogy, technology and learning in health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 22(2), 228–​304. Casey, A., Goodyear, V. A., & Armour, K. M. (2017b). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases. London: Routledge. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage. Cooperrider, D. L. & Whitney, D. (2001). A positive revolution in change: appreciative inquiry. Public administration and public policy, 87, 611–​630. Dron, J. (2012). The pedagogical-​technological divide and the elephant in the room. International Journal on E-​Learning, 11(1), 23–​38. Enright, E., Hill, J., Sandford, R., & Gard, M. (2014). Looking beyond what’s broken: towards an appreciative research agenda for physical education and sport pedagogy. Sport, Education and Society, 19(7), 912–​926. Enright, E., Robinson, J., Hogan, A., Stylianou, M., Hay, J., Smith, F., & Bell, A. (2017). Jarrod: the promise and messy realities of digital technology in physical education. In: A. Casey, V. Goodyear, & K. Armour (eds). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases (pp. 173–​191). London: Routledge. Fletcher, T., Vasily, A., Bullock, S. M., Kosnik, C., & Ni Chroinin, D. (2017). Andy: blogging with students. Educational visions and digital realities. In: A. Casey, V. Goodyear, & K. Armour (eds). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases (pp. 104–​121). London: Routledge. Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: integrating technology, pedagogy and change knowledge. Toronto: Pearson. Future Foundation (2015). The class of 2035: promoting a brighter and more active future for the youth of tomorrow [online]. London: Future Foundation. Gibbone, A., Rukavina, P., & Silverman, S. (2010). Technology integration in secondary physical education: teachers’ attitudes and practice. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 3(1), 27–​42. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.

84  Sargent and Casey Gleddie, D., Feith, J., Howe, D., Larsson, H., Cale, L., & Casey, A. (2017). Joey: social media as a tool for professional development. In:  A. Casey, V. Goodyear, & K. Armour (eds). Digital technologies and learning in physical education:  pedagogical cases (pp. 121–​137). London: Routledge. Goodyear, V. A., Blain, D., Quarmby, T., & Wainwright, N. (2017). Dylan: the use of mobile apps within a tactical inquiry approach. In: A. Casey, V. Goodyear, & K. Armour (eds). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases (pp. 13–​31). London: Routledge. Goodyear, V. A., Casey, A., & Kirk, D. (2014). Tweet me, message me, like me: using social media to facilitate pedagogical change within an emerging community of practice. Sport, Education and Society, 19(7), 927–​943. Gray, S., Treacy, J., & Hall, E. (2017). Re-​engaging disengaged pupils in physical education:  An appreciative inquiry perspective. Sport, Education and Society, DOI: 10.1080/​13573322.2017.1374942. Hastie, P. A., Casey, A., & Tarter, A. M. (2010). A case study of wikis and student-​ designed games in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 79–​91. Hill, J., Sandford, R., & Enright, E. (2015). ‘It has really amazed me what my body can now do’: boundary work and the construction of a body-​positive dance community’. Sport in Society, 19(5), 667–​679. Juniu, S. (2011). Pedagogical uses of technology in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 82(9), 41–​49. Krause, J., Franks, H., & Lynch, B. (2017). Current technology trends and issues among health and physical education professionals. The Physical Educator, 74, 164–​180. Kretschmann, R. (2015). Physical education teachers’ subjective theories about integrating information and communication technology (ICT) into physical education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 68–​96. Lupton, D. (2015). Data assemblages, sentient schools and digitised health and physical education (response to Gard). Sport, Education and Society, 20(1), 122–​132. Meckbach, J., Gibbs, B., Almqvist, J., Ohman, M., & Quennerstedt, M. (2013). Exergames as a teaching tool in physical education? Sport Science Review, XXII (5–​6), 269–​385. Michael, S. (2005). The promise of appreciative inquiry as an interview tool for field research. Development in Practice, 15(2), 222–​230. Østerlie, O. (2016). Flipped learning in physical education:  why and how? In:  D. Novak, B. Antala, & D. Knjaz (eds), Physical Education and New Technologies (pp.166–​176), Zagreb: Croatian Kinesiology Association. Parker, M., Morrison, J., Patton, K., Babkes Stellino, M., Hinchion, C., & Hall, K. (2017). Jamie: ‘I couldn’t teach without technology’: A teacher and student learning journey. In: A. Casey, V. Goodyear, & K. Armour (eds). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases (pp. 31–​49). London: Routledge. Patton, K., Parker, M., & Pratt, E. (2013). Meaningful learning in professional development: Teaching without telling. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 32, 441–​459.

Exploring pedagogies of digital technology  85 Perlman, D., Forrest, G., & Pearson, P. (2012). Nintendo Wii:  Opportunities to put the education back into physical education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(7), 85–​94. Phillips, M. (2016). Re-​contextualising TPACK:  Exploring teachers’ (non-​)use of digital technologies. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(5), 555–​571. Pill, S. (2015). Using appreciative inquiry to explore Australian football coaches’ experience with games sense coaching. Sport, Education and Society, 20(6), 799–​818. Preskill, H. & Catsambas, T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Prestridge, S. (2017). Examining the shaping of teachers’ pedagogical orientation for the use of technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(4), 367–381. Roth, K. (2014). Technology for tomorrow’s teachers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 85(4), 3–​5. Sargent, J. (2018). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases. Sport, Education and Society, 23(1), 108–110. Selwyn, N. (2013). Distrusting educational technology: critical questions for changing times. London: Routledge. Selwyn, N. (2017). Educational technology:  key issues and debates, 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury. Shuayb, M., Sharp, C., Judkins, M., & Hetherington, M. (2009). Using appreciative inquiry in educational research: possibilities and limitations. Slough, UK: National Foundation Educational Research Report. Sinclair, A. (2009). Proactive pedagogies in e-​Learning:  making the invisible visible. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 197–​209. Starkey, L. (2011). Evaluating learning in the 21st century:  a digital age learning matrix. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 19–​39. Tearle, P. & Golder, G. (2008). The use of ICT in the teaching and learning of physical education in compulsory education: how do we prepare the workforce of the future? European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 55–​72. Thomas, A. & Stratton, G. (2006). What we are really doing with ICT in physical education: a national audit of equipment, use, teacher attitudes, support, and training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 617–​632. Tondeur, J., Van Keer, H., Van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers and Education, 51(1), 212–​223. Watkins, J. & Cooperrider, D. (2000). Appreciative inquiry: a transformative paradigm. Journal of the Organisational Development Network, 32(1), 6–​12. Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology:  rethinking the relationship between ICT and Teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251–​266.

Part II

Technological influence on models-based practices

Chapter 6

Technology in models-​b ased practice A case of Sport Education Oleg A. Sinelnikov

Introduction Pedagogy scholars have long been dissatisfied with some of the outdated, archaic and obsolete practices that physical education teachers continue to employ in their teaching. Internationally, ideas of physical training and physical competencies as main programmatic outcomes of physical education programs continue to be prevalent in Australia, European and Eastern European countries, USA and other countries (Kirk, 2010; Siedentop, Hastie, & Van der Mars, 2011; Sinelnikov & Hastie, 2008; Tinning, 2010). Physical education has indeed fallen victim to what Kirk (2014) referred to as a degree of technicisation of education in which educational practices are treated as technical problems to be resolved. Technicisation of education is not to be confused with technology integration or even with what Fullan and Langworthy (2014) referred to as ‘new pedagogies’, i.e. pedagogies that allow teachers with pedagogical capacity to discover and master content together with students through ubiquitous technology on the way to deep learning. There is a consensus amongst educators that appropriate technology integration in the process of learning contributes to significant improvements in student engagement and achievement and offers a potential to meet the learning needs of individual students in physical education (Kirschner & Selinger, 2003; Palao, Hastie, Cruz, & Ortega, 2015). However, traditional ideas about physical education are still manifested in the way physical education curriculums are designed and taught in schools. Scholars have typically signified traditional ways of teaching physical education as multi-​activity or activity-​based approach to teaching. However, several tenets of multi-​activity or activity-​based approach to teaching have been heavily criticized over the years. For example, Mitchell and Fisette (2016) described activity-​based teaching characterized by teachers selecting an activity they are comfortable with teaching and want to teach, as one

90 Sinelnikov

lacking planning, void of alignment to standards or outcomes, and typically having minimal instruction resulting in little, if any, skill development. Attempts at using digital pedagogy or the use of technology in such practices seem to be fruitless. Those teachers who are only comfortable teaching what they know tend not to innovate and not use technology integration in their teaching practices as it demands time significant commitment and technological competencies (Palao et al., 2015). Activity-​based teaching heavily relies on adult versions of the game (Mitchell & Fisette, 2016) in which students participate differently and learn diverse behavior patterns in physical education classes. Higher skilled boys and girls tend to thrive while many others ‘give up’ or ‘hang back’ (Griffin, 1984, 1985). Siedentop (1994) wrote extensively about inauthentic game play commonly observed in physical education, in which students participate in adult versions of the game, and how these games do not promote meaningful learning as there are little opportunities for student decision making and better understanding of the game being played. Such ‘decontextualized physical education’ continues to be the norm in many physical education programs, especially in secondary education (Siedentop, 1994). There are abundant reports in the sport pedagogy literature of students in such programs confirming that some of their experiences ‘have a negative impact on their perspective on physical activity and do not contribute to positive personal and social experiences’ (Ennis, 1996, p. 454). Moreover, activity-​based teaching is often characterized by short units of instructions that do not result in subject mastery and even in the best scenarios only offer exposure to the techniques, rules, and tactics without meaningful levels of student learning and engagement. As a result, pedagogy scholars lamented the great levels of misalignment between current physical education practices and the contemporary physical culture within which young people engage outside of school (Tinning, 2007). Scholars have described current generation of children as digital natives, who are surrounded by digital technology and are competent in its use (Prensky, 2012), yet it is in education that technology is not fully utilized to its potential (Fullan, 2013). Additionally, the level of meaningful engagement of students with physical education context is greatly thwarted by a lack of student voice within curriculum decision-​making (Enright & O’Sullivan, 2012). From the standpoint of digital pedagogy, many teachers are enthusiastic about adopting new technologies in their teaching while others remain reluctant to do so (Fullan, 2013). Furthermore, some scholars suggest that the use of technologies in education in general and in physical education in particular is underutilized. An affirmation of this notion is showcased by studies that examined an online presence of physical education programs and their content in public schools in USA (Hill, Tucker,

Technology in models-based practice  91

& Hannon, 2010; Washburn & Sinelnikov, 2016). The results of these studies demonstrated an exceptionally low prevalence and quality of physical education program websites or webpages. Specifically, a greater majority of physical education programs (82.5–​93.5 per cent, depending on a state) did not maintain an active website at all. These findings from the field of physical education lend further credence to Fullan’s (2013) observations in general education about some teachers’ reluctance of embracing technological advances.

Models-​b ased approach to teaching physical education As a response to what was viewed as ineffective and decontextualized way of teaching and learning, a number of scholars advocated different and more contemporary approaches to teaching physical education. These approaches were conceived and were viewed as an alternative to ineffective teacher-​directed traditional practices of teaching physical education (Jewett, Bain, & Ennis, 1995; Siedentop, 2002). Initially identified as curriculum or instructional models (Jewett et  al., 1995; Metzler, 2005), now these practices are presently referred to as pedagogical models or models-​based practice (Haerens, Kirk, Cardon, & De Bourdeaudhuij, 2011; Kirk, 2013; Sinelnikov & Hastie, 2017). To this end, Kirk (2013, p.  979) provided a definition for pedagogical model as one that ‘identifies distinctive learning outcomes and shows how these might be best achieved through their tight alignment with teaching strategies and curriculum or subject matter’. Currently, a number of pedagogical models that allow for achieving the breadth and depth of learning in different context have been proposed and described in sport pedagogy literature (Lund & Tannehill, 2010; Metzler, 2011). Furthermore, and more recently, Tannehill, Van der Mars, and MacPhail (2015) categorized the more established models-​based approaches and provided description for the following pedagogical models: Developmental Physical Education, Adventure Education, Outdoor Education, Sport Education, the Tactical Games Approach, Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility, Social Issues and Health and Wellness models. They noted that while there has been a varied amount of research on each models, the aforementioned pedagogical models seemed to currently occupy a significant niche in models-​ based practice. Thus, it is evident that contemporary physical education practices include the use of pedagogical models or models-​based practice, which have become an increasingly important element in the repertoire of quality physical education teachers (Casey, 2014; Kirk, 2013; Mitchell & Fisette, 2016; Tannehill et  al., 2015). However, the use of pedagogical models in one’s teaching signifies a meaningful departure from traditional teaching and its premises. Those teachers who employ varied teaching practices that go

92 Sinelnikov

beyond traditional teaching can be considered as innovative practitioners. As such, innovative practitioners are likely to implement innovative pedagogies, which includes digital pedagogy as well as technological advances in their teaching (Casey, Goodyear, & Armour, 2017). Teaching-​oriented novice teachers, while somewhat lacking pedagogical skills and experience, tend to embrace innovative practices, such as incorporation of technology, if provided appropriate and supportive environment in addition to continued and on-​going professional developmental support and mentoring (Chen, Sinelnikov, & Hastie, 2013; Sinelnikov, 2009). An introduction of innovative practices, whether it is models-​based practice or digital pedagogy, coupled with suitable and fitting support in the fostering environment can result in teachers embracing innovations and can also contribute to physical education teachers developing ‘new vision about teaching and learning’ (Casey et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2013; Hastie, MacPhail, Calderón, & Sinelnikov, 2015). On the other hand, some of the veteran teachers may experience difficulties in changing their conceptions, perceptions, and thus their ways of teaching when introduced to innovative practices. The main culprit for teachers’ struggles in adopting student-​ centered pedagogies, including digital pedagogy, is their hesitancies to concede control of the gym and students as well as seeming unpredictability of students’ choices. Furthermore, there are initial reports of students’ resistance to technology and students’ struggles with using technology when coupled with an unfamiliar pedagogical approach or pedagogical model (Bodsworth & Goodyear, 2017). However, the litmus test of experienced teachers altering their teaching practices to include innovations seems to be the element of teachers experiencing first hand the positive ramifications of said innovations, especially in the area of student learning and student growth (Sinelnikov, 2009). When teachers see the positive and tangible results of their change in teaching practices, they ultimately embrace the innovation in full force.

Sport Education as a models-​b ased approach to teaching A well-​respected sport pedagogy scholar, David Kirk (2013) has noted that out of all current pedagogical models, Sport Education appears to be the most research and soundly justified philosophically. Initially conceived as an alternative to ineffective teacher-​directed traditional practices, Sport Education was developed to provide better sporting experiences for children in their physical education classes (Siedentop, 2002; Siedentop et al., 2011). Some scholars recognize Sport Education as a student centred model (Hastie, de Ojeda, & Luquin, 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005), yet the teaching strategies for achieving learning outcomes range across Mosston’s Spectrum of Teaching styles (Mosston & Ashworth, 1990)

Technology in models-based practice  93

from reproduction teaching styles (direct) to production teaching styles (indirect) depending on many factors, e.g. student and teacher familiarity and experience with model, phase of the season, season context, and others. The goal of Sport Education is to create ‘competent, literate, and enthusiastic sports players’ (Siedentop et al., 2011, p. 5). A learning outcome of competency in Sport Education deals with students developing sufficient skills, technical and tactical, to meaningfully partake in games and activities. A literacy learning outcome concerns leaners understanding and valuing the rules, routines and traditions of games as well as distinguishing between good and bad sporting practices. A learning outcome of enthusiasm relates to learners behaving in ways that preserve, protect, and enhance sport culture. These aims are achieved by physical education teachers and students creating and adhering to five structural tenets of the model, namely: Seasons, Affiliations, Formal Competition, Culminating Event, Keeping Records, Festivity. It is within the conceptual framework of these non-​negotiable features of the model that the use of technology in Sport Education pedagogical model should be considered and examined. Furthermore, in its latest edition of Complete guide to Sport Education, Daryl Siedentop and colleagues (2011) describe Sport Education objectives that can be sufficiently achieved through students experiences of participating in Sport Education in their regular physical education classes. These ten objectives are outlined below, each under a separate heading. Furthermore, the literature and framework of the Sport Education pedagogical model and the use of technology within the model’s structure guided the writing of the chapter and thus should serve as a lens through which this chapter should be viewed. Contemporary literature provides emerging evidence of how teachers incorporate fast-​developing technology in models-​based approach to teaching physical education (Bodsworth & Goodyear, 2017; Calderon, Lopez-​Chicheri, Fernandez-​Rio, & Sinelnikov, 2017). For example, recently, adopting a technological perspective, Calderon et  al. (2017) summarized evidence from the literature that aids students in the process of pursuing at least a number of Sport Education’s learning objectives and contributing to the model’s non-​negotiable features. These authors conclude that technology can work very well with models-​based approach to teaching, as long as the use of technology is ‘linked to the broad conceptualization of pedagogy that recognizes the interdependent elements of curriculum, learning, and teaching’ (Calderon et al., 2017, p. 96). This argument is further supported by Fullan (2013) who pointed out that not only must we consider the interplay between pedagogy and technology, but we also need to understand how to change knowledge and support teachers in employing technology in their teaching.

94 Sinelnikov

The following discussion provides examples of how digital technologies can be incorporated to help teachers and students in achieving Sport Education’s objectives. To illustrate this and help readers’ comprehension, a specific Sport Education objective is listed and described. The description is then followed by a specific example from the literature and from author’s vast experiences in Sport Education of how this particular objective can be achieved with the use of technology. The examples of applied applications are meant to be illustrations of concepts and do not represent an exhaustive list of potential uses of digital technology within Sport Education. Rather, these examples are meant to spur the thought process and provoke discussions of how technological advances can be incorporated into the teaching and learning dichotomy and furthermore, even how they can transform models-​based practice.

Sport Education objectives and applied applications Sport Education objectives: (1) Develop sport-​s pecific techniques and fitness and (2) Appreciate and be able to execute sport-​ specific strategic play One of the main goals of Sport Education is for students to develop, gain proficiency or mastery of the techniques that are involved in a sport or activity that is being taught using Sport Education. As Siedentop et  al. (2011, p. 6) note, Students should gradually learn to master the techniques for their activity, have a sufficient level of fitness to perform the techniques in competition, and have a sufficient level of fitness to persevere in performing them for the length of the competition. Furthermore, successful game play requires an understanding and execution of a strategic play or tactics. There are multiple ways for teachers and students to incorporate technology that would aid students’ development of sport-​specific techniques, skills and tactics. Sinelnikov (2012), in his description of using an iPad in a volleyball Sport Education season, described how students and the teacher relied on an iPad to support their learning of skills and tactical development that were necessary to play a comprehensive game of volleyball. It is important to remember that within the season of Sport Education all students are divided into persisting teams that first train, and then compete against each other in formal competition. Each student on a team has a specific role that provides contribution to team’s success in the season. Examples of team roles might be a coach, manager, warm-​up leader, statistician, publicist and equity board representative. Students in different roles would have different responsibilities and perform different functions (Siedentop et al., 2011).

Technology in models-based practice  95

For instance, possible responsibilities of a coach might include providing general team leadership, helping make decisions about lineups for game play, and assisting teammates in developing skills and tactical play. In order to do that, student coaches in the volleyball season used an iPad to record, view and present sport-​specific and strategy-​oriented activities and drills to their teammates during team practice. The object of such videos was to introduce and showcase a particular volleyball skill (overhead pass, forearm pass, serve and spike) or a particular defensive or offensive tactic. Students would then view the video that the student coach chose and work on the skill or a tactic. Describing this set-​up, Sinelnikov (2012, p. 43) also notes that ‘during the training phase of the season, all skills had to be covered at least at the first level, and then coaches had the option of selecting more advanced levels for subsequent practices’. Another possible integration of technology in the Sport Education season that could help the development of technical and tactical proficiencies is the possibility of using the camera and video playback feature of the iPad to provide video feedback to students. In other words, teams and/​ or students could videotape their performance of a technical skill or game performance and then subsequently utilize the video as a feedback tool. It is important to note that the most effective pedagogical approach of having an impact on student learning through the video technology seems to be by the teacher providing feedback along with the video feedback (Palao et al., 2015). Sport Education objective: (3) Participate at a developmentally appropriate level Physical education should be developmentally and instructionally appropriate (National Association of Sport and Physical Education, 2010). Within the framework of Sport Education, students should participate in developmentally appropriate tasks as well as developmentally appropriate competition. This is achieved by creating ‘a series of developmentally appropriate forms of a parent activity using modifications’ in deliberate manner so students can achieve cognitive, skill and tactical learning outcomes and become proficient in it (Siedentop et al., 2011, p. 6). As noted before, the use of technology, for example a computer or a tablet, makes this undertaking significantly easier. To elaborate further on the aforementioned example of student-​coaches providing activities or tasks to students within their Sport Education team, each skill or technique had a choice of several videos that displayed tasks with progressive levels of difficulty. Different videos allowed different coaches, different teams and different students within the team to choose a task at a level of difficulty that was appropriate to their level of competency and development. This manner of having a series of video task

96 Sinelnikov

cards with progressive difficulty allowed:  (1) for students to take ownership for their learning, (2)  for students to provide tasks to peers at a developmentally appropriate level, and (3)  for the reduction of instructional demands on the teacher, which permitted him or her to have more time for individual student feedback. This type of video learning tasks can be provided on any digital platform, computer or tablet or cellular telephone. Obviously, various factors need to be considered by the teacher before purchasing devices or apps, for example, the portability, features and longevity of the device as well as the cost. However, the variations and modifications in task structure and task difficulties presented via a digital medium allows students a seamless choice in matching task demands with competency levels. Sport Education objective: (4) Share planning and administration of sport experiences In Sport Education, students are asked to share in planning and administration of their own learning and competitive experiences. To achieve this, students are solicited to perform a variety of roles other than a player (Siedentop et al., 2011). Some of these roles have been previously alluded to in this chapter. Recent examples of how digital technologies have been incorporated to support students’ fulfilment of the roles include the use of web-​based portfolios, tablets, app, and wikis (Calderon et al., 2017; Hastie, Casey, & Tarter, 2010; Hastie & Sinelnikov, 2007). For instance, many physical education teachers choose to have Equity Sports Board Representative as one of the team roles in a Sport Education season. It means that each team has its own representative who is a part of a board of students, which makes decisions about rule modifications, competition modifications, fair play, and settles disputes that arise during the season. In some cases, equity sports board representatives used videos available through digital tablets to view, highlight, and discuss the instances of fair play behavior in order to publically share good and bad sporting behaviors prior to the season of Sport Education. Teachers report that this public sharing emanating from a student body significantly contributed to a positive atmosphere created during competition in the gym by teams (Sinelnikov, 2012). Another applied application of digital technology that helps in achieving Sport Education’s objective of students sharing and administrating their own sporting experiences is highlighted by how statisticians used technology in the same season that is described in the previous paragraph. The responsibilities of a role of a statistician in the described Sport Education season included keeping individual and team records during games and publically displaying said records. This was achieved by statisticians using the Numbers app on an iPad to input and edit data, create simple graphs

Technology in models-based practice  97

and charts that were wirelessly printed in teachers’ office and publically displayed within minutes of completion of games. This type of instant feedback in the form of public record keeping created a natural and seamless form of accountability of student performance and added a new dimension to festivity of the season. Sport Education objective: (5) Provide responsible leadership The objective of providing responsible leadership and learning how to do so during Sport Education season is crucial to the success of the season. Many of those teachers who regularly teach Sport Education suggest that this objective can be progressively achieved. As Siedentop et al. (2011) write, ‘[i]‌n early Sport Education experiences, teachers start with small leadership tasks and then gradually broaden the roles as students develop leadership skills’ (p. 7). While most responsible leadership tasks are tasks that students complete in the course of the season and require interactions between students, digital technologies can be incorporated to either assist students in their leadership tasks or transform their tasks altogether. In that sense, digital technology can serve as an enabler and a learning accelerator. An example of this accelerated learning is showcased in another season of Sport Education; the one in which students developed team websites to help plan, administer, and present their season (Hastie & Sinelnikov, 2007). The websites that students developed included information about each team, schedules of games, league tables, team and individual statistics in addition to other relevant information. Students learned how to design websites in class but created and updated their website outside of class time. For example, statisticians published individual game statistics to their websites almost immediately upon competition of games in class. Student-​coaches provided game notes, drills and tips for their team on their webpages while student-​publicists published reports and articles about their games. Each member of the team was responsible for and provided leadership according to their designated role on the team. This experience for students was akin to a professional team running a professional league and advantages of using technology contributed to the level of seriousness and professionalism felt by students in this iteration of Sport Education. Sport Education objective: (6) Work effectively with your team to pursue common goals The concept of working together to achieve a common goal is one of the central notions of Sport Education. The structure of the model not only provides ample opportunities for students to work together, but in fact drives the agenda of meaningful cooperation between students (Hastie et  al., 2007). Most of the work is accomplished within small groups, i.e.

98 Sinelnikov

teams, when students complete work to fulfill their own specific role on a team and help the team towards a common goal. An example of students working effectively together in a small group to accomplish a common goal can be achieved by utilizing learning structures commonly used in Cooperative Learning pedagogical model, such as learning teams or Pairs-​Check-​Perform. In the instance of Pairs-​Check-​Perform and learning teams described by Bodsworth and Goodyear (2017), students are divided into teams and during the task further subdivided to work in pairs. One student performs the task while the other videotapes his/​her performance and provides feedback. Once a partner successfully completes the task, students swap roles. In conclusion, all members of the team come together to make sure that they are all in agreement with performance criteria and success levels. This pedagogy is conceptually based on reciprocal teaching style described by Mosston and Ashworth (1990) in which one student is a ‘doer’ and another one is an ‘observer’. However, in this case, the digital medium of video provides an objective record of student’s performance and aids an ‘observer’ in providing a higher quality performance feedback. Hastie et  al. (2010) provided yet another example of using technology within a pedagogical model by incorporating wikis within school physical education in a games making Sport Education unit. Specifically, in this study, twenty-​eight students from two physical education classes in the United Kingdom were involved in the games-​making unit that prominently featured wikis as the basis for game development. Students were divided into teams and were given a task of designing an invasion game ‘from scratch’ (Hastie et al., 2010, p. 81). Again, wikis served as the medium in which most of the game design took place. Students used the wikis to record the plans and development of their own game and in fact, the technology in some part fostered the game development process. The actual game, after it was designed, was played during physical education classes. The outcomes of this Sport Education season revealed that the expansion of learning outside of classroom space and time coupled with the extended community of practice resulted in a higher quality learning experience in physical education for the participants. Additionally, and more importantly, students seemed to embrace the technology as it allowed for a strong sense of collaboration, idea sharing, and a better end product. This unit served as an example of how technology can, not only contribute to student learning, but rather be capable of transforming the process of learning into a more meaningful learning experience within physical education. Furthermore, this transformative process illustrated how ubiquitous use of technology allowed teacher and students create new knowledge by discovering and mastering content together. This development, enabled by access to digital technology inside and outside of school, is a paradigm shifting educational process that has transformative powers, and one that Fullan and Langworthy (2014) referred to as ‘new pedagogies

Technology in models-based practice  99

education model’. These new pedagogies are defined as ‘a new model of learning partnerships between and among student and teachers, aiming deep learning goals and enabled by pervasive digital access’ (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. 2). Sport Education objective: (7) Appreciate the ritual and conventions that give sports very unique meanings This Sport Education objective relates to developing literate sportspersons as it aims to provide ‘students with broader understanding of the activity in terms of the behaviors expected of good sportspersons when they compete’ (Siedentop et  al., 2011, p.  8). An example of rituals and conventions can be students being quite when someone is taking a golf stroke, or students shaking hands after a soccer game, or students applauding after a dance performance routine. Digital technologies are especially useful in providing possible examples of said rituals and conventions. For instance, a simple search on YouTube allows students to find sport’s appropriate and inappropriate examples, and easily share them with their peers. Such tasks of finding and learning about sports’ rituals and conventions, its public sharing as well as examples of good or bad sporting behaviors can easily serve as a starting point for further discussions and can contribute to students’ understanding and appreciating of the sport. In one volleyball Sport Education season, those students who were chosen to be sports board representatives were tasked with providing examples of a volleyball game rituals (Sinelnikov, 2012). Sports board representatives used an iPad to find video clips of how volleyball matches began and ended that included, for example, rituals of athletes shaking hands under the net after the match. Thereafter, sports board representatives shared these video clips with their teams. Moreover, based on these video clips, sports board representatives convened and decided which rituals would be appropriate to use in their subsequent volleyball season. This serves as an example of how digital technology can help students create new knowledge and find deeper meaning within the structure of Sport Education. This creation of new knowledge is in line with the constructivist’s perspective of learning (Fosnot, 2013). The gymnasium and sport board representatives in this instance can be viewed, according to social constructivist education theory, as a community of learners (Rovegno & Dolly, 2006). It is within this community of learners that learning occurred through the process of interaction, collaboration and negotiation while some of it takes place through and because of a digital medium. Benefits of such social constructive pedagogy have been outlined by Azzarito and Ennis (2003) which include students constructing knowledge and meanings and actively participating in physical education activities by making connections with their peers and encouragement of social growth and awareness.

100 Sinelnikov

Sport Education objective: (8) Develop the capacity to make reasoned decisions about sport concerns The concept of fair play and desirable social behaviours within sporting context is an integral part of any complete Sport Education season. Competitive environment, albeit educationally appropriate, can and does create a number of conflicts between students, groups and groups of students. One of the objectives of Sport Education is for students to learn how to appropriately and reasonably resolve conflicts and make proper decisions as they relate to sport or activity (Siedentop et al., 2011). In fact, initial evidence points out the possibilities of improving students’ pro-​social behaviors in Sport Education, even with the most disruptive students (Schwamberger, Sinelnikov, & Fowler, 2015). Student involvement in resolutions of such concerns is paramount and that is where technology can be helpful in a number of capacities. For example, Calderon et al. (2017) described a module which challenged and confronted students’ prior knowledge and beliefs about sports through the use of social media. Specifically, throughout the module, which was carried out as a Sport Education season, students used a number of digital mediums such as Twitter, Google Hangout, YouTube, Picktochart and Google+. An array of these digital technologies was used to promote, debate, reflect and engage students in meaningful discussion about sporting practices and challenge students to collectively embark on finding or creating deep understanding about the topics. However, the Sport Education’s aim of developing the conceptions of fair play, encouraging pro-​social behaviors and capacity of students to make reasoned decisions in a sporting setting clearly needs further examination. It is within this context that questions such as how digital technology and pedagogy can best promote student engagement, develop higher-​order thinking skills and elicit change in student behaviors need to be asked. Sport Education objective: (9) Develop and apply knowledge about umpiring, refereeing and training One of the central notions of Sport Education is the ability of students to learn the rules of the game or activity and then officiate their own games. Each student within the Sport Education season should have multiple opportunities to officiate, referee, umpire or judge matches, games, meets or performances. Officiating a soccer match or judging gymnastics routine in physical education allows students to develop intimate knowledge of the sport or activity and results in authentic learning that students retain for a long time (Sinelnikov & Hastie, 2010; Wahl-​Alexander, Sinelnikov, & Curtner-​Smith, 2017). The use of technology, specifically apps that help students learn officiating signals, has been shown to enhance students’

Technology in models-based practice  101

understanding of rules, officiating signals and contributed to the increased quality of student officiating in Sport Education season (Sinelnikov, 2012). Specifically, in one particular Sport Education season, team managers (one of the student team roles) were responsible for accessing an app that showed officiating signals for different sports. Team managers were tasked with learning the signals from the app and were responsible for teaching the officiating signals to their team members. This particular approach utilized the concept of peer teaching which was augmented by digital technology in which fellow students were responsible for peer learning. The teacher provided formal accountability by examining all members of the team prior to competition on their learned material. Only teams that had all of their individual team members successfully pass the officiating test were allowed to participate in the competition that followed. This form of assessment, from the teacher as well as from peers, provided dual accountability that promoted student learning since students are only known to complete tasks for which they were held accountable (Doyle, 1986). Furthermore, this type of accountability provided positive interdependence in which students relied on each other whereby the success of the group depended on the success of each individual member. As such, positive interdependence enhanced by digital technology enhanced pedagogical scaffold of organizing group work and facilitated its functioning (Dyson & Casey, 2016). Sport Education objective: (10) Become involved with sports and physical activity outside of school One of the more difficult to achieve objectives of Sport Education is for students to get involved with sports and physical activity outside of school as a result of participating in Sport Education. There are reports of initial attempts of connecting physical education to out-​of-​school physical activity through implementation of Sport Education (Schwamberger & Sinelnikov, 2015); however, there is no literature that describes the use of technology or digital pedagogy in such attempts. Thus, explorations of how technology and new pedagogy in gymnasiums can facilitate, promote or encourage student participation in out-​of-​school physical activity seem to be warranted.

Concluding thought A challenge for teachers implementing any technology and especially in the case of using it within Sport Education lies in their ability to think of any technology critically and from a pedagogical perspective, while at the same time resist the urge to adopt the technology for the sake of using it. There must be a sound and justified pedagogical intention behind each case of implementing technology. As Calderon et al. (2017, p. 100) poignantly write, ‘a pedagogy of technology is … a personalized pedagogy’ of the teacher. Yet

102 Sinelnikov

in the case of Sport Education, and because of its flexibility as a pedagogical model, there are numerous possibilities and opportunities for a teacher and students to incorporate technology into a successful Sport Education season. The different applications of technology within the structure of the model were described and highlighted in this chapter. Importantly, we must begin thinking of not just incorporating technology or integrating technology into physical education or models-​based practice, we must examine the potential of a transformative pedagogy, a pedagogy in which technology is pervasive and permeates the process of teaching and learning. Only if we do that, can a true potential of technology in education be realized.

Discussion questions 1. Describe the features of traditional teaching and its criticisms along with the rationale for using models-​based practice in contemporary physical education. 2. State the objectives of Sport Education and provide examples of how applied applications of technology can be incorporated in helping students achieved these objectives. 3. Discuss how technology can help transform the educational process within models-​based approach to teaching physical education.

Further reading Fullan, M. & Donnelly, K. (2013). Alive in the swamp: assessing digital innovations in education. London: Nesta. Casey, A., Goodyear, V., & Armour, K. (2017). Digital technologies and learning in physical education:  pedagogical cases. London: Routledge. Siedentop, D., Hastie, P.A., & Van der Mars, H. (2011). Complete guide to Sport Education (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

References Azzarito, L. & Ennis, C. (2003). A sense of connection: toward social constructivist physical education. Sport Education and Society, 8, 179–​197. Bodsworth, H. & Goodyear, V. A. (2017). Barriers and facilitators to using digital technologies in the Cooperative Learning model in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(6), 563–​ 579. doi:10.1080/​ 17408989.2017.1294672. Calderon, A., Lopez-​Chicheri, I., Fernandez-​Rio, J., & Sinelnikov, O. A. (2017). Antonio: ‘I really want them to be engaged and learn’. The use of social media in

Technology in models-based practice  103 higher education. In A. Casey, V. Goodyear, & K. Armour (eds.), Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases (pp. 86–​103). Abingdon, Oxon: Routlege. Casey, A. (2014). Models-​ based practice:  great white hope or white elephant? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1, 18–​34. Casey, A., Goodyear, V., & Armour, K. (2017). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases. Abingdon, Oxon: Routlege. Chen, Y. J., Sinelnikov, O. A., & Hastie, P. (2013). Professional development in physical education:  introducing the Sport Education model to teachers in Taiwan. Asia-​Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 4(1), 1–​17. Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Whitrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3 ed., pp. 392–​431). New York, NY: Macmillan. Dyson, B. & Casey, A. (2016). Cooperative learning in physical education and physical activity: a practical introduction. London: Routledge. Ennis, C. D. (1996). Students’ experiences in sport-​based physical education: (more than) apologies are necessary. Quest, 48(4), 453–​456. Enright, E. & O’Sullivan, M. (2012). Physical education ‘in all sorts of corners’ student activists transgressing formal physical education curricular boundaries. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(2), 255–​267. Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism:  theory, perspectives, and practice:  Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Toronto, ONT: Pearson. Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: how new pedagogies find deep learning. London, UK: Pearson. Griffin, P. (1984). Girls’ participation in middle school team sports unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 30–​38. Griffin, P. (1985). Boys’ participation styles in a middle school physical education team sports unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4(2), 100–​110. doi:10.1123/​jtpe.4.2.100. Haerens, L., Kirk, D., Cardon, G., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2011). Toward the development of a pedagogical model for health-​based physical education. Quest, 63(3), 321–​338. Hastie, P. A., Casey, A., & Tarter, A.-​M. (2010). A case study of wikis and student-​ designed games in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 79–​91. Hastie, P. A., de Ojeda, D. M., & Luquin, A. C. (2011). A review of research on Sport Education:  2004 to the present. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 16(2), 103–​132. doi:10.1080/​17408989.2010.535202. Hastie, P. A., MacPhail, A., Calderón, A., & Sinelnikov, O. A. (2015). Promoting professional learning through ongoing and interactive support: three cases within physical education. Professional Development in Education, 41(3), 452–​466. Hastie, P. A. & Sinelnikov, O. A. (2007). The use of web-​based portfolios in college physical education activity courses. Physical Educator, 64(1), 21–​28. Hastie, P. A., Sinelnikov, O. A., Brock, S. J., Sharpe, T. L., Eiler, K., & Mowling, C. (2007). Kounin revisited: tentative postulates for an expanded examination of classroom ecologies. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26(3), 298–​309.

104 Sinelnikov Hill, G. M., Tucker, M., & Hannon, J. (2010). An evaluation of secondary school physical education websites. The Physical Educator, 67, 114–​127. Jewett, A., Bain, L., & Ennis, C. (1995). The curriculum process in physical education. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark. Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London, UK: Routledge. Kirk, D. (2013). Educational value and models-​ based instruction. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45, 973–​986. Kirk, D. (2014). Physical education and curriculum study (Routledge Revivals): A critical introduction. London: Routledge. Kirschner, P. & Selinger, M. (2003). The state of affairs of teacher education with respect to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 5–​17. doi:10.1080/​14759390300200143. Lund, J. & Tannehill, D. (2010). Standards-​based physical education curriculum (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Metzler, M. W. (2005). Instructional models for physical education. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway. Metzler, M. W. (2011). Instructional models in physical education (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway. Mitchell, S. & Fisette, J. (2016). The essentials of teaching physical education: curricu­ lum, instruction, and assessment. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Mosston, M. & Ashworth, S. (1990). The spectrum of teaching styles: from command to discovery. New York: Longman. National Association of Sport and Physical Education. (2010). Key points of a quality physical education program.  NASPE. Palao, J. M., Hastie, P. A., Cruz, P. G., & Ortega, E. (2015). The impact of video technology on student performance in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 51–​63. doi:10.1080/​1475939X.2013.813404. Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Rovegno, I. & Dolly, J. (2006). Constructivist perspectives on learning. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 242–​261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schwamberger, B. & Sinelnikov, O. A. (2015). Connecting physical education to out-​ of-​ school physical activity through Sport Education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 86(9), 39–​44. Schwamberger, B., Sinelnikov, O. A., & Fowler, V. R. (2015). Effects of pro-​social instruction during a Sport Education unit. Paper presented at the Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport education: quality PE through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D. (2002). Content knowledge for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 368–​377. Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A., & Van der Mars, H. (2011). Complete guide to Sport Education (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Sinelnikov, O. A. (2009). Sport education for teachers:  professional development when introducing a novel curriculum model. European Physical Education Review, 15(1), 91–​114.

Technology in models-based practice  105 Sinelnikov, O. A. (2012). Using the iPad in a Sport Education season. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 83(1), 39–​45. Sinelnikov, O. A. & Hastie, P. A. (2008). Teaching Sport Education to Russian students:  an ecological analysis. European Physical Education Review, 14(2), 203–​222. doi:10.1177/​1356336X08090706. Sinelnikov, O. A. & Hastie, P. A. (2010). Students’ autobiographical memory of participation in multiple Sport Education seasons. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(2), 167–​183. Sinelnikov, O. A. & Hastie, P. (2017). The learning of pedagogical models in physical education: the socialization perspective. In K. A. Richards & K. Lux Gaudreault (eds.), Teacher socialization in physical education (pp. 130–​ 143). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Tannehill, D., van der Mars, H., & MacPhail, A. (2015). Building effective physical education programs. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Tinning, R. (2007). Aliens in the gym?: considering young people as learners in physical education. ACHPER Australia Healthy Lifestyles Journal(54), 13–​18. Tinning, R. (2010). Pedagogy and human movement:  theory, practice, research. London: Routledge. Wahl-​Alexander, Z., Sinelnikov, O. A., & Curtner-​Smith, M. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of students’ autobiographical memories of participation in multiple Sport Education seasons. European Physical Education Review, 23(1), 25–​40. doi:doi:10.1177/​1356336X15624246. Wallhead, T. & O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Sport education: physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 181–​210. Washburn, N., & Sinelnikov, O. A. (2016). Physical education websites and webpages in the State of Alabama: are we painting a positive self-​portrait? Physical Educator, 73(2), 193.

Chapter 7

Using social media in the Sport Education model Mauro André

Introduction The Sport Education model was first designed by Siedentop (1994) while seeking to provide a more enthusiastic and authentic sport experience during physical education classes. The model grew and has been implemented and advocated for in many different countries and cultures (USA, UK, Australia, Spain, Russia, Korea), in many grade levels (from primary and secondary schools to higher education) (Hastie, 2012) as well as with various physical activity content (team and individual games, athletics, dance and fitness) (Siedentop, Hastie, & Van der Mars, 2011). Like many other physical education models (e.g., Teaching Games for Understanding, Cooperative Learning, Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility) that have grown in a number of studies as well as in teaching practices, Sport Education has reached a maturity that may lead scholars and teachers to ask themselves: what else can we do? The premise for developing the Sport Education model related to the idea of enhancing pupils’ sport experience while providing a holistic experience. That is, learning about a particular sport needed to go beyond its practice, having a deeper understanding about its rules and refereeing, tactics and team relationships, championship organization, culture, etiquette and rituals, among others. All of these elements were able to be developed in different places and cultures due to its relevance in many different contexts. Hence, in order to strengthen the Sport Education model, i.e. seeking for a modification or adding a feature that would reinforce the holistic experience, it is important to seek a scenario in which all these elements could still be valued and possibly even enhanced. Casey (2017) has stated that pedagogical models (e.g. Sport Education) should not be seen as finished products, but practices that are being constantly reconceptualised in research and local practices. Considering that it has been more than twenty years since the model was created, one question comes to mind: is there anything in this time period that has modified how we experience sport? And the answer is yes!

Using social media in Sport Education model  107

Coincidentally, at the same time period in which Sport Education was first introduced, it was also the time in which the internet started to gain global proportions in number of users. Ten years after the model’s creation, Siedentop, Hastie, and Van der Mars (2004) also launched the first edition of the book Complete guide to Sport Education, a very important reference for the proliferation of the model. Coincidentally, 2004 was also the year in which Facebook was launched, and fourteen years later, we know today that Facebook and other social media platforms are able to connect billions of people worldwide, turning it into the biggest platform for information dissemination and social networking. And how does the internet and social media history link to the Sport Education model history? The internet and social media have been part of the digital revolution that has modified the way we interact socially around the world. As a result, sport experiences have also been modified with people seeking more and more information related to a specific sport while also engaging with others from various other places who share the same interests. Hence, the current digital revolution that has led the connectivity of people and information dissemination though social media may also improve the Sport Education model implementation as it may be able to enhance the authentic sport experience as well as engage pupils beyond class time. The present chapter is organised in seven parts: (i) a brief introduction to the Sport Education model; (ii) the use of social media in sports participation and experience; (iii) technology integration in physical education; (iv) the use of social media to enhance the six key features of Sport Education; (v) the use of social media to enhance pupils’ roles; (vi) the use of social media to enhance the three learning objectives of the Sport Education model; (vii) conclusions.

A brief introduction to the Sport Education model The present chapter does not have the intention to present the Sport Education model in depth. The Complete guide to Sport Education by Siedentop, Hastie, and Van der Mars (2011) is recommended as a major reading for those that wish to implement the model, but need further details for its implementation. However, the model is briefly introduced (presenting the principles identified from the reference above), as each of its main key elements and learning objectives is discussed while proposing the use of social media to improve the model’s implementation. Sport Education is an instructional model that seeks to provide an authentic sport experience through six key elements:  (1) formal competition, (2) season, (3) record keeping, (4) team affiliation, (5) festivity, (6) culminating event. Created on the basis of sport experience, it is expected that this model incorporates a formal competition, that is, specific rules

108 André

regulating the number of games with a specific calendar and team classification. The competition is prepared within a season format, having specific times for team practice activities as well as games that are broken down into pre-​season, season and post-​season. As part of the competition and season organization, players’ statistics are recorded to keep track of their progression as well as promote several performances. Students are also affiliated to a single team throughout the entire season, creating a sense of belonging and working together towards a common goal. Like all sport experiences, a festive culture is also promoted through the creation of mascots, flags, team colours, mottos, songs, among many other options. Finally, as part of the festivity, a culminating event brings closure to the season as a way to celebrate everyone’s accomplishments and to promote the ideals valued in sport practices (e.g. similar to the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games). Hence, what is being defined as an authentic sport experience is the idea that students are able to experience multiple areas of sport that are usually overlooked in many physical education classes (e.g. officiating, tournament organization, festivity) and that has significant educational benefits for appreciating sport in a more holistic way. The creation of such scenarios may be overwhelming for any teacher to accomplish if s/​he did not share the responsibilities with students. Hence, the model was created on the premises of a student-​centred pedagogy, i.e. students are empowered with many different roles as they experience not only the practice of the sport, but also the organization of the championship and the creation of a culture that connects the group together. Therefore, each student undertakes a role while s/​he is not playing. Different sports may require different roles, with a few common examples including: coach, referee, record keeper, team manager, journalist, warm-​up leader. Social media have been reported as a supportive tool to organize the different roles that students undertake, moreover, it gives students a chance to collaborate online beyond class time (André, 2013). Ultimately, all these experiences should lead to three main goals –​that all students involved, become more competent, literate and enthusiastic sportspersons. The competent sportsperson is someone who has sufficient skills as well as confidence to participate in sport activities by being able to understand the tactics and strategies involved in the sport and perform complex sports skills. The literate sportsperson understands the values and traditions involved within the specific sport. They are able to identify good and bad practices and promote sport practice as an educational, safe and positive experience to all involved. The enthusiastic sportsperson participates and preservers the sport culture by engaging in sport activities as well as helping others that wish to engage with this activity; helping younger generations and promoting sport practices within their community. The Sport Education goals are very ambitious and not always achieved by all participants. However, while seeking opportunities to enhance these

Using social media in Sport Education model  109

experiences and promote a network of people that share the same beliefs and values to develop these outcomes, the use of social media may become an important ally to the model as it enables participants to cooperate and become a community of learners (Luguetti, Goodyear, & André, 2017). That said, the use of technology integration in physical education must comply with a series of knowledge and skills in order to promote a better learning experience.

The use of social media in sports participation and experience The development of the internet can be broken down in several stages. In the early 2000s, a new stage started to gain a lot of attention, the so called ‘Web 2.0’ changed the paradigm of the internet. Before, websites were solely created and modified by one person, group or organisation (the administrators) owing the control of the content. In the Web 2.0, many websites were created in a way that enabled users to edit its content. This new approach created a great information dissemination (as internet users shared their knowledge) and social networking (as internet users started to interact more). We may call Web 2.0 the birth of social media and a revolution within the digital revolution. Examples of social media websites include: (academic), Flickr and Instagram (photos), LinkedIn (Professional networking), Yelp (business reviews), Edmodo (education), Facebook and Twitter (General social network), wikis (websites created by a group of people that share the same interest). Facebook is the biggest example of all with over 1.18 billion daily active users worldwide (Facebook, 2016). It has become one of the largest information dissemination tool in history while being able to reach so many people from around the world in a single platform of communication (Del Fresno García, Daly, & Sánchez-​Cabezudo, 2016). The list of social media websites illustrates the use of social media in various interest areas. Although there has not been an exclusive website worldwide that is known for dedicating its attention to sports, the general social media websites have been receiving much attention from several sports organizations. To provide an illustration of this growing interest, the following examples focus on the number of people engaged in Facebook pages that are dedicated to specific sports or events. First, interest in the Olympic Games has grown recently on social media. For instance, in the 2012 London Olympic Games, over 1.1 million people liked the Facebook page. In comparison, in the 2016 Rio Olympic Games four years later, over 14.6 million people liked the Facebook page. This exponential growth may illustrate the significant gain of interest of following sports though social media. It is important to note that although these pages show increasing engagement from sports fans all over the world, the events only last for

110 André

less than a month. Hence, over a longer period of time, we may expect higher engagements. For example, the UEFA champions league has nearly 60  million likes, the NBA (American basketball) has over 31.5  million likes, the NFL (American football) has nearly 15 million likes and the 2018 Russia World Cup (a football event that is still in its eliminatory stages) has over 40 million likes. In these Facebook pages, millions of people are able to share their interest for sport, seeking, as well as providing more information. Between page administrators and fans, many pictures, videos and discussions are promoted daily. Hence, given the wide use of social media while dealing with sport content, and the ideal of promoting an authentic sport experience, i.e. experiences that take place in professional sport practices, it is plausible to embed the use of social media in the Sport Education model. Nevertheless, social media should neither be seen as a simple extension of the sport experience nor as a positive experience in its essence. In order to be included in the model’s implementation, it is important to identify the benefits of its usefulness. Therefore, the use of social media, like any other technology integration in physical education should have a clear educational benefit that justifies its purpose.

Technology integration in physical education A physical education teacher that wishes to use social media while teaching a Sport Education unit, must answer the question:  ‘How will I  make my students’ learning experience more pleasurable and/​or productive?’ Seeking to answer this question, Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is presented as a theoretical framework to consider the skills and knowledge required for successful implementation. TPACK was first introduced in the educational field and reinforced the need for three forms of knowledge to be able to successfully integrate technology into teaching. These include technological, pedagogical and content knowledge. TPACK reinforces the idea that having the technological knowledge alone (e.g. knowledge of using Facebook) is insufficient to promote a technology integration that promotes greater learning and better experience. Therefore, in order to provide the reader with the information on how to design a Sport Education unit with the use of social media, one must have a holistic understanding of technology integration. Figure 1.1 (Chapter 1) presents all forms of knowledge and their intersections required by the TPACK theoretical framework. Therefore, following the TPACK theoretical framework, seven categories of knowledge can be identified. In order to identify on how a teacher must be prepared to conduct a Sport Education unit using social medias, each of the seven categories of knowledge is presented in Table 7.1.

Using social media in Sport Education model  111 Table 7.1 The seven corresponding TPACK categories of knowledge in a Sport Education model unit using social media as a technology integration tool. #

TPACK Knowledge categorization

Knowledge identified for implementing a Sport Education unit with social media



Technology Knowledge (TK) Content Knowledge (CK) Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Social medias: How to use Facebook & wikis Chosen sport to implement the unit (e.g. Football, Tennis) Sport Education model

Chatfield, T. (2009); Johnson, S. (2012) Schmottlach, N. & McManama, J. (2013)1 Siedentop, Hastie, & Van der Mars (2011) Hastie (2012); Hastie, Ojeda, & Luquin (2011)2

2 3 4

5 6 7

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)

Intersection between chosen sport and the implementation of the Sport Education model Intersection between social medias and chosen sport

Wallace, Wilson, & Miloch (2011)3

Intersection between social The present chapter medias and the Sport Education model Intersection of all knowledge categories

Although all categories of knowledge are considered crucial for the successful implementation of the Sport Education model with the use of social media, the present chapter focuses exclusively on topic 6:  The Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), i.e. how to provide a link between the Sport Education model and social media. If a teacher feels that further information is needed on the remaining categories of knowledge, it is highly recommended that they seek more information. Table 7.1 provides important references to deepen the understanding of all categories of knowledge involved. Nevertheless, the choice of focusing on this particular topic relates to the idea that this is a crucial integration that has not been addressed in other sources. The remainder of this chapter presents important links that can be made between the Sport Education model and two social media platforms: wikis and Facebook. The knowledge that is presented in the following topics was constructed from years of the model’s implementation with the use of social media. As an instructor and scholar, the author always sought to consider both points of view, that is, the practical considerations as well as a critical analysis on the model’s implementation. The ideas that are presented in this

112 André

chapter have been studied with academic rigour in previous studies that have been conducted in the past (André, 2013; André, 2014; Luguetti et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the practitioner’s perspective is the main focus of the chapter while presenting examples of past experiences to illustrate the use of social media to enhance the Sport Education model’s key features, students’ roles and learning goals.

The use of social media to enhance the six key features of Sport Education The key objective of learning about technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) in this scenario relates to answering the question:  how will social media (SM) change the delivery of Sport Education. Prior to discussing how each of the model’s six features is approached with the use of SM, it is important to acknowledge that the use of SM may have an overall impact on the entire teaching approach as physical education (PE) homework is included in this process. Students are not usually used to having PE homework, hence it may be considered an issue by many students. Mitchell, Stanne and Barton (2000) reported that despite teachers’ positive response of using homework in PE, there is an inconsistency on how many teachers assign homework. This contradiction may be explained by parents’ resistance to PE homework. Tannehill, Romar and O’Sullivan (1994) reported in a study that over 70% of parents were against PE homework. Therefore, the teacher needed to justify his teaching methods as well as strategies to engage in an activity that is not considerate a PE culture. Given that the use of SM is being proposed as an activity that is accomplished outside of class, establishing this culture is crucial for the success of this approach. Promoting assignments outside the regular class time may be beneficial for the delivery of class for three reasons: (1) it allows students to engage with PE content beyond class time; (2)  it encourages students to engage with non-​activity PE content outside of class, allowing more play-​time during PE classes; and (3) the teacher is able to accomplish more in fewer lessons, as students will have been engaged with the subject matter, hence, the teacher will not need to pick up from where they left as students will have access to information that may lead them to be more organised by the time classes start (André & Hastie, 2016). As mentioned previously, there are many SM websites available that can be used with Sport Education. From my previous experiences, I have chosen to use wikis (more specifically Wikispaces) and Facebook. The choice for using these platforms is related to four main reasons:  safety, students’ familiarity/​user-​friendliness, the ability to use the websites to enhance the model’s key features and goals, and both Wikispaces and Facebook are free of charge.

Using social media in Sport Education model  113

Both platforms were considered safe as the virtual hub that was created enabled the administrator to control the members affiliated to the page, delimitating who would be able to view and edit these websites. Moreover, the teacher would also have access to the history of everything that was being included and excluded from the pages. Hence if any inappropriate content was produced, the teacher would know who and when it was introduced. In Wikispaces, the teacher would choose to create the so-​called ‘private page’ and in Facebook, the restricted access would be enabled by the creation of a ‘secret group’, i.e. a Facebook page that cannot be found (removed from the search engine) or viewed by non-​members. Both platforms were also considered user-​friendly as little or no instruction was required to enable students to use it. A major reason for choosing Facebook was students’ familiarity, in all my experiences as an instructor, over 90 per cent of students (K-​12 and higher education students) already had a Facebook account. This was considered very advantageous as students knew how to use the platform features and they would also login to Facebook regularly (for leisure purposes), and therefore they would visit the tournament website whenever a notification was shown. The tournament website (created with wikis) was similar to a professional sport website (e.g. UEFA champions league, NBA). In the tournament website all six features of the Sport Education model were highlighted (competition, season, team affiliation, festivity, record keeping and culminating event) as all the championship organization (e.g. stands and results, team and players records) as well as each team’s webpage (e.g. pictures, flags, players biographies) were included. Wikis were not as popular (i.e. students needed to create an account on most occasions), however, editing the pages was similar to other software with which students were familiar (e.g. Google docs). Wikis and Facebook were used to enhance the six Sport Education model features in different ways and each site can be seen as complementary to one another, that is, both sites can be used in the same Sport Education unit. In summary, wikis are used as the tournament website, similarly to a professional tournament website where the tournament rules, schedule and team websites can be found. Hence, wikis can be seen as a space where each group of students with a particular role work together to produce a specific job that is needed for the unit and that must be disseminated to all participants. For example, referees work together to determine the tournament rules and post them in the tournament website (the wiki) so every player can easily access this information. On the other hand, Facebook can be seen as promoting the tournament with news and events. Hence, Facebook is used as a space that students do not need to accomplish a specific task, but it is used to share information that is produced in the tournament site (wiki), promote discussions, videos that may relate to the content that they are experiencing in the unit, or just a communication tool among team-​members and tournament members.

114 André

In the following paragraphs, the potential usefulness of wikis and Facebook in each of the model’s six features is described with examples that may illustrate the promotion of a Sport Education unit experience that may promote new features that may enhance students’ learning. The Competition and Season may be seen as the start of everything in the Sport Education unit, hence, the promotion of these two elements within the use of SM may be very beneficial for students experience and learning. The tournament website (wiki) must be seen as the heart of everything that it is produced by students. For instance, team managers should work together to determine the tournament calendar. The tournament calendar must determine all pre-​season, season and post-​season games as well as determining which teams are responsible for officiating each game (which may include referees, score keepers, ball retrievers, journalists, among others). In addition, as the season progress, team managers are also responsible for posting the results and updating the standings. Therefore, posting the tournament calendar as well as the updates of the results allow students to follow and review what has been done in the unit. The use of the wiki provides more organisation to the tournament as well as a sense of professionalism and the promotion of students’ work. Along with the wiki’s updates, Facebook can be used to disseminate the tournament updates and engage students with the subject matter. Thus, the team managers work together to organise the tournament, publish on the wiki and promote its updates on Facebook. Following these procedures, other students may take a quick look of the wiki’s updates and engage in discussions and related content in Facebook (e.g. students may post videos or news found in other websites that relate to current events that happened in the unit). Team affiliation is probably the most important feature of Sport Education. Grouping students into a single team for a long period of time has led to powerful outcomes in many Sport Education studies (Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005; Hastie, Ojeda, & Luquin, 2011). While using the wiki, the promotion of team affiliation would be developed within the creation of the team website. The team website includes individual and team pictures as well as the team’s history and players’ biographies, which is constantly a result of students’ imagination (e.g. students often created make-​believe stories on how they became national idols of the sport that is being played in the Sport Education unit). Within the team’s website much of the Festivity is also promoted while creating a website with a specific theme, the usefulness of the team’s colours, flag, mascot and team motto. While giving the students the opportunity to create something together, it promotes an identity and a sense of belonging for sharing the experience of creating a story together. Once again, the wiki is the result of a collaborative work that results in the production of the team website that represents the unity of a team and the promotion of festivity. For instance, students often chose to represent a country that none of them had any affiliation, however, together

Using social media in Sport Education model  115

they researched about the country and sought for cultural particularities that they could all relate and expose in the team website (e.g. songs, team pictures that were ‘photoshopped’ to promote their team and culture). It is also important to note that the festivity produced in team websites may have benefits that were not promoted in the traditional form (throughout the production of crafted posters): it is usually cheaper (if students have access to a computer) as no crafts are needed to produce the poster, it produces better looking outcomes as no sophisticated artistic skills are required to produce the websites and it provides the opportunity for students to engage in the production of website content while dealing with a meaningful content (hence allowing a cross-​curricular activity with technology education). On the other hand, it is important to recognize that although SM may promote a bigger engagement outside of class, moving away from traditional posters may also prevent other school students from seeing what has been done in other classes. Facebook once again is used to keep students engaged in the online activities as well as promoting updates. For instance, the team website (wiki) has simple updates after the beginning of the tournament (including the history of game results and players’ statistics); however, Facebook may promote team affiliation and festivity with new pictures, videos with post-​game interviews and posts with web content related to the team (e.g. information or news of a country in which the team has chosen to represent in the unit). Moreover, Facebook also has many communication tools that may promote students’ interactions, such as individual chats, video conference calls, private group chats and posts that can be seen by all students. This form of use of SM became clear in the Luguetti et al. (2017) study as students chose to use Facebook’s multiple forms of communication to interact for different purposes. For instance, group chats were created to discuss the strategies for the upcoming games; teammates also shared YouTube videos to show how a specific tactic should work; and players also recorded interviews among themselves and posted on Facebook so everyone could see it. The relationship that is promoted beyond play-​time is what Huizinga (2014) called the community of play. That is, the sense of belonging to a group produced by participating in a ludic activity (game). The idea of a community of play is what created the European sports clubs, which led to the formation of a sense of belonging by playing the same game and supporting the same team. The use of SM may promote this affiliation beyond play-​time on a smaller scale (while comparing to the European sports clubs), but in a much faster time frame. Record keeping is the process in which players’ statistical performances are recorded throughout the unit. Within the use of wikis, all players’ performances can be posted on the team’s website page (wiki). Thus, each player as well as all members are able to visualise their performance, identifying major progressions and accomplishments as well as areas to improve.

116 André

Moreover, different forms of players’ performance may be recorded and shared online. For instance, rather than just numbers, videos may share specific performances as a visual feedback and register of performance. The accessibility of all players’ performance information has shown to be useful in previous studies as coaches sought to identify what the opponent’s weaknesses were and develop strategies that would give their team an edge in their tactics (Luguetti et al., 2017). The practice can be seen as a simplification of what it is done in a professional level, hence, the authentic sport experience in which the model seeks to promote may take a step closer towards the professional level while disseminating team statistics to all students involved in the unit. While the team website (wiki) promotes a more global and complete information of each team’s statistics, Facebook focuses on the highlights that are likely to promote discussions or celebrations. For instance, if a player from a basketball unit scores a double-​double (double digits in points and assists), score keepers could post on Facebook celebrating their performance and other players would be able to engage in a conversation about their accomplishment. Finally, the culminating event can be seen as an event that is able to promote all other features. As a result, SM can be used to promote the event and seek to stimulate all other features even more. For instance, an award ceremony is often performed as part of the culminating event. While using statistics recorded throughout the unit (e.g. players with most number of points) as well as students’ votes (e.g. best referee), the team managers may create a page (wiki) with all award nominees, identifying the top players and roles for each category. At this time, Facebook can become a powerful tool for each team to celebrate their nominees, reinforcing competition (in a positive manner as it celebrates not only best players but best roles such as ‘best journalist’) and it promotes team affiliation as team members cheer for teammates that were appointed. It is important to note that this example focuses on the extension of the culminating event while creating a positive expectation before the actual event. Nevertheless, the day of the culminating event could also be enhanced within the use of social media and other web tools. In previous experiences, the final of the tournament has been recorded and uploaded on YouTube (as a private video that only members could watch) so students could see themselves performing. Once again, SM was used to promote the videos as well as create a space where students could engage in conversations. Although, sharing information in SM must be done with as much care as possible to promote students’ safety, it is still important to call attention that issues such as bullying or cyberbullying may occur among peers. Therefore, teachers must be attentive to all actions done in class and online to observe and prevent inappropriate behaviours. In conclusion, the two SM platforms were used in complementary ways. The wikis were used to show students’ work production where all other

Using social media in Sport Education model  117

students would be able to access the information, creating a more organised championship. Facebook would promote students’ engagement with more freedom, that is, students would engage in Facebook activities as they wished; nevertheless, students’ engagement in Facebook was often more frequent as they seemed to enjoy more.

The use of social media to enhance pupils’ roles As previously mentioned, the use of SM in the Sport Education model as it is being proposed in this chapter requires the teacher to provide homework assignments for students. In addition, it is important to call attention to the fact that some of these assignments are accomplished throughout students’ collaborations. The ability of successfully working together can be a challenge for some students and in this case, the teacher must provide the proper support to offer a positive working experience and learning. Moreover, given that this collaboration may happen online (as students may choose to meet face-​to-​face or just work separately from their own homes), it is important that the teacher provides guidelines to lead students’ actions and expectations while working together. Hasler-​ Waters and Napier (2002) have identified five principles to help online collaborative groups work together successfully:  (1) getting acquainted with group members; (2)  trust among teammates; (3)  getting support from the facilitator; (4)  establishing the form of communication; and (5) getting organised (determining due dates and roles for each group member). The first two principles remind us of the importance of establishing social relationships before any take home activity is given to students. In my experiences, I started the Sport Education unit with two to three weeks of group practice (prior to the formation of teams that would remain for the entire season) as an introduction of the sport and an opportunity to ensure that students get to know one another while dealing with this content. The group practice can be conducted in different ways, I frequently used Teaching Games for Understanding principles (TGfU) (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986), but many other approaches may be chosen. The use of TGfU approach may support students’ interactions as they are constantly engaged in game-​play followed by group discussions, hence promoting their social engagement. Once students know their teammates, it is important that the instructor supports all students in performing all take home activities. The teacher must be aware if students know how to use the online platforms that were chosen. Hence, the teacher must be available for technical questions whenever needed, i.e. the teacher should be able to provide explanations by sending e-​mails or even more effectively, by posting instructional videos of how to use the online tools (these videos are often found online

118 André

in YouTube so it does not require extensive amount of work for the teacher). The teacher must support students in choosing how they will communicate to one another when using the SM platforms or other forms of communication (exchanging e-​mails or telephone numbers), it is important that all group members make a decision together, so everyone is aware on how they communicate to accomplish their tasks. This is a key principle that may determine the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful group collaboration. Finally, the teacher must also support students to organise how they will work together and several pathways can be chosen: all group members working together in all assignments; appointing each member a given task; break the group into pairs or trios to conduct assignments. It is important to draw attention to the fact that the teacher must work as a facilitator to help students organise themselves, but also empower them to make their own decisions as this approach helps them to be held accountable as well as increase their engagement. It is also important to consider that while using SM, students may be working in multiple groups:  students from the same team, students that share the same role, all students involved in the unit. In order to provide an illustration of each scenario, examples from past experiences (André, 2013, 2014; Luguetti et al., 2017) are provided. There are some student’s roles that may request a leading responsibility. Students engaged in each team are assigned different roles. In this example, there were four roles: team manager, coach, two score keepers and referee. Two of these roles required some leadership. The team manager had to ensure that everyone else in the team was up to date on their duties, for instance, the manager was responsible for the conclusion of the team website, which included posting pictures, team scores and statistics, the inclusion of biographies (each student needed to write their own) and unpredicted updates that would require an announcement for the other members. All actions performed by the manager required a form of communication with their team members and all outcomes were visible to everyone in class. The coach was also a leading role; however, the communication required some privacy as they would share the team’s tactics with teammates. Both the manager and the coach would be able to choose how they would communicate with other teammates (face-​to-​face, e-​mails, announcements through wikis/​Facebook), but making sure that all team members would know how they would communicate would be fundamental to their success. Students with the same role would also need to communicate to one another, however in this scenario, students would be required to collaborate online. For instance, score keepers (two from each team) had to work together to define the statistics in which they would be collecting prior to the beginning of the season. Although some time was given for students to

Using social media in Sport Education model  119

debate a few ideas, they would need to communicate beyond classroom time on making these decisions. Moreover, once the season started, they needed to exchange statistics that were reported in class, so each score keeper could report their team statistics in their own home page. Students often felt the need to communicate online to the entire group to make announcements in order to deal with organisational issues and unpredictable challenges in order to anticipate a solution prior to the beginning of the class. For instance, if a student knew that he would be absent, he would communicate with his team and the entire group in order to make an attempt to make modifications to the season calendar and avoid any impairment on their team performance. Wikis have been shown to be effective in contributing in students’ collaboration while producing an outcome together (e.g. team website) (Beldarrain, 2006). However, for communication purposes, students would often use Facebook as students would have access to the information daily. Nevertheless, these experiences should not be set as rules to follow. On the contrary, different groups have chosen to communicate and collaborate in different ways. Hence, if one or more students did not have a Facebook account, students were encouraged to think of other ways to communicate among themselves, i.e. these situations must be seen as a problem to be solved as a group similar to many other problems that may arise. From my previous experiences, SM has been shown to be an effective tool to support students, but the level of online collaboration was highly affected by the five principles mentioned by Hasler-​Waters and Napier (2002).

The use of social media to enhance the three learning objectives of the Sport Education model The implementation of SM in a Sport Education unit may support the enhancement of the model’s six features and may also support students in the fulfilling of their roles, but most importantly, it should also support the model in achieving its three learning objectives, that is, promoting competent, literate and enthusiastic sportspersons. As previously mentioned, Sport Education objectives were set as very high goals to achieve; SM is presented as a supporting tool that may support the learning outcomes in some aspects of all three goals. The competent sportsperson should develop sufficient skills and be able to appreciate the tactics of the sport in which they engage. Although it is unlikely that SM may provide an experience that will aid students to become more competent in specific motor skills (although visual aids could be shared in SM), within the use of web search, coaches have found much information about strategies and tactics that could support their tactical awareness development. The use of SM has been shown to be a powerful

120 André

tool to disseminate this information with other students. As a result, SM may be used to engage students with more advanced tactical ideas and provide the necessary time to discuss these strategies, deepening their game understanding and enhancing their critical thinking. For instance, in a Sport Education Futsal unit, one coach has stated that she used YouTube videos with their team members to illustrate different defensive roles (Luguetti et al., 2017). The literate sportsperson should appreciate the values and traditions involved within the specific sport. SM is presented as a powerful tool for the same reason that it has been growing exponentially since its introduction: information dissemination. Web searchers once again allow students to gain more information in a more illustrative way, that is, they are no longer receiving knowledge that has the teacher as a single source. In this scenario, students are encouraged to learn more about the game, where it is played, its history and culture. The teacher, as a facilitator, must filter and ensure that what is being found is representative of the reality. Within the use of SM, students may share what they have found with their peers and as a result, the learning becomes more cooperative as everyone has access to the final outcomes. Moreover, as previously mentioned, SM itself may also be seen as part of the sport culture, as people with similar interests are able to engage with conversations about sport through SM. The enthusiastic sportsperson should participate, preserve the sport culture and help others that wish to engage in this activity. The use of SM has shown to support students in getting closer together. Sport Education is known for having a very positive effect on relationships due to the team affiliation (MacPhail, Kirk, & Kinchin, 2004), and SM may take this positive outcome even further as students constantly interact beyond class time and reinforcing the relationships among non-​teammates as well, once SM have been used to engage students in all levels (between team-​members, between students with same roles and all students together). Moreover, SM has been shown to have a positive effect on supporting students that were not high-​ skilled. SM was often used by students to celebrate accomplishments done by lower-​skilled students, acting as an important source of support to encourage their engagement beyond the Sport Education unit. For instance, students used Facebook to praise lower-​skill students on their accomplishments (e.g. lower-​skilled student scoring a goal on football/​soccer). It is important to note that all of these benefits may only occur if students are engaged with SM. Sport Education have shown to be an effective model to enhance students’ motivation and engagement; however, ensuring that students can be hold accountable in completing tasks within online collaborations should not be seen as an easy task as it requires planning and teacher support throughout the entire season. SM can be a very powerful tool to increase students learning outcomes, but positive results are unlikely to result without higher commitment and engagement.

Using social media in Sport Education model  121

Conclusions The use of SM in a Sport Education unit can be an exciting and rewarding learning experience as it adds to the model’s contemporary conceptualisation of providing an authentic sport experience. As discussed above, there are several potential benefits in all major components of the model, linking to the six main features, students’ roles and the three learning goals. Nevertheless, the implementation of SM in the Sport Education model does not come without its challenges. First, it has been identified that students’ engagement outside of class is decisive in this approach and overcoming the idea of PE homework has shown to be troubling at times, hence, choosing students that could be held accountable is key. Second, it has also been stated that the present chapter only covers the Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) necessary to successfully implement this approach. Hence if more information is needed in other areas, it is highly recommended that teachers would seek for this information, and at first, implement the model within content areas in which they feel comfortable, such as delivering sports in which they are more familiar (Content Knowledge  –​CK) and using technology in which they use on daily basis (Technological Knowledge –​TK). However, TK may be even more challenging than predicted, as teachers may need to use others tools that they have not anticipated initially. For instance, in order to give good explanations and tutorials online, we found that it might be helpful to do some step-​by-​step video screen recording to explain how to use a technology or how to complete an assignment. Hence, teachers may need to learn other technologies beyond the use of SM. Third, the teacher should also understand that SM will create a new learning environment in which they should be held responsible. In other words, what happens in SM for educational purposes should be seen as the teacher’s responsibility. Although this may be seen as daunting at first glance, it may actually be easier than in actual classes, as everything that is written online leaves a trace, that is, it has a history that can be accessed. Hence it becomes easier to deal with misbehaviours as any cyberbullying will be registered online. The teacher should be aware of what he can and what he cannot follow and constantly check with students if their online interactions are being positive. Moreover, it should be expected that the teacher need to spend some time following students’ online work, and as a result, a higher workload should be expected. SM has the potential of bringing the best of Sport Education as it is based on similar principles as a student-​centred model, and thus, the best outcomes are often a result of a collaborative work. While providing an engaging and exciting online environment that enable students to explore their interest for physical education and sport beyond classroom time, SM may also be a current and interesting way to approach the Sport Education model.

122 André

Discussion questions 1. How can one plan to create a positive learning environment while using social media with students? What should be considered and discussed with students? 2. How can social media and Sport Education support the teacher and students to learn about new sports that goes beyond the local culture? 3. How can social media strength or weaken the relationship of students in a Sport Education teaching unit?

Further reading Luguetti, C., Goodyear, V., & André, M.  (2017). ‘That is like a 24 hours-​day tournament!’: using social media to further an authentic sport experience within Sport Education. Sport, Education and Society. DOI: 10.1080/​13573322.2017.1292235. Hastie, P., Casey, A., & Tarter, A. (2010). A case study of wikis and student-​ designed games in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 79–​91. Calderón, A., López-​Chicheri, I., Fernández-​Río, J., & Sinelnikov, O. (2017). Antonio: “I really want them to be engaged and learn” The use of social media in higher education. In Digital technologies and learning in physical education: Pedagogical cases. Edited by A. Casey, V.A. Goodyear, and K. Armour, 86–​103. London: Routledge.

Notes 1 This reference may not be appropriate according to the chosen sport. This reference provides an overview of various sports and activities that may be incorporated in a Sport Education model unit. 2 Book and article with multiple examples of Sport Education model implementations in various sports. 3 Academic article that analyses the use of Facebook on professional sport promotion. Although the article provides a professional sport organization perception it may be insightful while seeking to promote an authentic sport experience in social media interactions.

References André, M. H. (2013). Futsal in higher education: a novel Sport Education experience. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83, Supplement 1. André, M. H. (2014). Comparing Multiple Pedagogies to Teach Futsal in Higher Education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84, Supplement 1.

Using social media in Sport Education model  123 André, M. & Hastie, P. (2016). Comparing teaching approaches in two student-​ designed games units. European Physical Education Review, 1–​15. http://​​ 10.1177/​1356336X16681955. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends:  Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–​153. Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1986). The curriculum model. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (ed.), Rethinking Games Teaching (pp. 7–​10). Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough. Casey, A. (2017). Models-​Based Practice. In Ennis, C.D. (2017). Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies. Abingdon: Routledge. Chatfield, T. (2009). The complete guide to wikis: how to set up, use, and benefit from wikis for teachers, business professionals, families, and friends. Atlantic Publishing Group Inc. Del Fresno García, M., Daly, A. J., & Segado Sánchez-​ Cabezudo, S. (2016). Identifying the new influences in the internet era: social media and social network analysis. Revista Española De Investigaciones Sociologicas 153, 23–​40. Facebook (2016). Stats. Retrieved from http://​​company-​info/​. Hasler-​Waters, L. & Napier, W. (2002). Building and supporting student team collaboration in the virtual classroom. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 3(3), 345–​352. Hastie, P. (ed.). (2011). Sport education: international perspectives. London: Routledge. Hastie, P. A., de Ojeda, D. M., & Luquin, A. C. (2011). A review of research on Sport Education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(2), 103–​132. Huizinga, J. (2014). Homo ludens. Abingdon: Routledge. Johnson, S. (2012) Facebook for beginners:  navigating the social network. RAM Internet Media. Luguetti, C., Goodyear, V., & André, M. (2017). ‘That is like a 24 hours-​day tournament!’:  using social media to further an authentic sport experience within Sport Education. Sport, Education and Society. DOI: 10.1080/​13573322.2017. 1292235 Macphail, A., Kirk, D., & Kinchin, G. (2004). Sport Education:  promoting team affiliation through physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23(2), 106–​122. Mitchell, M., Stanne, K., & Barton, G. (2000). Attitudes and behaviors of physical educators regarding homework. Physical Educator, 57(3), 136. Schmottlach, N. & McManama, J. (2013). Physical education activity handbook (13th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings. Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport Education: quality physical education through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D., Hastie, P., & Van der Mars, H. (2004). Complete guide to Sport Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D., Hastie, P., & Van der Mars, H. (2011). Complete guide to Sport Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Tannehill, D., Romar J., & O’Sullivan M (1994) Attitudes toward physical education: their impact on how physical education teachers make sense of their work. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 406–​420.

124 André Wallace, L., Wilson, J., & Miloch, K. (2011). Sporting Facebook: a content analysis of NCAA organizational sport pages and Big 12 conference athletic department pages. International Journal of Sport Communication, 4(4), 422–​444. Wallhead, T. & O’Sullivan, M. (2005) Sport Education: physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(2), 181–​210.

Chapter 8

Video gaming design Insights for Teaching Games for Understanding and Sport Education Tim Hopper, Kathy Sanford and Hong Fu

Introduction In this chapter we consider how videogame design can inform the teaching plan of combining the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model with the Sport Education model (SEM) to create socially supportive games lessons framed around optimum challenges. As Gee (2007) noted, Videogame designers face and largely solve an intriguing educational dilemma, one also faced by schools and workplaces: how to get people, often young people, to learn and master something that is long and challenging –​and enjoy it, to boot. (p. 1) Videogames have become, for many children and young adults, a core experience of leisure time, with video gaming outperforming broadcast TV in the entertainment market.1 Such success speaks to the ability of videogames, through their design and enticing engagement, to create game playing experiences that users want to repeat. In addition, a  summary of prior research findings by Hayes and Silberman (2007) indicates that videogames can be used to enhance spatial abilities, fine motor skills, knowledge structures and transfer, visual selective attention and problem-​solving skills. Despite popular media criticism of videogames being addictive and contributing to physical inactivity amongst children and youth, especially in situations without parental support or opportunities to be engaged in other “healthy” activities, a broader view suggests that videogame design has discovered how humans prefer to learn (Sanford & Hopper, 2009). As noted by well-​known fitness for life scholars Corbin and Le Masurier (2014), “optimal challenge is one reason that videogames are so popular. They challenge you by making the task more difficult as you improve, and this optimum challenge makes you want to play again and again” (p.  54). In addition, Gee (2007) notes that players in videogames commit considerable time learning complex skills and are willing to “put in this time and face this challenge” (p.  5).

126 Hopper et al.

In this chapter we explore how we can enhance our ability to teach games in physical education (PE) using TGfU and SEM by drawing on the success of videogame design in creating progressively challenging and meaningful tasks within a common game focus. Bunker and Thorpe framed the rationale for TGfU approach based on the critique that games lessons in PE too often followed the pattern of skill practice and then game play. As Bunker and Thorpe (1986) noted below: In games lessons we too often have a technique section which is seen as essential by the teacher but not by the pupils, and a game which is inappropriate to the ability of many of the children … Of course, there are teachers who have realized that for many children the techniques are of little value and have let the children get on with the game only to realize that they seem to enjoy themselves more with less interference from the teacher. If this is so, what then does the teacher teach? (p. 11) They advocated designing carefully modified games to teach tactical awareness through guided questioning before skill development (Thorpe & Bunker, 1989). Even though this approach has gained widespread acknowledgement in PE and has been a catalyst for other approaches (Harvey & Jarrett, 2013; Oslin & Mitchell, 2006), PE teachers still struggle to teach games in PE in an educationally justifiable manner (Casey & Dyson, 2010; Harvey, Cushion, & Sammon, 2014). Siedentop’s Sport Education curriculum model (SEM) advocated organizing students in teams to self-​organize around a modified sport, taught for a whole term in affiliated teams for a festival-​like culminating event. As Siedentop (2002) stated, Sport Education also differs in important ways from how sport is typically organized in children’s and youth sport outside of school. In Sport Education, all students are involved equally. They all have roles to play that ensure a productive class session. They all get the same opportunity to participate and learn position play. Their performances all contribute to team success. The sports are modified to be appropriate for the skill levels and tactical competence of the students. Small-​sided games are preferred because they increase opportunities to respond. While playing hard and fairly to win is stressed, the dominating ethic is to take part fairly and to improve individual and team performance. (p. 410) Though this approach has led to the promotion of personal and social development in the form of student responsibility, cooperation and trust skills (Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005), it has been problematic to show consistent

Video gaming design  127

improvement in skill development across all abilities levels (Araújo, Mesquita, & Hastie, 2014). To frame our analysis we draw on an ecological perspective to learning as a broad range of approaches such as ecological psychology, complexity theory, dynamic systems theory and situated cognition. These approaches focus on environmental affordances (i.e. action that the environment offers to individuals) that enable the effectual behaviour of a learner, as observed and described within the adult version of the game, to emerge (Araújo, 2009; Barab & Plucker, 2002; Davis, Sumara, & Luce-​Kapler, 2008). In our analysis we explore how key concepts underpinning the design of videogames can connect to the teaching of games using TGfU and SEM approaches and to emerging interests in PE to ecological approaches to learning associated with constraints-​ led teaching and nonlinear learning (Araújo, 2009; Renshaw, Chow, Davids, & Hammond, 2010). In particular, we draw on four concepts commonly used in videogame design: (1) gameplay, (2) playability, (3) “game mechanics in situ,” and (4) imagination through gameplay identity (Fabricatore, 2007; Gee, 2007; Squire, 2005). We believe that recognizing the benefits of these concepts will help teachers realize the potentials advocated by the combination of TGfU and SEM approaches.

Videogame design CONCEPTS of gameplay, playability, game mechanics and player identity In videogames the concept of gameplay is considered a gestalt of interacting parts where the player, task and environment of a game become a complex learning system that forms around players with shared gameplay experiences (Fabricatore, 2007). Here a gestalt may be understood as a configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that it could not be described merely as a sum of its parts. As such, players in a game observe and act in the game world, develop perception-​action couplings (Renshaw et al., 2010), and engage in a self-​organizing process in relation to what is observed and experienced as they engage with the constraints and intents of the game. For example, in videogames when a player first enters the game they are given simple tasks to perform in relation to limited challenges that normally involve learning how to manipulate the game controls to achieve a particular outcome in the game; in this way a prompt in the game elicits a response from the player. Furthermore, Hopper and Sanford (2010), in exploring the idea of game-​as-​teacher, refer to gameplay in PE as the inherent complexity in playing a game, where the outcome is indeterminate and dependent on how the players engage in the game. Interactions in the game that are designed to initiate gameplay refer to an action space. Such a space is developed by the player’s actions in sub-​games within the gameplay space that are designed by the teacher or computer programmer. These sub-​game spaces are designed to engage the player with the constraints of the game

128 Hopper et al.

(rules, structure, equipment, other players actions) so that through playful engagements players develop abilities to engage in the full game, a place of uncertainty and seemingly limitless possibilities. Gameplay therefore creates experiences for learners where their perceptions and their actions coordinate in such a way as to enable them to see how to achieve an intended outcome, a successful encounter or a winning exchange. To develop gameplay understanding in videogames, a key consideration is playability. For the player, playability is the instantiation of the general concept of usability and understanding of the game. It is determined by the possibility of the player being able to perform the activities required to engage in and potentially win the game (Fabricatore, 2007). Playability refers to the player–​game relationship that creates the experience of peak flow where the challenge and entertainment of playing the game keep the player engaged and motivated to come back to try again (Cowley, Charles, Black, & Hickey, 2008). Essentially playability refers to the affordances in the gameplay environment that mimic those in the full game (Caracciolo, 2009). Affordances such as visual prompts in the videogame, easy foes to kill or tutorial guidance in the context of the game allow the player to engage in the game, to learn and progress in the gameplay process. Emerging from playability is game mechanics in situ. This idea refers to the tools (objects in videogames or motor skills with equipment and/​ or objects in PE games) that enable gameplay within the rules of the game; their manipulation requires a level of proficiency achieved through a learning process. Critically, in videogames the uses of these tools are learned in context so that as the player uses a tool its “output translates into a state of change of the mechanics itself and/​or into the triggering of new interactions with other game mechanics” (Fabricatore, 2007). In terms of gameplay, this means that the player, through the learned use of game mechanics, can trigger different interactions within the intent and narrative of the game. Player identity in videogames refers to the learner engaging in the game so that they feel a part of the game, a sense of ownership over how their avatar (character in the game) engages, a degree of control over outcome in the game, and a model of what to expect will happen. In addition, Gee (2007), referring to mass-​online role-​playing games like World of Warcraft,2 noted how cross-​functional affiliation enables learners to take on a role with a commitment to other players within the events of the game, i.e. the “context of identity and activity –​learned as part and parcel of being a certain sort of person needing to do certain sorts of things for purposes and goals” (p.  32). This means the player can imagine himself or herself in a role in the game and this imagining creates the expectation model of how to learn. Playing games and imagining themselves being particular players is often experienced by children who become committed to a sport as they watch it on television or observe a relative (parent or older sibling) playing a game.

Video gaming design  129

Constraints and ecological approach to learning From an ecological dynamics and nonlinear pedagogical point of view the process of learning to play a game, if designed so as to engage the learner in play, will create the conditions for the learner to adapt their perceptions and actions to the constraints of the game (Davids, Button, & Bennett, 2008). As Renshaw et al. (2010) explained, “constraints have been defined as boundaries which shape the emergence of behaviour from a movement system (e.g., learner) seeking a stable state of organization” (p. 4). The interaction of different constraints (action capabilities, task and environment) forces the learner to seek stable and effective movement patterns during goal-​directed activity such as rallying a sponge ball, over a high net, in a badminton court in a tennis-​like game. Constraints therefore focus on how the type of ball, the size of playing area and the rules of the game interact with the players as they learn to play a game. Traditional and often common sense notions of learning separate the mind from the body, offering a simplistic notion of correspondence between internal knowing to external reality. Instead, as noted by Davis and Sumara (2006) in relation to understanding complexity of learning in education contexts, we consider learning as an organic process (self-​referencing), emergent (self-​organizing) and ecological (self-​ adapting to conditions) within a dynamic gameplay space. To elucidate the idea of gameplay we offer a series of anecdotes drawn from our lived experiences both as game and non-​game players, parent and researchers of videogamers. From our recollections/​observation on gameplay we explore the potential insight videogame design has for teaching games in PE. We consider how learning in games can be understood as emergent from within a complex system where parts  –​in the case of games the players and their skills to be engaged in the game –​cannot be reduced to the simplest form, but must be taught within a continuously emerging whole.

Personal accounts on gameplay related to school PE The following accounts are presented to raise insights on how we think the videogame design ideas tap into our natural inclination in PE to play games. We share these stories not as research data but as a way to narrate what we recalled as we tried to imagine gameplay for school-​aged learners. After each story we looked back at the narrative and offer insights that connect to the concepts from videogame design. We offer three different perspectives on PE and gameplay (Tim as a PE teacher, Kathy as a person who disliked PE, and Hong as a parent of a ten-​year-​old child). When each of us reflected on gameplay experiences we recalled the following two anecdotes and Hong decided to interview her son who had just decided not to carry on playing soccer and basketball in his school teams.

130 Hopper et al.

Tim’s account below offers a perspective of an active sports player and a PE teacher. I loved games in PE but football at recess … that was best. As a child entering secondary school, aged 11, I remember playing football. I liked teacher led football, but the recess football, wedged between academic subjects, that was the best. I loved it so much I would get my work done first in class to get out on the playground. Lunchtime was the best games. I would bolt down my school dinner to get the best spot for the game in the playground. The trick was to get to the dining hall before the prefects who marshalled kids in by year group. Once out into the playground the teams would form. Whoever had the ball decided the captains. Teams were created with one or two picks then the rest divided equally. There was an unofficial ranking of players that everyone knew from previous games. Often games would vary in size ranging from 8 to 24 players; nobody was turned away. We quickly decided who would be the rush keeper (a player who could use his hands but also play out in the field); then, rough positions based on defenders, wingers and forwards. Games did not occupy the traditional marked areas with lines and goal posts. The fence around the playground was the boundary, the gap on one-​side being the only place where a throw-​in happened. If other games were being played then a dividing line was approximated. Goal posts were two of the fence struts marked by a blazer or a jumper, the height of the crossbar being the upper extension wire. On one-​side of the fence was a busy road on the other the career and technology building. If the ball went over the fence the game was over. Games were immense affairs. The ball was cleared into spaces, kids clustered, sometimes a brave player shielded the ball, but whenever the ball could be seen it was kicked. Fouls were given for kicking a person or tripping. Sometimes this led to arguments, more often though the desire to play meant one side conceding the argument just to get the game going. Often a sequence of passing would breakout, sometimes players dribbled past other players for a shot or a pass to a teammate. The best games were levels scores with time running out. Often this resulted in a last desperate attempt to win, players surging forward in pursuit of the winning goal. Then, a quick counter-​attack would result with heart bursting defensive runs back to stop a certain goal. As soon as the buzzer went the game was over, the moment of victory lost to the institutional timetable; those potential moments were the best. When I  compare this to football in PE games lessons I  remember looking forward to the end of lesson. I would put up with the structured warm-​ups and skill practices, try my best to impress my teacher, but

Video gaming design  131

mostly I just wanted to play the game. I think the practices improved my play and I certainly listened for the helpful advice from my PE teacher, someone I aspired to become. But, really the joy in PE was the game, especially if the teacher made the game close and allowed the game to flow. However, rarely did those games match those “moments” in the playground. Aspects of this story that we feel are worth noting in our analysis are identified below: (1) The players never practiced the skills of football in isolation in order to play football; those who played had enough skill to affect the game played and were focused on the interactivity of playing together. Some students may not have felt skilful enough to engage and to become players, but nobody who wanted to play was turned away. In playing we got better as the need to pass accurately to open players, to shoot at open targets and to defend the goal, emerged. (2) The players modified the game to make it close, as the goal was to win a close game, to pick teams with fair distribution of ability, then to encourage teammates to do their best. The game only worked if many students were able to play. Players were only drawn from students in the same year and all were boys, girls did not play football at that time in the UK, and if we played with students from older grades they tended to be too physical and rough. (3) The players anticipated a close game, sometimes a re-​ match. They imagined what it would feel like as they moved between defensive and offensive roles, a striker, then a winger or a rush keeper ready to make a crucial save against the odds, as they participated in the event of the game. Players took up a gameplay identity as they autonomously transferred roles within the game. In this goal-​oriented game, constrained by time, the students self-​organized into exciting and unpredictable games of football. Kathy’s account provides a different perspective. She is reflective of a student who disliked PE in school but who loved playing ‘scrub’ baseball in the park playground. As a child in elementary school, aged 9 and 10, I had a love of playing baseball, not baseball with uniforms and helmets, not with umpires or even any adult supervision, no set teams, but multi-​aged, co-​ed noon hour games. I came to love it so much that I worked out a way to always be first out to the baseball diamond … If we brought our lunch to school, we had a 15 minute supervised lunch period where we were to eat our lunch before going out to play.

132 Hopper et al.

However, if we went home for lunch, we didn’t have to wait 15 minutes before going out –​however the challenge was that we had to go home for lunch. I lived a bit of a distance away, up the hill, across the ravine, and down the road to my house. But if I ran all the way, grabbed my sandwich and ran back, I could just make it out to the baseball diamond before the stay-​at-​school for lunch group got let out. This opportunity to get to the baseball diamond first made all the difference because our game was structured around the order in which we reached the field. The first half of the group was the batters, and the second half were fielders. It was great to be one of the first batters! I can still remember how amazing it felt to connect my bat with the firm softball. As long as you made it to a base, you stayed batting. As soon as you struck out, or were tagged out, you went out to field, the catcher moved up to the batting team, the pitcher moved to catcher position, and so on. There weren’t set teams, so the teams were random, older kids played with younger kids, star players played with novices. The game moved along quickly, so no one (no matter how bad) was stuck in outfield for long. We had occasional arguments; sometimes kids got bored and left, sometimes latecomers joined in, and the game carried on until the lunch bell rang. We kept track of our home runs, but that wasn’t really as important as the playing. I compare those game playing days to my later less joyous memories of playing organized basketball in junior high PE classes. By then I didn’t perceive myself to be a sporty person, and didn’t know much about the sport of basketball. We were given sheets of paper to study the rules, but then we just played on teacher-​selected teams. I was totally intimidated by the fast pace, the girls who could shoot baskets and score, who clearly knew how this game went and dominated the court. Sometimes I wasn’t even sure who was on my team, and definitely didn’t know what I was supposed to do. I felt very inadequate (and I was), and attempted to avoid humiliating myself too badly by being as invisible as possible. I was convinced that I had no aptitude for sports, and stayed away from the gym as much as I  could. To this day I  feel shaky and fearful going into a gymnasium. And as I  write these memories, I  realize that what defined me, in my own mind and in the minds of others, was not my happy times on the baseball diamond at lunchtime, but the structured PE classes where others defined me as’ not athletic’ –​my opportunities to engage in sports were cut off in junior high school, not to reappear. Aspects of this story that we feel are worth noting in our analysis are identified below:

Video gaming design  133

(1) In this game players rotated roles based on what happened in the game. The motor skills were simple enough for each child to be involved and each child understood what role to take up based on the outcome of the game encounter. (2) The players in this game were from different age groups and a mixture of the boys and girls. The nature of baseball allowed the physical strength to be less of an issue in playability of the game and to support the younger students the older players made allowances to give them a chance to bat by throwing a softer ball. Key to the activity was encouraging large numbers of students to play, to get there in the limited time of lunch hour, and to create an exciting event. (3) As with the previous anecdote, the players imagined the ability to play the game, to be the batter striking the ball and making it to the base. Staying in to bat again was a challenge that all players could imagine themselves achieving, especially if a capable player was able to strike a home run that enabled all base runners to make it home. Fielding and pitching was a role taken up to create the challenge, with skills emerging based on goal-​ oriented behaviour of stopping the batter staying in, increasing players’ chances of getting to bat, and striking the ball to make it safely to bases. The third anecdote, from Hong, is taken from a recorded interview with her son. This story is from the perspective of a parent of a 10-​year old boy who had recently quit playing soccer and basketball. MUM:  Why

are you quitting soccer? You’ve been in the soccer club for three years… SON: In Under 9 and Under 10, we were playing teams in the same club, so often we played against our classmates and friends. But in under 11 we played teams elsewhere, kids we don’t know. That’s not as fun. MUM: What about the coach? SON: The coach is too strict now. If you’re not running like very fast, he’ll call out and ask you to run faster. MUM: Did you run fast then? SON: Yes, I was already running like having a cramp in the leg … ***(another boy) quitted simply because of the coach … MUM: What about basketball then? You seemed to like it before and went to basketball camps many times and I remember you have good shots. SON: It’s not suitable for me … the competitive sports … You have to be tall and strong, or you get knocked out … MUM: What about basketball at school you used to play at recess? SON: Two (well-​known/​popular) boys, they’re always together. Even if they may be put in two teams in PE, one of them helps the other’s team to win … That’s not fair. You should serve your team first, right? So,

134 Hopper et al.

the teacher always puts them in one team. At recess they’re having this basketball game and they pick who’s in. Usually the tall ones and their friends. And they tell me it’s full, or say they’ll let me play tomorrow. Once I was in and then *** (another boy) wanted to get in and then they told me to leave. So, a few of us who were not allowed in the game set up another game we invented and we (four kids) had fun ourselves. There are the sports group, the chatting group, and our game group during recess. MUM: If they wanted you in the basketball game, would you be willing to play? SON: It’s trying to get the ball and stuff and I am not as advanced, so I’d better still play our “infectious tag” game we invented. MUM: Why do you like playing videogames so much? SON:  Videogames you are playing against the “server.” Recess games you play among yourselves. In videogames (Minecraft), you can build stuff that you can’t in real life, you have some control of what happens. The “survival” mode is different from real life. In real life, you use money to buy food, but in videogames you hunt for food. The cows that you hunt won’t attack you; they will just run away, so hunting is fun. Aspects of these stories that we feel are worth noting in our analysis are listed below: (1) The opportunity to learn to play the game, develop the skills within gameplay, became limited for the boy as he engaged in more competitive games organized by well-​meaning adults. In comparison, for videogames, tasks that would have been difficult in real life, e.g. hunting cows, becomes more manageable, thus more engaging for the player. (2) The popular, taller and stronger boys dominated the basketball games both in PE and at recess. These boys were exclusionary and wanted to win more than play in a close game. Equipment favoured those with height and strength and so limited the capacity for other students to engage in the game. (3) Hong’s son’s interest in the games was based more on playing with friends in a team sport and having fun, rather than engaging in a competitive “game” in the traditional sense. The coaches selecting boys for silver and gold teams changed the focus of games from fun to competing for the higher ranked team.

Connecting videogame concepts to personal narratives on gameplay In this section we focus on four videogame concepts and unpack them in relation to how games are taught in PE and how they resonate with our featured anecdotes.

Video gaming design  135

Gameplay In our first two stories the narrators experienced gameplay; they were able to self-​organize with other players and agree on a common set of rules with a clear commitment to goals associated with the game. Both games were constrained by time but within an open-​ended and goal oriented focus, with clearly defined roles and within the time of recess. The play in the football anecdote was to win as a team and in the baseball anecdote it was to strike a ball and stay in the game. In the insights from the young boy, his initial interest in playing games waned when confronted by peers who controlled the game through their physical size and popularity. Key elements missing in this latter experience and when working with the coach/​teacher is the idea of creating a close game or creating a challenge that players could enter into, become part of the game through playing a role in the game structure. Gee (2007) refers to this experience of gameplay as resulting from empowered learners who feel able to influence the game, take on a role based on the purpose of the game and be able to manipulate tools in the game in order to extend their effectiveness as participants in the game. In our first two stories everybody had a chance, was not excluded for lack of “ability” and all followed simple rules with a clear common purpose. Videogamers refer to Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) ideas of “flow” –​when skill and difficulty are roughly proportional then people enter into flow states. In this state players have concrete goals with manageable rules, where demands are within each player’s capabilities. They get clear and timely feedback on performance and goal accomplishment and have limited extraneous distractions (Cowley, Charles, Black, & Hickey, 2008; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). To achieve this state the first two examples of games resulted from negotiating simple rules where the challenge was created by a commitment of peers to the game and their capabilities. Outcomes from actions received immediate feedback from co-​players and resulted in game success or setback that was only momentary and then led to resetting and trying again. All players were focused on achieving the game goal within the rules and time limit, to create the gameplay experience through the co-​mingling of players in the emergent interactivity of the game. Playability Playability in videogames refers to how inviting the game is to play with skills the player already has and opportunities to further develop these skills. To do this the videogame designers create ways to assist the novice player with tools like “auto-​aim” in shooter games or “difficulty” setting chosen by the player in the game menu. Level of game play such as novice, intermediate and advanced sets the level of challenge from the game bots or sets how easy or hard it is to kill/​beat an opponent. Also players can choose a “challenge mode” where they choose the level of difficulty where a player

136 Hopper et al.

can replay parts of the game or special levels under specific conditions that are not normally present or required in the main game, i.e., finishing a level within a specific time, or using only one type of weapon. A developing feature in videogames of all genres is the idea of dynamic game difficulty balancing where the game automatically changes parameters, scenarios, and behaviors in real-​time, based on the player’s ability, in order to avoid making the player bored (if the game is too easy) or frustrated (if it is too difficult). In addition to these game design features, the programmer designs entry into the game in regards to well-​ordered problems where early problems in games are designed to lead players to form good guesses about how to proceed when they face harder problems later in the game (Gee, 2007; Sanford & Hopper, 2009). Thorpe and Bunker (1989) advocated a similar idea through designing a series of exaggeration games that emphasized tactical ideas for clusters of conceptually related games. In these games, constraints are set up to focus the learner on an aspect of the game to be learned, such as short and wide courts in volleyball to emphasize hitting to open spaces. Similarly, in a constraints-​ led approach in physical education there is a clear emphasis on discovery learning (Davids et al., 2003). Exploratory practice embraces problem-​solving behaviours because players must actively engage in learning rather than passively receiving information. Importantly, learners are encouraged to find and assemble their own unique solutions to motor problems during exploratory practice. However, though these ideas in teaching games in PE resonate with videogame design, a key difference in videogame design is the ability to auto-​adjust gameplay complexity to encourage players’ engagement. Hopper (2011) has translated this dynamic game difficulty balancing into games taught in PE using the principle of modification-​by-​adaptation. In this approach, after a game encounter the game is modified (change space, equipment, rules or scoring) to increase the challenge to a successful player. For example, after playing a game in a set of tennis the winning player would be 15–​0 down in the next game. If they won the next game they would be 30–​0 down in subsequent game. If they won again the score would be 40–​0 to their opponent, if they lost the next game they would be 3–​1 up but 30–​0 down in the next game. The game score adjusts to the player’s game advantage, creating an increased chance for the losing player to win a game. As noted in Hopper (2011), space increases can be used to challenge players in other net/​wall games where the court can start small and then can be increased as a player wins points. Playing off a handicap in golf has the same impact on making golf scores close and provides more access to a close game. Key here is the idea of playability against other opponents of different abilities, making the game more inclusive, leading to more opportunities to play and more opportunities to learn through close gameplay. In both Tim’s and Kathy’s stories this idea of modification-​by-​adaptation was evident with changes made to make the game close. In Tim’s anecdote

Video gaming design  137

this was usually in relation to players selected for each team, however goal posts were sometimes adjusted to give a losing team a chance to catch up. In Kathy’s story the game adapted to the players to allow them to play. The challenge created by playing the game was more important than two teams playing against each other. Game mechanics (skill learning) in situ In teaching games in PE from a traditional perspective there is a core belief in relation to task decomposition techniques, where a game is reduced in complexity to allow reduction in attention demands on the learner during skill acquisition (Davids, Araújo, Shuttleworth, & Button, 2003). From a skill focus this can be done in a part-​ task training [that] involves practising some subset of task components as a precursor to practice or performance of the whole task, for example when a volleyball player practises throwing the ball to a consistent height separately and before practising the throw-​up to serve the ball (p. 34) In this way a skill can be broken down into component parts and then practiced before combining to create the whole skill. However, as noted by Bunker and Thorpe this process of learning rarely seems to be successful for games taught in PE. Motor skills can also be learned in a more discovery “adaptive training … technique in which task difficulty is progressively increased as its performance is mastered” (p. 34). From an ecological approach, discovering various solutions to the task, whether successful or not, within simplified games or sub-​games that afford the context for the skill to be used, is essential in learning to experience varieties of task solutions (Davids, et al., 2003). When discovery learning occurs in a practice context similar to the performance context then players “become more attuned to the available information sources, they are able to concentrate on exploring potentially important sources as the learner goes through coordination and control stages of learning” (p. 32). In videogaming, Gee (2007) refers to the game-​as-​teacher process that relates to this adaptive training. In this process, learning the skills to play the game happens through progressions of sub-​games known as sandboxes (simplified versions of the full game) and fishbowls (sub-​games focused on particular skill in the game). This idea of sandboxes and fishbowls connects well to Bunker and Thorpe’s idea of representative and exaggeration modified games (Hopper, Sanford, & Clarke, 2009). Essentially, skill learning of game mechanics is an externalized search for affordances in the context of the sub-​game or game. In videogames this refers to a match between the

138 Hopper et al.

player’s avatar actions in the game and their goals in the game world environment. The videogame programmer creates the conditions for players to learn skills that are “pleasantly frustrating” but with “just in time and as needed” prompts in the game (Gee, 2007, p. 36). The game is programmed in such a way as to scaffold learning at a rate that the player (whether novice or expert) can manage. Each constraint placed on the player develops skills that create more in-​depth understanding of the game rules and enables more advanced play later in the game. This is similar to Thorpe and Bunkers’ (1989) principle of tactical complexity used to sequence a progression of modified games. In relation to videogames, Gee (2005) noted that, “learning is based on situated practices … lowered consequences for failure and taking risks … [Where] learning is a form of extended engagement of self as an extension of an identity to which the player is committed” (p. 112). All these features reframe learning as an interactive process in which humans take pleasure, a process they own as they adapt to the game constraints. In both Tim and Kathy’s stories, learning is interactive and based on choice, with low consequences for taking risks as players are able to try out skills, take on roles and take note of what worked. For Hong’s son that playfulness seems not to be present in his experiences of being told to “run faster” or where “you get knocked out” if you are not tall and strong enough. He does not get a sense of the interactive process; he seems unable to compete, but in a videogame he can manipulate to achieve a goal. In support of this focus of attention on gameplay tasks, David et al., (2003) summarized findings in the motor learning literature and proposed that learners are initially more concerned with the achievement of a task rather than a prescriptive internal plan of action on how their actions (i.e. cues to perform a motor skill) lead to task goals. It is therefore better to nurture the intended functional solution that emerges from the task constraints than reinforce by identifying cues for effective motor actions. More recently, such proposals have been supported by data showing beneficial effects of instructions and feedback as a function of an external focus of attention (emphasis on movement effects on the environment) compared to an internal focus (focus on movement of specific body parts) (Chow et al., 2007; Renshaw et al., 2010). Engaged imagination from gameplay identity As noted by Gee (2007), early on in videogames the game designer quickly gets players to commit to an identity in the game. This is achieved through ‘system thinking’ that “encourage players to think about relationships … how each action taken might impact on their future actions and the actions of the other players playing against them” p. 40). This “system thinking” results from the interaction of what videogame designers call ludology (the

Video gaming design  139

way rules and structure as constraints affect game play), and narratology (the way narrative and narrative structure affects players’ perceptions of events in the game). It is the capacity of videogame designers to generate players’ meaning of past experiences as models, as action images, that help them think through experiences they have had, so that they can run possible scenarios of how to solve a problem in their minds, to imagine how to perform a set of skills to meet a challenge. In this way videogame players “learn and practice skills best when they see a set of related skills as a strategy to accomplish goals they want to accomplish” (Gee, 2007, p. 40). This idea of players imagining the whole game and of imagining themselves as players in the game can be read in Tim’s and Kathy’s stories, their anticipated excitement of playing the game, of the skills they could combine and what could then happen. For TGfU this equates to tactical awareness but in relation to actual events rather than abstract tactical concepts. In regards to SEM this relates to the festival of the culminating event where players, through a series of lessons focused on modified games and roles related to the team competitive event, have imagined themselves playing, officiating and coaching for the game with and for their teammates (Siedentop, 2002). Both Siedentop (2002) and Bunker and Thorpe (1986) were sensitive to this idea on engaging player imagination so that players could imagine themselves playing the game. Siedentop advocated showing videos of proficient performers playing the game and Bunker and Thorpe advocating in the “Game Appreciation” phase of their curriculum model for students to be exposed to what a game looks like, and providing opportunities to watch video footage of the game being played well.

Conclusion Our anecdotes offer glimpses into what we consider as gameplay experiences. For Tim these early football experiences were indicative of array of gameplay experiences he has experienced as a keen sportsman. For Kathy this was the only time she could imagine playing a game and wanting to do it again. Hong’s son’s story provides a sense of his keenness to try these sporting events but tending to find this gameplay experiences more in videogames than in PE or recess. We feel that the ecological approach to learning where gameplay emerges is best modelled in videogame design. As such we suggest that a combination of the TGfU/​SEM approaches can also realize this ecological approach. As several authors have noted when combining these two models (Alexander & Penney, 2005; Gubacs-​Collins, 2007; Mesquita, Farias, & Hastie, 2012), skills are learned as tactical problems to address within: (1) an affiliation to a team; (2) environments where participation is encouraged by peers; and (3) an expectation to take up a role for peers to make a sporting event possible. This commitment to others comes from the “SEM serving as the curriculum framework

140 Hopper et al.

and TGfU functioning as the dominant teaching methodology” (Gubacs-​ Collins & Olsen, 2010, pp. 40–​1). Like successful multi-​player videogames, the TGfU/​SEM models create a sense of shared culture of playing the sport rather than a focus on skill performance. These models create a template for teachers to use a constraints-​led approach to design adaptive tasks for learning to play a game. Such an approach allows students to learn skills in situ within close game encounters. Ultimately it can lead to gameplay experiences where players are highly engaged and want to repeat the game –​just like in videogames.

Discussion questions 1. What do you recognize as a gameplay experience for you? 2. How does learning happen in videogames and how could this learning process be reproduced in games taught in PE? 3. Why do you think videogames are seen in such a negative way by mainstream media? 4. How can videogame design principles be used to design games in PE lessons?

Further reading Fabricatore, C. (2007). Gameplay and game mechanics design: a key to quality in videogames. Retrieved from​dataoecd/​ 44/​17/​39414829.pdf (last accessed February 4, 2018). This paper offers an overview of key concepts taught in progamming courses to guide videogame designers Gee, J. (2007). Good video games and good learning. New York: Peter Lang. This book offers an analysis of the learning process in popular video games from semiotic perspectives with connections made to new literacies and contemporary learning theories. Hopper, T. F., Sanford, K., & Clarke, A. (2009). Chapter 15: Game-​as-​ teacher and game-​play: complex learning in TGfU and Videogames. In T. Hopper, J. Butler, & B. Storey (eds.), TgfU … simply good pedagogy: understanding a complex challenge (p. 246). Ottawa: Physical Health Education (Canada). This chapter unpacks the initial learning process in the video game of in World of War-​craft and parallels it to learning in a TGfU approach to teaching games.

Video gaming design  141

Hopper, T F. (2011). Game-​as-​teacher: modification by adaptation in learning through game-​play. Asia-​Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 2(2), 3–​21. This article draws on complexity thinking to show how videogame design can inform the way we teach games in PE with the specific example of modification by adaptation.

Notes 1 See SuperData measure of entertainment industry https://​​2015/​ 05/​20/​games-​poised-​to-​outstrip-​broadcast-​tv-​revenues-​superdata-​finds/​ 2 See website for game details and description https://​​en-​us/​

References Alexander, K. & Penney, D. (2005). Teaching under the influence: feeding Games for Understanding into the Sport Education development-​refinement cycle. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 287–​301. Araújo, D. (2009). Ecological approaches to cognition in sport and exercise. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40(1), 5–​36. Araújo, R., Mesquita, I., & Hastie, P. A. (2014). Review of the status of learning in research on Sport Education:  future research and practice. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 13(4), 846. Barab, S. A. & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–​182. Bunker, B. & Thorpe, R. (1986). The curriculum model. In R. Thorpe Bunker, D., & Almond, L (ed.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 7–​10 ST–​The curriculum model). Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough. Caracciolo, M. (2009). Conceptual blending in computer games: integrating fiction and meaning. Oslo, Norway: Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas, University of Oslo. Retrieved from​ Casey, A. & Dyson, B. (2010). The implementation of models-​based practice in physical education through action research. European Physical Education Review, 15(2), 175–​199. Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araujo, D. (2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research, 77, 251–​278. Corbin, C. B. & Le Masurier, G. (2014). Fitness for Life. Windsor: Human Kinetics. Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M., & Hickey, R. (2008). Toward an understanding of f low in videogames. Computers in Entertainment, 6(2), 1–​27. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow:  the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.

142 Hopper et al. Davids, K., Araújo, D., Shuttleworth, R., & Button, C. (2003). Acquiring skill in sport: a constraints led perspective. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport, 2(2), 31–​39. Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition:  a constraints led approach. Windsor, ON: Human Kinetics. Davis, B. & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: inquiries into learning, teaching and research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-​Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging minds: changing teaching in a complex world. New York: Routledge. Fabricatore, C. (2007). Gameplay and game mechanics design:  A key to quality in Videogames. Retrieved from​dataoecd/​44/​17/​39414829.pdf (February 4, 2018). Gee, J. P. (2005). Why video games are good for your soul: pleasure and learning. Melbourne, Vic.: Common Ground Publishing. Gee, J. (2007). Good videogames and good learning. New York: Peter Lang. Gubacs-​ Collins, K. (2007). Implementing a tactical approach through action research. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 12(2), 105–​126. Gubacs-​Collins, K. & Olsen, E. B. (2010). Implementing a tactical games approach with Sport Education: A chronicle. JOPERD, 81(3), 36–​42. Harvey, S. & Jarrett, K. (2013). A review of the game-​centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, February, 1–​23. Harvey, S., Cushion, C., & Sammon, P. (2014). Dilemmas faced by pre-​service teachers when learning about and implementing a game-​ centred approach. European Physical Education Review, 21(2), 238–​256. Hayes, E. & Silberman, L. (2007). Incorporating video games into physical education. Journal of Physical Education, 78(February), 18–​24. Hopper, T F. (2011). Game-​ as-​ teacher:  modification by adaptation in learning through game-​play. Asia-​Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 2(2), 3–​21. Hopper, T. F. & Sanford, K. (2010). Occasioning moments in game-​as-​teacher: complexity thinking applied to TGfU and Videogaming. In J. Butler & L. Griffin (eds.), Second TGfU book: theory, research and practice (pp. 121–​138). Windsor: Human Kinetics. Hopper, T. F., Sanford, K., & Clarke, A. (2009). Chapter 15: Game-​as-​teacher and game-​play:  complex learning in TGfU and videogames. In T. Hopper, J. Butler, & B. Storey (eds.), TgfU … simply good pedagogy:  understanding a complex challenge (p. 246). Ottawa: Physical Health Education (Canada). Mesquita, I., Farias, C., & Hastie, P. (2012). The impact of a hybrid Sport Education–​ Invasion games competence model soccer unit on students’ decision making, skill execution and overall game performance. European Physical Education Review, 18(2), 205–​219. Oslin, J. & Mitchell, S. (2006). Game-​centred approaches to teaching physical education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 627–​651). London: Sage Publications. Renshaw, I., Yi Chow, J., Davids, K., & Hammond, J. (2010). A constraints-​led perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game play: a basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis? Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 9(2), 1–​21. https://​​10.1080/​17408980902791586.

Video gaming design  143 Sanford, K. & Hopper, T. (2009). Videogames and complexity theory:  learning through game play. Loading Journal, 3(4). Retrieved from http://​​ loading/​index.php/​loading/​article/​view/​62 (last accessed February 4, 2018). Siedentop, D. (2002). Sport education: a retrospective. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 21(4), 409–​418. Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: what happens when video games enter the classroom. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 1Squire, K(6), 25–​49. Sweetser, P. & Wyeth, P. (2005). Game Flow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 3. Thorpe, R. D. & Bunker, D. J. (1989). A changing focus in games teaching. In L. Almond (ed.), The place of physical education in schools (pp. 42–​71). Kogan/​Page. Wallhead, T. & O’sullivan, M. (2005). Sport education: physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(2), 181–​210.

Part III

Concepts and critical reflections on digi-​t ech in PE

Chapter 9

Developing physical educators’ knowledge of opaque and transparent technologies and its implications for student learning Clayton Kuklick and Stephen Harvey

Introduction Technology is increasingly prominent in a range of social contexts. This includes the various contexts in which physical education and Sport Education takes place (Lupton, 2013; Roth, 2014; Williamson, 2015). There are two potential benefits of physical education teachers effectively utilizing technology. First, effective use of technology can increase learning outcomes (i.e., cognitive, psychomotor, and tactical skills) by explicitly engaging a student in their own learning (Casey, Goodyear, & Armour, 2017b; Society of Heath and Physical Educators, 2014). Second, the teacher can use the technology to enhance their own teaching practices (Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008). However, despite these positive implications of physical educators’ technology use, it could be argued that many do not possess the pre-​requisite knowledge to effectively implement the technology or understand the potential implications of their technology use on student learning (Casey, Goodyear, & Armour, 2017a; Mayes & De Freitas, 2013). The purpose of this chapter is to explain how Clark’s (2003) categorization of opaque and transparent technologies provides a guiding theoretical framework for physical education teachers’ technology integration supporting the notion that the interactions between physical educators and their students may fluctuate based on how technology is used (Bowman, Banks, & Westerman, 2016). Media and communication research have described opaque technologies as those that stand out physically or socially while, in contrast, transparent technologies are described as those that are hidden physically or socially as they are seemlessly integrated with the body and/​or a teacher’s practice (Clark, 2003; Matic, Osmani, & Mayora-​ Ibarra, 2012; Michael & Michael, 2013; Pace, 2013). These categorizations, theorized by Clark (2003), are therefore dependent on the intrusive nature of the technology. One factor may be the sheer size of the technological device (i.e., bulky mobile phone) while another is the teacher’s knowledge of how to integrate the slated technology to enhance student learning. The potentially instrusive nature of the technology depending on the degree of

148  Kuklick and Harvey

opaqueness or transparentness can create a range of undesirable social-​ behavioral implications (Lupton, 2013; Williamson, 2015). For example, the physiological data generated in physical education could be potentially problematic if the teacher is constantly monitoring and surveying students’ data generated from the technology (Amoore, 2009; Baca, Dabnichki, Heller, & Kornfeind, 2009; Michael & Michael, 2013; Nelson, Potrac, & Groom, 2014; Taylor, Potrac, Nelson, Jones, & Groom, 2017; Williams & Manley, 2014). These types of social-​behavioral problems lead to a number of considerations for physical educators, as they offer contradicting evidence to the positive effects of technology. Using Clark’s (2003) framework, we hope that physical educators will be able to recognize a number of potential factors that may impact student learning, dependent on how they operationalize their technology use. In this chapter, we first present Clark’s (2003) opaque and transparent technologies framework with the intent to provide a critical social-​behavioral lens for technology integration by physical educators. We then use the framework to highlight a number of potentially problematic implications of physical educators’ technology use from a social-​behavioral perspective. Subsequently, we provide three highly contextualized examples, which specify practical applications of technology in physical education through which we discuss a range of social-​behavioral considerations that emanate depending on the opaque or transparent nature of the technology (Clark, 2003). Finally, we offer some practical advice for physical educators when integrating technology into their practice.

Social-​b ehavioral technological theoretical framework Much of what is known about the influence of various technologies on human interaction is highlighted by indviduals’ ease of technology use in their daily activities, their relationship with the social environment, and how they themselves utilize the technology as a way to extend their human abilities (Bowker & Star, 2000; Haraway, 1991). Clark (2003) conceptualized the differences between opaque and transparent technologies, asserting how they differ depending on how the user applies the technology and how others are influenced by its use. In the following sections, we describe the two types of technology proposed by Clark (2003) and a critical analysis of these technologies with respect to their categorization. Opaque technology Opaque technologies are unmistakable and cumbersome technological devices where their applications in the real world are physically and/​or socially obvious. Technological tools that are perceived by others to be physically obstructive, strongly affect social interactions (Clark, 2003). The

Developing physical educators’ knowledge  149

evolution of the cell phone provides a prime example of how a once physically bulky device stood out to others both in its functionality and presence. Similarly, consider how it is relatively obvious to pick out an individual that is fumbling with a modern smart phone as a result of their uncomfortable navigation from screen to screen. In the physical education context, an example of an opaque technology would be a physical educator rummaging through students’ skill performance videos on an iPad as students ask the teacher for instructions, while getting a haphazard response. Of critical importance to a physical educator in assessing their degree of opaqueness is to not only consider how they evolve in their technology use towards being more fluid and comfortable, but also the processes in which they can use a technology platform. For example, physical educators can use a camera for two different processes. First, a camera can be used for capturing information (i.e., iPad) and second, be used to present the information to a student or group of students (i.e., a projection screen). These two processes can occur using the same tool, or in combination with other technologies (i.e., video for capturing and computer screen for projecting), thus meaning there are different social interactions with the learner because of the two different processes at work. The implications of this dual process in regards to opaque technology is that a physical educator should consider their degree of opaqueness when engaging both processes during technology use. Therefore, the opaqueness of a particular technology has to do with the ability of the user to adapt, integrate, and evolve the technology into everyday life in a natural and seamless way. Transparent technology Transparent technologies are less intrusive technologies that are physically and/​or socially translucent in that they are unnoticed in a social context. Technologies are described as transparent when the person using a device expresses fluidness and connectedness in their interactions with it. In a transparent use of technology, for example, consider an individual wearing a Fitbit (2017) and checking the physiological data that is being accumulated while working out at the gym simultaneously holding a conversation with a friend. However, it could be that the Fitbit being worn in another context or environment outside of the gym may not be so physically transparent to others despite being used in a seamless and transparent way. Nonetheless, the interaction with the technology shapes the cognitive effort needed by the person to operate the device. In the physical education context, a transparent use of technology would be when a physical educator quickly finds a specific skill performance video on an iPad to present to a student, while s/​he asks them a question about their performance on their latest trial. Therefore, familiarity portrays a transparent interaction with the device, which is likely to be perceived as physically unnoticeable (Clark, 2003). Accordingly, the

150  Kuklick and Harvey

device has been integrated to the human body in such a way where the physical educator is able to adapt and function seamlessly with the device in their daily lives. Many of the skills required for a technology to be classified as transparent are acquired through training, practice, experience, and knowledge (Clark, 2003). Research overview Research exploring the social-​behavioral influences of opaque and transparent technology offers insight on how these types of technology impact students (Bowman et  al., 2016; Lupton, 2013; Williamson, 2014). It has been found that a technology used by one user can be opaque, but the same technology used by a more skilled, efficient, and confident user would be considered to be more transparent in nature. For example, Bowman, Anderson, Atkinson, and Ahern (2017) explored the differences between how teachers used wearable video-​based technology (i.e., Google Glass capturing a first person perspective of one’s teaching practices) in comparison to a more standard video technology (i.e., tripod and video camera). The findings demonstrated that despite the seemingly transparent physicality of the wearable video technology, the device produced greater cognitive effort in the user and was cumbersome, partly because of their unfamiliarity with the device. In contrast, the seamingly opaque physicality of the tripod video-​based technology, induced less cognitive effort due to a more seamless ease of use. The aforementioned research demonstrates the importance for considering not only the physical appearance of the technology regardless of the size, but also how it is being used either in a transparent or opaque way. Nonetheless, both situations (i.e., opaque or transparent use of technology in both appearance and ease of use) in a physical education context would cause different influences on students. For one, depending on how the physical educator presents data generated from a particular technology either in an opaque or transparent manner, students have been known to shape their identities by comparing themselves to others based on the information gathered by the technology (Cheney-​Lippold, 2011). Here, picture students constructing and worrying about their body image based on technology generated data at times when physiological changes are going to occur through maturatation and their own genetic make-​up. In other cases, students self-​correct themselves and become more technocratic, behaviorally focused, or machine-​like rather than engaging in the embodiment or existential nature of physical activity (Lupton, 2013; Mackenzie, 2013). For example, envision students checking and evaluating biometric data generated from wearable technology, rather than attending to the internal enjoyment of games, activities, and their classmates. Consequently, using these technologies may encourage excessive self-​surveillance type behaviors in physical activity in relation to quantifiable, visible metrics in comparison to actual feelings of self-​worth, confidence, and reduced stress (Lupton, 2013).

Developing physical educators’ knowledge  151

The way the technology is integrated by the teacher will therefore implicate the degree of opaqueness/​transparentness of the technology, which can have positive or negative implications on student learning and development. Of further consideration from a social-​ behavioral perspective is the constricted feedback and knowledge created from the use of technology (Bell, 2001). In this way, to some degree, the data generated from technology provides information about the the body that might be missed on its own. For example, skill analysis video apps can precisely detect what degree angle a students’ leg reaches during the backswing of a soccer kick. The highly detailed knowledge generated from technology can create feelings of fear that the body is flawed when certain data is exposed (Lupton, 1995; Lupton, 2013). In the physical education context, students could become fearful that there is something wrong with them if their leg angles are not reaching a particular standard. In contrast, the extended capacities of the body induced from technology alone can portray a flawless body. Thus, technology serves as a source in which students describe themselves in relation to the data generated from technology (Davis, 2012). Envision students evaluating their afternoon in physical education based on the number of times they reached 90 degrees of elbow flexion during throwing tasks, generated from a video-​based sport analysis app, and thus creating a perception that they have met the standard of a perfect body or perfect throwing motion. Furthermore, interpretations and knowledge from the generated data offers opportunity for competition amongst students and the potential for certain social groups to be formed from data captured and presented from previous classes and other students (Davis, 2012). Freund (2004) would agree that depending on how technology is used and displayed for competition and student comparisons, it may cause stress, anxiety, and disruptions in sleep patterns. Thus, we contend that technology and the human body is not a seemless interaction and considerations need to be negotiated to facilitate the integration of technology in physical education. Despite our seemingly harsh presentation of some of the negative implications that technology offers, technology provides physical educators with an additional tool to solve pedagogical problems that, in turn, can potentially enhance student outcomes. But, as we have highlighted, the social-​behavioral implications must be considered and embedded within the pedagogical strategies to deliver content in order to ensure effective teaching with technology. For example, the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (see Table  9.1; Chapter  1, Figure 1.1), developed by Shulman (1986, 1987), has been promoted as a guiding theory to describe the teaching knowledge needed to interact with technology to form effective teaching practices (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). However, research critically reviewing each of the intersecting areas of TPACK has found difficulty in determining how and why one knowledge takes precedence over another in any given situation (Cox & Graham, 2009). Thus it could be theorized that, TPACK has not enabled researchers to explain the social-​behavioral influences of physical

152  Kuklick and Harvey Table 9.1 TPACK definitions. Type of knowledge


Content knowledge (CK)

The subject matter or informational knowledge that is to be learned or delivered to another individual (Shulman, 1986, 1987). In the physical education setting, physical educators deliver content knowledge to students related to the cognitive, psychomotor, affective, and tactical skills necessary to participate within multiple sporting contexts and activities. The knowledge of teaching and learning styles used to plan and deliver how knowledge can be best constructed in others. PK also encompasses the knowledge needed for assessing how and if learning has occurred. Other forms of PK are not limited to the understanding of: the general teaching and educational aims and purposes, behavior management, and skills for evaluating learning (Shulman, 1986, 1987). The understanding of technology that enables an individual to utilize it as a part of daily life and to continuously adapt to the changing technology. Other forms of TK include the mastery of information processing, communication, and problem solving using technology (Shulman, 1986, 1987). The understanding for the social-​behavioral implications that technology usage offers. Other forms of this knowledge include understanding how both the physicality and functionality of the technology by the user have social-​behavioral implications on students and on the teacher.

Pedagogical knowledge (PK)

Technological knowledge (TK)

Technological Social-​behavioral knowledge (TSB)

educators’ technology use. For example, constantly measuring and assessing student behaviors in lessons reinforces rather than disrupts the power relations between the teacher/​student as the teacher is potentially perceived as controlling, which could lead to student docility (Gearity & Mills, 2013; Johns & Johns, 2000). Here, Clark’s (2003) conceptualization of opaque and transparent technology provides a variation to TPACK and ensures that teachers consider the social-​behavioral implications of technology integration. We will call this knowledge, technological social-​behavior knowledge (TSB), which is defined in Table 9.1.

Practical examples of technology integration by physical educators In this section, we overview three “fictional” stories of physical educators using technology, which draw upon our experiences as physical educators and provide a context where we can compare and contrast Clark’s (2003) two types of technology categorization. The “fictional stories” and analysis we provide there after, helps bring to life the implications of technology

Developing physical educators’ knowledge  153

integration into physical education (Jones, 2009; Sparkes, 2002). The stories permit ourselves and others to engage in “self-​ reflexive conversations” (Jones, 2009, p. 379) about the nature of technology use in physical education and develop a “critical consciousness” (Jones, 2009, p. 379) about teachers’ use of technology from a social-​behavioral perspective. In particular, we highlight video and wearable fitness technologies, which are frequently utilized by physical educators (Casey & Jones, 2011; Groom, Cushion, & Nelson, 2012; Heynen, 2008; Nelson et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2017; Williams & Manley, 2014). No doubt the stories when read by others may generate a range of alternative thoughts, but we keep our analysis and discussion in-​line with Clark’s (2003) framework to offer suggestions for how this may be used to expand current conceptualizations of TPACK and incorporate TSB knowledge. To assist readers, we have positioned various technologies described in our stories into Clark’s framework, which is provided in Table 9.2.

Story 1: Using video to develop game performance Dan Mann is a former semi-​professional soccer player-​turned physical education teacher. During his previous playing experiences, Dan was exposed to coaches using video to film matches and review game film to either build on positive aspects of play or rectify commonplace errors in techniques, tactics, or strategy. On gaining a teaching position at a local school, Dan began to utilize video in his physical education classes, which he taught through a game-​centered approach. Dan would record students in invasion game contexts to subsequently present his analysis of the games to the students at the beginning, middle, or end of class. Dan’s strategy involved showing clips to the whole class and picking out individual students’ mistakes in the hope that this would motivate the students to improve to meet the necessary grade level outcomes. Based on his own perceptions, the use of this technology had backfired as many students became amotivated in his physical education class. Students began to resent how Dan used them as the main highlight of the “show” in the post-​game video analysis. Story 1 Analysis The content being delivered by Dan through technology was robust. However, the pedagogical strategy chosen by Dan to deliver feedback with technology through large group instruction was not effective. There were seemingly two main issues:  (a) the opaque nature of the technology had affected students who knew that Big Brother was watching and lead them to change their “natural” behavior as they knew every movement was being recorded, commented on, and critiqued; and (b) students began to feel that no matter what they did in class, this would never satisfy Dan’s extremely

154  Kuklick and Harvey Table 9.2 This is a table of the degree of opaque and transparency, which are dependent, on both the platform in which the technology is mounted for data capture and/​or the presentation of data. For example, a GoPro (GoPro, 2015) an environment proof video device that can be handheld, static, wearable, or mobile (i.e., drone). Opaque

Dependent on TPACK


Handheld video Static video Wearable video Handheld environment proof video Static environment proof video Wearable environment proof video Mobile video Handheld computer applications Static computer applications Static heart rate monitors Wearable hear rate monitors Static Global Positioning System (GPS) Wearable GPS Wearable fitness band Static bio-​feedback sensors Wearable bio-​feedback sensors Static physiological sensors Wearable physiological sensors Handheld accelerometers Static accelerometers Wearable accelerometers

high expectations. Thus, a contrasting pedagogical strategy could be to provide a copy of the video to small-​groups and ask them to highlight their own perspectives on the strengths and weaknessess of the video (Harvey & Light, 2015). The learning environment created in this alternative “think-​ pair-​share” type of scenario is, arguably, more learner-​centered because the students have an opportunity to co-​construct knowledge alongside each other with the support and guidance of Dan through the pedagogical skills of feedback and questioning.

Story 2: Using video to develop technical skill performance Coach Darsky is a baseball coach at Callier High school’s interscholastic sports program. For many years, he has been struggling with getting his

Developing physical educators’ knowledge  155

pitchers to keep their head on the target (i.e. catcher) during their pitching motion out of the stretch and wind up. Over many seasons he has used various forms of verbal feedback and video-​ based feedback to get his students to develop this specific aspect of the pitching skill. As another strategy to solve the problem, Coach Darsky puts a pair of iVUE (iVUE, 2016) glasses (i.e. wearable video camera) on the pitchers as they perform their throwing sessions. One purpose of this type of wearable glasses video device is to capture video from the first-​person perspective as it is performed by the student. After capturing the video over multiple performances, he displays the video to the student. From the video, the students can see that during their performance they aren’t looking at the target. Coach Darsky facilitates the learning experiences by stopping the video at different points to show the students where they are looking and where their head is in relation to the timing of the pitch. They can determine that by the time their head is on the target, the ball has already left their hand. Essentially, the pitchers were throwing without looking at the target.

Story 2 Analysis In this example, the coach used a transparent wearable technology to solve a coaching/​teaching problem. In operationalizing this use of video in several sessions, Coach Darsky observed an improvement in pitching mechanics during practice sessions as the pitchers demonstrated an increased ability to keep their head on the target and thus better pitch outcomes. The pedagogogies utilized by the coach were important in increasing the transparency of the video. Like our first story, the pedagogical strategies and skills that could be integrated within the delivery included:  students working in small groups to encourage peer/​ self-​ assessment, student problem solving through the teachers’ employment of guided discovery, as well as teacher/​coach instructions such as feedback and questioning when needed. We would suggest that a likely outcome that further supports the integration of this form of video technology is the alignment of the pedagogies during sessions and competition when video is not able to be used. For example, while in competition the students will not have the video feedback to assist them, it is likely that there will be increased levels of awareness about the students’ intrinsic dynamics (i.e., movement mechancis) and greater attention paid to the environmental cues that can enhance learning and retention of the skill. Coach Darsky’s employment of the technology (iVUE) is extremely transparent because it is highly contextualized and integrated. This highly integrated use of technology may have additionally been due to the focus on one discrete motor action, rather than a series of discrete, and therefore more complex, motor movement skills as we saw in our first example.

156  Kuklick and Harvey

Story 3: Using wearable technology to teach fitness concepts in the weight room Gail has been teaching a strength and conditioning class at Messina Middle of the Prairie for eight years. Students come into the weight room as Gail finishes writing up the critical focus areas for the day on the white board. The students check in with their groups, report to their designated station and immediately begin their fitness sessions as Gail cycles through the weight room. After each set of an exercise has been performed, the students congregate to the closest flat screen monitor on the wall where they watch their performance in a live video delay, which was captured from one of four stationary cameras that are designated to their fixed station. While viewing the performance, the student who just performed is engaging in a discussion with the other group members based on the focus areas of the technique that Gail posted on the white board. Other tasks for group members during the viewing of the live-​delay video include problem discovery and recording data gathered from a fitness-​wearable technology device called Whoop (Whoop, 2015). Whoop (2015) is an integrated technology that fits like a watchband and has the capability of capturing a variety of physiological data, such as intensity of performance, readiness for recovery, and sleeping patterns. Gail works with over 200 middle school students who all have been issued and wear Whoop (2015). As the students monitor, peer teach, question each other in small groups at each station, Coach Gail acts a facilitator to extend learning in the groups while scanning the Whoop dashboard on her iPad (iPad, 2016).

Story 3 Analysis In this situation, we demonstrate the integration of multiple technologies for data capture and presentation and how they were used as teaching tools to facilitate learning and development in students. We would consider each of the technologies in this case to be transparent technology given that the technologies were used regularly and effortlessly, much like how someone today would check their watch or smart phone. Nonetheless, this story highlights how technology was integrated to facilitate learning through small groups, peer coaching, problem solving, and discovery learning pedagogies to deliver exercise technique content in weight room training sessions. However, the opaque nature of the technology can also be highlighted because Gail is drawn to the constant stream of data being bluetoothed to the dashboard for her viewing. Gail is therefore, and somewhat inadvertently, engaged in surveillance-​type behaviors as she uses the Whoop dashboard as a hub for evaluating the Whoop data of all the students in real-​time. Instantaneously, she can therefore determine which students are “slacking” or those who were over-​straining themselves.

Developing physical educators’ knowledge  157

Discussion Through our stories, we demonstrated some of the pros and cons in relation to how the type of technology affects its categorization from a social-​ behavioral perspective (see Table 9.3). Essentially, it is our contention that the opaqueness and transparentness of a technology is dependent on how it is used by the physical educator (see Table 9.2). This categorization has potential to facilitate a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how to apply a range of technologies highlighting the critical need for physical educators to possess TSB knowledge (see Table 9.1). Thus, we have offered insights into how physical educators strategize, adapt, and plan technology integration based on the implications that either opaque and transparent technologies possess in a given context to aid or hinder student learning. The following discussion provides a further examination of technology utilization in physical educators’ teaching practices. Opaque technologies require a large amount of physical and cognitive attention on behalf of the physical educator, thus there is a perception that the user is distracted and disconnected with their surroundings (Bowman et al., 2016; Clark, 2003; Curran, Hill, Hall, & Jowett, 2015; O’Sullivan, 2004; Schuster, 2014). If physical educators do not have their attention on their student(s), this could directly influence the relational closeness, trust, and engagement between the teacher and student(s). Likewise, the channels of verbal and non-​ verbal communication between the teacher and student are compromised in such a way that the teacher does not gain additional information about the student when they are using a technology in an opaque way (Bowman et  al., 2016; O’Sullivan, 2004; Schuster, 2014). Such breakdowns in verbal and nonverbal interactions are critical to the degree in which physical educators can facilitate learning through their pedagogical strategies. Consider the situation where a physical educators’ attention to the process of learning is reduced because they are not able to observe a student’s body language and behavior indicating their motivation or excitedness for a particular task because of an opaque use of technology. Notably, there is value in physical education teachers’ subjective assessments of students’ performance and the students’ perception of the physical education teacher using technology during tasks, which would influence how they perform skills. Here, appropriately employed pedagogical strategies in conjunction with opaque technologies can overcome the aforementioned barriers. For example, Taylor et al. (2017) determined how opaque video-​ based evidence was “stored, broadcast, reviewed, revisted and modified” (p.  116) by the teacher/​coach and acted as a critical gaze for normative correction. The utilization of alternative pedagogical strategies along with the pedagogical skills of feedback and questioning, could potentially help teachers overcome the barriers of opaque technologies acting as constant corrective gaze on students’ skill performance and mitigating the cognitive load of the teacher.

158  Kuklick and Harvey

Transparent technologies, which could be thought to potentially overcome the barriers associated with opaque technologies, may offer complications of their own. For example, transparent video technology cameras can capture authentic students’ behaviors, which would normally be only partially observed by a physical educator without the camera. However, there are potentially negative implications such that teacher–​student relationship may be compromised. Here, the practitioner could elicit judgmental and coercive type behaviors after reviewing the video which too acts as a critical gaze, that could in turn, compromise student motivation and the teacher–​student communication processes (De Meyer et al., 2014; Groom et al., 2012; Markula & Pringle, 2006; Mead, 1934). Conversely, research by Bowman and colleagues (2017) noted the transparency of the technology may facilitate teacher–​ student interactions depending on how transparent technology is used by the teacher to encourage or discourage self-​surveillence. Thus, the physical educator may purposefully make the presentation of information, transparent or hidden from students or themselves. The reasoning behind purposeful transparency of technology would be to provide less opportunity for coercive and judgemental teaching behaviors, which may create a social power differential that influences students’ performance outcomes, psychological wellbeing, creativity, motivation, and feelings of self-​worth (Lupton, 2013). The teacher, therefore, has to negotiate a fine line, which is ultimately based on their content, technological, pedagogical, and TSB knowledge (see Table 9.1; Williams & Manley, 2014). Practitioners’ overreliance on technology can result in focusing on technocratic acts of teaching and learning instead of focusing their attention on the motives associated with the process of learning through physical activity (Williams & Manley, 2014). Thus, it is our contention that there are four interacting and equally important bodies of knowledge that are used to produce effective physical education teaching practices through technology integration (see Table 9.1; Koehler & Mishra, 2009). By possessing a wide range of knowledge in the various software and hardware available (e.g., video, skill analysis applications, iPads, wearable technology), the multitude of pedagogical strategies (e.g., feedback, questioning, practice design, game-​ centered approaches such as teaching games for understanding), and knowledge in various content areas (e.g., swimming, kayaking, field hockey), alongside TSB knowledge, physical educators can make decisions that greatly influence learning (Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009; Niess, 2008). However, it is critical that physical educators maintain a level of self-​reflexivity and know one form of knowledge interacts and influences the other to enhance teaching and learning through technology integration. For example, physical educators can ask themselves questions that relate to the information presented in Tables 9.1 and 9.3: Do I  need to know more about the device/​technology? Do I  need to know more about how to provide feedback to students based on data generated

Developing physical educators’ knowledge  159 Table 9.3  Pros and cons of opaque and transparent technologies. Opaque technology

Transparent technology


• Increased student awareness of technology presence • Increased student awareness of self-​monitoring • Increased student awareness of identity • Increased student creativity • Increased time for students to process intrinsic feedback • Reduced educator surveillance • Increased student empathy for physical activity


• Reduced student–​teacher interaction and engagement • Reduced channels of communication • Compromises to student–​teacher relationship • Reduced educators’ qualitative assessments of students

• Increased educator data measures • Increased validity and reliability of quantitative assessments • Increased dialogue between teacher and student • Increased educator and student empowerment because of greater understanding for performance • Reduced educators’ qualitative assessments of student performance • Reduced self-​awareness of students’ self-​surveillance • Increased educator surveying behaviors • Increased educator likelihood of judgment on students • Increased likehood for student apathy

from the device/​technology? Do I  need to know more about the ethical handling of the data generated from the device/​technology? Based on their review of these questions pertaining to the different knowledge areas, physical educators can ensure this self-​reflexivity is apparent, particularly with respect to TSB knowledge (see Table 9.3).

Conclusions In this chapter, we have discussed and rationalized Clark’s (2003) transparent and opaque technologies framework as it applies to the physical education setting. By developing an understanding of opaque and transparent technologies, physical educators can have a deeper and more nuanced appreciation of TSB knowledge and its implications on learning when integrating technology. The social-​ behavioral framework provides a more nuanced basis for the examination of technology utilization in physical educators’ teaching practices, and asks them to question things ordinarily taken for granted (Gearity & Mills, 2013). This allows the teacher to ensure the students are positioned as critical co-​investigators in learning, as opposed to docile listeners (Groom & Nelson, 2012).

160  Kuklick and Harvey

Discussion questions 1. Provide some examples of opaque and transparent technologies in your current physical education context. Using information from the chapter, justify your categorizations. 2. Differentiate between opaque and transparent technologies by providing a highly specific example of how a physical education teacher would use a technology in an opaque or transparent way. Then, provide an analysis of how the socio-​behavioral implications of technology may influence student learning. 3. You are developing a teaching lesson plan that integrates technology use to facilitate fundamental motor skills in a soccer block of instruction. Provide a detailed lesson plan that highlights some of the socio-​behavioral considerations you would need to be mindful when attempting to integrate this technology into your practice to facilitate meaningful learning or performances in your students. 4. Select one content area that needs to be delivered to physical education students (i.e., games, track and field, gymnastics, swimming, dance, or outdoor and adventurous activities, etc.). Use bullet points to outline the specific content, pedagogical, technology, and technological socio-​behavioral knowledge that you would need to draw upon to facilitate student learning. 5. Explain three of the key socio-​behavioral implications of opaque and transparent technologies for physical educators and their students.

Further reading Bowman, N., Banks, J., & Westerman, D. (2016). Through the looking glass (self): The impact of wearable technology on perceptions of face to face interation. Communication Research Reports, 33(4), 332–​340. Casey, A., Goodyear, V., & Armour, K. (2017). Digital technologies and learning in physical education:  pedagogical cases. London; New York, NY: Routledge. Clark, A. (2003). Technologies to bond with. In: A. Clark (Ed), Natural-​ born cyborgs: minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence (pp. 35–​58). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lupton, D. (2013). Quantifying the body:  monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. Clinical Public Health, 23(4), 393–​404.

Developing physical educators’ knowledge  161

References Amoore, L. (2009). Algorithmic War: Everyday Geographies of the War on Terror. Antipode, 41 (1), 49–​69. Baca, A., Dabnichki, P., Heller, M., & Kornfeind, P. (2009). Ubiquitous computing in sports: A review and analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27 (12), 1335–​1346. Bell, D. (2001). An introduction to cybercultures. London; New  York, N.Y: Routledge. Bowker, G. C. & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out:  classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brantley-​Dias, L. & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the Construct “Just Right?” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46 (2), 103–​128. Bowman, N., Anderson, M., Atkinson, J., & Ahern, T. (2017). Reflecting on learners, or reflecting on lessons? The impact of first-​ person and third-​ person video recordings on education students’ reflections of their teaching practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Communication Assocation, Boston, MA, March, 2017. Bowman, N., Banks, J., & Westerman, D. (2016). Through the looking glass (self): the impact of wearable technology on perceptions of face to face interation. Communication Research Reports, 33(4), 332–​340. Brantley-​Dias, L. & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: is the construct “just right?”. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education), 46(2), 103–​128. Casey, A. & Jones, B. (2011). Using digital technology to enhance student engagement in physical education. Asia-​Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 2(2), 51–​66. Casey, A., Goodyear, V., & Armour, K. (2017a). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases. London; New York, NY: Routledge. Casey, A., Goodyear, V., & Armour, K. (2017b). Rethinking the relationship between pedagogy, technology, and learning in health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 22(2), 288–​304. Cheney-​ Lippold, J. (2011). A new algorithmic identity:  soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(6), 164–​181. Clark, A. (2003). Technologies to bond with. In: A. Clark, ed. Natural-​born cyborgs:  minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. New  York, NY: Oxford University Press, 35–​58. Cox, S. & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice:  Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. Tech Trends 53(5), 60–​69. Curran, T., Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., & Jowett, G. E. (2015). Relationships between the coach-​created motivational climate and athlete engagement in youth sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37(2), 193–​198. Davis, J. (2012). Social media and experiential ambivalence. Future Internet, 4(4), 955–​970. Dartfish Express (2012). Dartfish Technology (Version 5.1) Mobile applicationsoftware. Available from:​Express/​. De Meyer, J., Tallir, I. B., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Van den Berghe, L., … Haerens, L. (2014). Does observed controlling teaching behavior

162  Kuklick and Harvey relate to students’ motivation in physical education? Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 541–​554. Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319–​346. Fitbit (2017). Fitbit official site for activity Trackers and more [online]. Available from:​ Freund, P. (2004). Civilised bodies redux: Seams in the cyborg. Social Theory and Health, 2(3), 273–​289. GoPro (2015). GoPro Inc. Video technology software. Available from: www.gopro. com/​ Gearity, B. T. & Mills, J. P. (2013). Discipline and punish in the weight room. Sports Coaching Review, 1(2), 124–​134. Groom, R. & Nelson, L. (2012). The application of video-​based performance analysis in the coaching process: the coach supporting athlete learning. In: P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison(eds). Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 96–​ 107). London; New York, NY: Routledge. Groom, R., Cushion, C. J., & Nelson, L. J. (2012). Analysing coach–​athlete “talk in interaction” within the delivery of video-​based performance feedback in elite youth soccer. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4(3), 439–​458. Harvey, S. & Light, R. L. (2015). Questioning for learning in game-​based approaches to teaching and coaching. Asia-​ Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 6(2), 175–​190. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women:  the reinvention of women. New York: Routledge. Heynen, C. (2008). Viewing and visual representation in the physical education classroom. Strategies, 22(1), 25–​30. iPad (2016). Apple Inc. Mobile technology software. Available from: com/​ipad/.​ iVUE (2016). iVUE Inc. Video technology software. Available from:  www.​ Johns, D. P. & Johns, J. S. (2000). Surveillence, subjectivism and technologies of power:  an analysis of the discursive practice of high-​ performance sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35(2), 219–​234. Jones, R. L. (2009). Coaching as caring (the smiling gallery): accessing hidden knowledge. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(4), 377–​390. Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–​70. Light, R. (2008). Complex learning theory:  its epistemology and its assumptions about learning:  Implications for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(1), 21–​37. Lupton, D. (1995). The embodied computer/​user. Body and Society, 1(3–​4), 97–​112. Lupton, D. (2013). Quantifying the body: monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. Clinical Public Health, 23(4), 393–​404. Markula, P. & Pringle, R. (2006). Foucault, sport and exercise: power, knowledge and transforming the self. New York, NY: Routledge. Matic, A., Osmani, V., & Mayora-​Ibarra, O. (2012). Analysis of social interactions through mobile phones. Mobile Networks and Applications, 17(6), 808–​819.

Developing physical educators’ knowledge  163 Mayes, T. & De Freitas, S. (2013). Technology-​enhanced learning: the role of theory. In: H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (eds). Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age (pp. 17–​30). New York: NY: Routledge. Mackenzie, A. (2013). Programming subjects in the regime of anticipation: software studies and subjectivity. Subjectivity, 6, 391–​405. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist: Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Michael, K. & Michael, M. (2013). No limits to watching? Communications of the ACM, 56(11), 26–​28. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–​1054. Nelson, L. J., Potrac, P., & Groom, R. (2014). Receiving video-​based feedback in elite ice-​hockey: a player’s perspective. Sport, Education and Society, 19(1), 19–​40. Niess, M.  L. (2008). Knowledge needed for teaching with technologies  –​call it TPACK. AMTE Connections, 17(2), 9–​10. O’Sullivan, P. B. (2004). Channel as metacommunication: message of the medium. Paper presented at the International Conference on Language and Social Psychology, State College, PA, 2004, July. Pace, S. (2013). Looking at innovation through CCT glasses: consumer culture theory and Google glass innovation. Journal of Innovation Management, 1 (1), 38–​54. Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing how does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences?. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347–​360. Roth, K. (2014). Technology for tomorrow’s teachers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 85(4), 3–​5. Schuster, D. (2014). The revolt against Google “Glassholes”. New  York Post. Retrieved from:  http://​​2014/​07/​14/​is-​google-​glass-​cool-​or-​just-​plain-​ creepy/​(last accessed February 4, 2018). Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand:  knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–​14. Shulman, L. S.  (1987). Knowledge and teaching:  foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–​23. Society of Health and Physical Educators (2014). National standards and grade-​level outcomes for K–​12 physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Sparkes, A.C. (2002). Telling tales in sport and physical activity:  a qualitative journey. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Taylor, W. G., Potrac, P., Nelson, L. J., Jones, L., & Groom, R. (2017). An elite hockey player’s experiences of video-​based coaching: A poststructuralist reading. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 52(1), 112–​125. Whoop (2015). Whoop Inc. Wearable technology software. Available from http: https://​​ Williams, S. & Manley, A. (2014). Elite coaching and the technocratic engineer: Thanking the boys at Microsoft! Sport, Education and Society, 21(6), 828–​850. Williamson, B. (2015). Algorithmic skin:  health-​ tracking technologies personal analytics and the biopedagogies of digitized health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 20(1). 133–​151.

Chapter 10

Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum in the educational praxis of physical education Corina van Doodewaard and Annelies Knoppers

Introduction This chapter is situated in our belief that physical education can play a role in addressing issues that effect equal opportunities and social justice. This means we believe that PE should be a place that attempts to empower all youth to realize their potential and celebrate their own bodies. PE should therefore continually challenge societal hierarchies or inequalities. In part, this can be done by looking critically at developments in the field and profession. The integration of digital technologies into the curriculum of physical education (PE) can be studied from various perspectives, each of which asks different questions. Some scholars (e.g. Hodges & Ste-​Marie, 2013; Leight, Banville, & Polifko, 2009; O’Loughlin, Ni Chróinín, & O’Grady, 2013; Palao, Hastie, Cruzm, & Ortega 2015; Weir & Connor, 2009) focus on answering the question:  what works? They focus on effective use and circumstances of different digital technologies that have become part of the learning process of students. In contrast to questions concerning the effectiveness of technology, this chapter focuses on the question how the use of specific technologies may shape, contribute or challenge social inequalities in PE practices. In this chapter, we critically reflect on the explicit and implicit messages that PE teachers communicate through the use of digital technologies as part of their curriculum. We examine how the use of these technologies could influence judgments of bodies, often called surveillance. We describe explicit and implicit discourses about bodies and explore how body surveillance based on digital technologies may strengthen and challenge social inequalities in PE. We do so by drawing on the scholarly literature that pertains to the hidden curriculum, to meanings assigned to bodies and to technologies as a teaching tool. We subsequently bring these areas together in a discussion of the power of the hidden curriculum that may be embedded in the use of technologies in physical education, influencing ideas about “suitable” bodies.

Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum  165

Curriculum as educational praxis Schooling in PE includes more than learning the content of a formal curriculum or of a subject being taught (Kirk, 2001). The contents of the PE curriculum and how it is taught contain powerful explicit and implicit messages that influence what students learn about themselves and others. These messages concern ideas about physical activity, health, performance, physical literacy, and other constructs such as those based on the “ideal” or desired body. The daily practices of teachers in physical education emerge not only from their pre-​service training and experience but also from requirements of the national and school-​specific curriculum. Kirk (1992, 2013) argues that curriculum includes the broad characteristics of subject matter, pedagogic interactions between teachers and learners and the sociocultural milieu in which interactions take place. Consequently, curriculum represents education as a practice within a specific cultural context. An investigation of curriculum does not only focus on the practice of what teachers do, but also what they intend to do and the factors and forces that create, shape and guide these intentions. Kirk expands this investigation to include the study of educational praxis. Viewing curriculum as educational praxis means seeing it as a dynamic entity rather than a static plan that only consists of descriptions of aims, goals and content. Kirk (1992; 2013) and Dodds (1985) describe various dynamics of curriculum in educational praxis that operate simultaneously within any PE program. One such dynamic is the formal and explicit curriculum. The content of the explicit or formal curriculum describes what is or should be formally taught in PE. It guides teachers in selecting activities and is known by students in what they are taught. This formal curriculum becomes visible in the chosen activities such as games, gymnastics, dance and athletics and the teacher’s decision to ask students to play 2–​2 volleyball, make a somersault, join in a street dance or run 400 meters. Teachers choose pedagogical methods intentionally and unintentionally while students respond to these pedagogies by assigning meanings, responding, adapting, etc. The response of students may influence subsequent choices and behaviors in educational praxis. Another dynamic in educational praxis is the hidden curriculum. It is a curriculum based on implicit and not always specified agendas. Teachers communicate this hidden curriculum through their interactions with students and their justification of how and why they encourage their students to learn certain skills and attitudes. The hidden curriculum “directs attention to the implicit, subconscious learning of knowledge, attitudes, values, norms and assumptions that are transmitted to students unconsciously in and through educational praxis in the everyday practices” (Wilkinson & Penney, 2016, p. 745). Research that has focused on the educational praxis of the

166  van Doodewaard and Knoppers

hidden curriculum shows how these implicit messages may lead to exclusive practices that disadvantage specific groups of students (Hill & Azzarito, 2012; Kirk, 1992, 2013). For example, when a teacher devotes more time or shows more pleasure in dealing with boys, girls implicitly perceive themselves as less important in learning what is taught in PE (Fisette, 2012). Or, for example, when schools only offer competitive games in their extra-​ curricular program, and the coaches that offer this program specifically focus on the talented minority. It may lead to a disproportionate number of students who are not seen as physically competent (enough) to participate (Wilkinson & Penney, 2016). Their absence from these competitions may shape their sense of their capabilities that may in turn influence their willingness to access and pursue further participation in PE and sport contexts. This sense of capability is shaped by a variety of forces that may be part of a hidden curriculum. Flintoff (2012) examined dynamics of the hidden curriculum by studying the experiences of black minority ethnic students in Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE). She described the complex ways in which those students experienced, negotiated and resisted ethnic, racial and religious stereotyping embedded in the hidden curriculum while they were being subjected to a formal curriculum that was taught to all PETE students. For instance, some of the young men described the strong presence of the stereotype “blacks cannot swim” that prevailed during swimming classes. This influenced the way they perceived their own bodies. For some of the women minority students the mixed gender groups and the wearing of Western swim wear conflicted with their religious identity. Flintoff found that these felt experiences were invisible to many white teachers and students while the practices and associated feelings marginalized black minority students. A hidden curriculum may not only strengthen unnoticed or implicit marginalization but may also reinforce assumptions of privilege. Van Doodewaard and Knoppers (2018) found that teachers gave special attention to highly skilled boys who might feel ignored or inadequate in cognitive school subjects. Teachers intentionally and openly showed their appreciation for the displays of skill by these boys. Such performances by boys often meant, however, that the implementation of the formal curriculum was adjusted to their preferences, ignoring the needs and preferences of other students. Practices and processes that reflect values and attitudes that are part of the hidden curriculum such as these reported by Van Doodewaard and Knoppers and by Flintoff may be invisible or ignored in evaluations of outcome. The implicit or hidden curriculum is, however, not totally hidden. Kirk (1992, 2013) contends that the values and attitudes conveyed through the hidden curriculum can be investigated through an analysis of implicit and explicit communication of ideas or assumptions. A social justice perspective assumes these ideas or discourses are socially constructed. If for example, a teacher calls upon “some strong guys” to help lift a heavy obstacle in PE,

Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum  167

he is drawing upon ideas or ways of thinking about gender. Researchers can investigate the explicit and implicit ideas inherent in this instruction and analyze how the idea of strong bodies emerges from ways of thinking about bodies and gender in PE. Ways of thinking about a topic are called discourses. We return to and further explain this concept of discourses in the next section. The hidden curriculum can therefore be explored and made visible through the use of discourse analysis. Discourse analysis focuses on the implicit meaning or discourse from which a part of a curriculum is drawn. Discourse analysis enables researchers and teachers to see what is not always obvious. It can make the invisible visible and reveal explicit and implicit messages that are embedded in educational praxis of physical education (Rønholt, 2002). Discourse analysis can therefore be a fruitful method to explore dynamics of the hidden curriculum.

Discourses: explicit and implicit messages Foucault (1976) described discourse as an analytical concept. Knowledge circulates in society through the use of discourses. Discourse can be described as a relatively consistent set of ideas that are socially constructed, dynamic, and context dependent (Markula & Pringle, 2006). People use discourses to navigate social life and to make sense of their own experiences and social communication. The concept of discourse acknowledges the active role of language in the production of knowledge and power. This language occurs through words, images, videos, things, signs and institutional practice (Livholts & Tamboukou, 2015). Through these forms of communication, implicit messages and the norms they convey become embedded in daily practices and routines and subsequently are seen as common sense or “normal.” Discourses have power because they shape how people think (Markula & Pringle, 2006). The studies by Flintoff (2012) and Van Doodewaard and Knoppers (2018) described earlier illustrated how a discourse can exert power on individuals. Similarly, some discourses become so dominant that they become perceived as self-​evident and as true. For example, the assumption or “truth” that performance in PE can best be measured by ability assessments such as distance jumped, ability to shoot a basketball into a basket, serving a volleyball successfully or running 800 meters. These assessments of bodies are based on what Foucault called normalizing judgments and often privilege non-​ disabled bodies above disabled bodies. Foucault (1976) called this subtle form of power, “disciplinary power” (see also Van Amsterdam, Knoppers, Claringbould, & Jongmans, 2012). It has the “power” to shape how people feel about themselves and others, how they internalize this judgment and behave accordingly. A specific form of disciplinary power, called biopower, refers to discourses that constitute and regulate the body (Wright, 2009). Van Amsterdam et al.

168  van Doodewaard and Knoppers

(2012) used the concept of biopower to explore the experiences of youth with physical disabilities. They found that these youths did all they could to appear normal and not disabled, even when doing so negatively influenced their well-​being. This example illustrates how biopower can act upon individuals and influence their thoughts and behaviors (see also the example about how minority students were influenced by stereotypes about their swimming ability described earlier). When PE is conceptualized as an arena to compete and to measure skills, this “truth” will regulate and control which bodies are seen as competent bodies. Every time these assessments are used, disabled bodies may be perceived as inadequate or incompetent. This again is an example of biopower. The discourse of competence is a powerful one since it often determines the way (dis)abled bodies are constructed or seen in PE (Fitzgerald, 2005). Categorization and normalization form the foundation for meaning making towards differences in bodies in PE. After all, if the construction of “normal” bodies exists, it means that constructions of “abnormal” bodies occur as well. Our previous description of the experiences of students with a physical disability illustrates this well. The use of a Foucauldian framework suggests teaching techniques based on assessments and ensuing norms, enable teachers to exercise biopower and control student bodies (Markula & Pringle, 2006). One of the ways or techniques of exercising biopower or control is called surveillance. Surveillance connects visibility and power: people judge a person on how they look or, in other words, a visible body is a knowable body. It can be observed and subjected to normalizing judgements by teachers and peers. Rose (2012) contends that social categories such as those pertaining to gender and (dis) ability are (re) produced by visual representations. These visualizations also contain “texts” or messages. Images and videos can therefore be used as instruments of surveillance. The formal (explicit) and hidden (implicit) curriculum of images is crucial in the production and reproduction of values and meanings given to social difference. For example, when girls were asked to select body images from their favorite magazines, their selection provided insight into what they have learned about cultural values associated with being a “woman” (Oliver, 2010). A  discussion of and critical reflection on these selections of body images may enable researchers and those involved to critically deconstruct and resist the biopower of the images (Azzarito, 2013; Evans & Davies, 2004; Oliver, 2010; Van Amsterdam et al., 2012). Another example of how biopower and visual control work can be seen is in the reactions to the symbols or signs on PE changing-​rooms. The signs divide students into two groups only: a student must choose a room with the sign of a skirt or of pants. “Everybody knows” (normalizing judgement) that the skirt means “girls” and the pants mean “boys” and that this refers to biological gender, that is, the gender assigned by birth. This constructed

Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum  169

dichotomy of gender-​segregated locker rooms (categorization) is complex for all those who do not fit one of the categories of the imagined body (Sykes, 2011). Transgender students may choose to use the changing room associated with their current gender while non-​transgender students may feel the “trans” should use the changing room based on gender assignment at birth. Students who see themselves as nonbinary may not feel at home in either room (Sykes, 2011). The discourse on gender that divides bodies into two categories only, does not always fit all bodies. Implicitly the “trans” become “others” with abnormal bodies; they do not fit into the normalized practice of girls’ and boys’ changing-​rooms. Implicit and explicit discourses about normal and abnormal bodies are not limited to visual signs on doors, however. As we explain below these discourses may shape teachers’ and students’ bodies through norms about ideal bodies and behaviors. Some explicit discourses about the body are so well known and normalized that they have become part of Western cultural hegemony (Beltrán-​Carrillo, Dévis-​Dévis, & Peiró-​Velert, 2016; Evans, Davies, & Wright, 2004). One of such dominant Western discourses in PE is that of healthism. Healthism is an ideology that constitutes good health as being a matter of individual choice and individual responsibility (Evans & Davies, 2004; Rich, De Pian, & Francombe-​Webb, 2015; Van Amsterdam, 2013; Webb, Quennerstedt, & Öhman, 2008; Wright, 2009). It emphasizes that physical inactivity produces health risks including obesity. The discourse of healthism holds every individual responsible for developing and maintaining a fit and trim-​ looking body and is based on the assumption that someone who looks overweight has an unhealthy lifestyle. Introducing performance apps such as fitbits in PE is often used to reinforce this discourse. These devices encourage students to reach certain norms or standards/​goals in physical activity (see for instance Lee, Drake, & Williamson, 2015). Other explicit and bio-​powerful discourses in PE are those concerning body performance (Azzarito, 2009; Azzarito, Macdonald, Dagkas, & Fisette, 2016; Beltrán-​Carrillo, Devís-​Devís, & Peiró-​Velert, 2016; Giese & Ruin, 2016; Van Doodewaard & Knoppers, 2018; Wright & Burrows, 2006). PE frequently becomes a context for a specific performative culture in which physical performance, competitiveness and victory are highly valued. In these contexts, the skill, performance, fitness and bodies of students are constantly watched, judged and evaluated by teachers, coaches and peers (Beltrán-​Carrillo, Devís-​Devís, & Peiró-​Velert, 2016). Normalizing judgments of performance often result in verbal and/​or symbolic rewards for those who perform well and sanctions for those who perform relatively poorly. This use of biopower therefore goes beyond language usage and individual knowledge of success or failure and includes surveillance based on normalizing judgment. Together with other, more implicit discourses, the discourses of healthism and body performance shape perceptions of reality in PE and sport.

170  van Doodewaard and Knoppers

Digital technologies An area that has received little attention thus far with respect to uncovering the hidden curriculum about bodies and biopower in PE is the use of technology and technological devices (Lupton, 2015). Western PE settings have become more and more equipped with TV screens and playing devices. Opportunities in the access of digital cameras that are connected to smart phones and tablets have increased exponentially. Initially gyms and the PE curriculum were largely excluded from school-​based implementations of digital innovations (Tearle & Golder, 2008). Currently however, more than 75 percent of Dutch PE teachers use video technology as a means of providing instruction and feedback to their students, or plan to do so in the future (Reijgersberg, Lucassen, Beth, & Werff, 2014). A growing body of research has been developed responding to the “what and how” questions concerning the use of technology such as video instruction or video feedback to enhance student learning (e.g. Casey, Goodyear, & Armour, 2017a; Hodges & Ste-​Marie, 2013; Palao, Hastie, Cruz, & Ortega, 2015; Weir & Connor, 2009). This not only has implications for implementation and interpretation of the formal curriculum but also for the hidden curriculum. In the following section we use our conception of the hidden curriculum to argue that this innovation may have a huge impact on all aspects of the curriculum. Our focus is on the hidden curriculum of such technologies and how they may challenge and reinforce biopower acting upon bodies in PE.

Video feedback The digital technologies that are part of the formal PE curriculum can function as instruments for instruction and feedback. As part of the hidden curriculum they may be used for surveillance of bodies and of bodily performance and thus for the exercising of biopower. The usage of these instruments is often based on technologies and software that are used in sports (see for instance, Advocates of the use of surveillance technology in sports claim that applications of technology are beneficial in many ways. Studies that focus on the effects of video feedback suggest that the performance and health of athletes can improve significantly when coaches use these contemporary surveillance technologies in elite sport (e.g. Giblin, Tor, & Parrington, 2016; Nelson & Groom, 2012; Moreno, Moreno, Garcia-​Gonzalez, Urena, Hernandez, & Del Villar, 2016). These studies suggest that the use of surveillance videos can enhance skill acquisition and development and contribute to pedagogical fine-​tuning of athletes (Jones & Toner, 2016). The language and practices of video feedback and their purported influence on performance and health of elite athletes have encouraged teachers

Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum  171

to think about similarities between elite sport and PE such as in their use of discourses of performance and health and how these technologies can be utilized in the educational praxis of PE (Palao et al., 2013). Digital technologies enable PE teachers to engage in various forms of surveillance such as monitoring student performance and providing them with feedback. Digital technologies also enable teachers to teach or discipline their students to “watch with a teacher’s eye” and to practice a skill (Leenhouts, Van der Kamp, & Duivenvoorden, 2016; Lupton, 2015). Jones and Toner (2016) therefore label technologies as instruments of discipline that rely on surveillance and subsequent analysis and can be used to produce bodies that approximate the desired norm (Foucault, 1977; Lang, 2010). In PE and sport a docile body is one that approximates the desired norm of healthy and performing bodies and behavior (Gard, 2014). In this manner, recorded/​ visual bodies can be subjected to these normalizing judgments (biopower). The use of such surveillance technologies has a hidden curriculum since it has effects that go beyond skill acquisition. Some students may appreciate and enjoy being able to participate in such monitoring and surveillance practices, seeing it as a way to express their autonomy and engage in self-​ regulation. Other, possibly less talented or less enthusiastic students may find these practices shaming, restrictive or coercive when used as measures of performance and fitness (Lupton, 2015). Research in elite sport has explored this implicit disciplining of bodies through video-​feedback. Taylor, Potrac, Nelson, Jones, and Groom (2015) for instance, studied the experiences of an elite hockey team who received video-​based coaching. They found that the presence of a camera, the recorded image and the experiences of the images being played back induced feelings of fear, heightened self-​awareness and a sense of responsibility in the athletes. They experienced the presence of a video camera as a technology with a critical gaze. The coach’s use of surveillance technology created a controlling environment for these athletes and resulted in technocratic practices in which the coach became an assistant of technology instead of acting as an educator (Jones & Toner, 2016; Taylor et al., 2015). Lang (2010), who studied the use of underwater technologies and videos in practices of competitive youth swimming, identified ways in which bodies of swimmers and their coaches were subject to the disciplinary mechanism of surveillance. The use of videos produced embodied conformity to normative behavior. Standards and prescribed practices were driven by discourses about the importance of physical preparation. They felt they were under constant surveillance, as if they were in a prison where a supervisor may always be watching them. Foucault (1977) called this constant surveillance the panopticon. The feeling of being constantly under surveillance meant athletes and their coaches internalized the panoptic gaze and regulated and adapted their behaviors towards accepted standards.1 This is another example of biopower acting on bodies.

172  van Doodewaard and Knoppers

The use of such technologies can also implicitly create a synopticon, a situation in which many see and judge the few (Mathiesen, 1997) as a teacher’s story about the use of digital instruction videos shows: At a certain moment, I noticed that Sophie was no longer involved in the activity. She didn’t want to do it anymore. I:  

Hey Sofia, c’mon; have some fun jumping. I am interested in knowing what happened [after the video feedback]. Did you learn anything? See things differently? Does the image you see correspond with how you think you perform? What do you tell yourself to do after seeing the video? SOPHIE:   No, I do not want to do this anymore. She was almost in tears. I:   Hey, what SOPHIE:   I do

is happening here? What is the matter? not like that camera being here. I am afraid that in a few years you will show these images to students and say “We had this student who couldn’t do it all: she makes many mistakes.”

I was taken aback. She was crying. Oh, what a fool I was! I wasn’t sensitive enough to realize what the camera can do. Of course, in part Sophie’s reaction is also her responsibility but I am responsible for ensuring that no child is upset due to the video feedback they receive. I have to think of ways to use this [technology] more carefully and thoughtfully. The story shows how teachers may be unaware of the dynamics of the hidden curriculum invoked by these technologies. A combination of the presence of the video camera, the recorded images and the experiences of the images being played back can be perceived as a synoptic situation in which current and future students can watch Sophie. The development of modern technology allows “evidence of behavioral compliance” to be broadcast, reviewed, revisited and modified (Taylor et al., 2015, p. 4). Sophie was afraid of the synoptic vies in which peers might use normalizing judgements about her skills and body that flow from discourses of performance and health. Status or value in PE contexts is often associated with performances of highly proficient sporting bodies (Evans & Penney, 2008; Hill & Azzarito, 2012; Oliver, 2010; Van Amsterdam et al., 2012). The often-​required display of a normative body that looks and behaves in ways that are associated with desired achievement and results, subsequently produces hierarchies of privilege and marginality. Fisette (2011) argues that when PE includes a strong emphasis on physical aspects of the performing body, self-​surveillance by girls and their surveillance of others may result in girls avoiding voluntary participation in this disciplinary PE context. The girls may frame their avoidance

Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum  173

as lack of interest but possibly the hidden curriculum of these video feedback technologies enforce biopower and influence these girls in yet unnamed ways. Students may therefore, not always be comfortable with the visibility generated in video-​feedback practices. It may inform their sense of (vulner) ability or confidence (Lupton, 2015; Van Doodewaard & Knoppers, 2018). According to Evans and Penny (2008) the focus on visibility and on the availability of good examples as occurs in the use of video feedback, magnifies constructions of ability. This praxis easily triggers the reproduction of suitable and desirable bodies and enforces hierarchies of privilege and marginality (Hill & Azzarito, 2012). This may not only occur in the use of video feedback, but also through the implementation of video instruction. Video instruction The launching of YouTube in 2005 enabled individuals to use uploaded video instructions. This has led to an exponential growth in the number of people who are interested in these online instructions such as, for example, in dance (Parrish, 2016). Since then, PE teachers have also shown a growing interest in the opportunities to use video instruction in their classrooms (Casey, Goodyear, & Armour, 2017b; Reigersberg et  al., 2014). The use of video instruction is assumed to assist teachers in optimizing their instructions, to help them to organize their teaching in an efficient manner, and to empower students to customize and take charge of their own learning (Consten & Van Driel, 2015; Lupton, 2015; Parrish, 2016). There has been a large increase in the use of PE instruction videos in the Netherlands. New insights from research in motor learning perspectives encourage teachers to use videos of students in a class instead of elite athletes (Kok & Van der Kamp, 2013). This research suggests that peer modeling offers better skill learning results in PE than the use of athletes (Ste Marie et al., 2012). Little or no research has been conducted, however, about the hidden curriculum that may accompany peer-​modeling that is often part of instruction videos. The story of Sophie, who believes that a video of her executing a skill will be used to teach peers what (not) to do, is an example of this phenomenon. To what extent does the use of instruction videos strengthen and/​or challenge normalizing judgments by students of other students? There is little available robust knowledge about how practitioners are using instruction videos for educational purposes and the ways they may inform the hidden curriculum that accompanies that (Armour, Casey, & Goodyear, 2017). The use of students as (peer) models may add another dimension to this complexity. Dutch PETE educators and curriculum-​developers have used students as models in their video instructions since it has been in use (see for instance, Consten & Van Driel, 2015; Koekoek, Walinga, & Van Hilvoorde, 2015; Duivenvoorden, Van der Kamp, & Van Hilvoorde, 2016). The possibilities

174  van Doodewaard and Knoppers

of using these easily available models in these videos has stimulated many Dutch teachers to use students from their own schools to create and compose their own instruction videos (Beth, 2014). Teachers are encouraged to edit their videos and select and sort fragments to enhance the quality of the instruction (Consten & Van Driel, 2015). The use of instruction videos may suggest a neutral practice associated with concept of performance or ability that does not have an implicit message or hidden curriculum. Physical ability is never a neutral concept, however. Physical ability is a construct embedded in social and cultural relations. Its conceptualization therefore has significant consequences for students in relation to gender, ethnicity, disability and race (Lupton, 2015; Solmon, 2014; Wright & Burrows, 2006). As such, video instructions in PE can function as instruments to explicitly and implicitly shape thoughts about bodies. The practice of constructing and showing instruction movies is not a neutral practice either and can enhance the disciplinary power of teachers. The use of this biopower is not a new development, however. Teachers have always used this power when selecting someone in the class to demonstrate a skill. Instruction-​videos however depict an artificial or teacher made practice (Lupton, 2015). It presents a carefully edited educational praxis, supposedly without any unwanted distraction and errors. Teachers are the ones who select which activities are shown and who models them. The ways in which teachers implement these activities, as educational praxis, is often part of the hidden curriculum. Teachers (implicitly) control or govern the way in which skills and activities are shown in the videos. They choose the students who perform in such videos and orchestrate or control their behavior. Together with the praxis of video-​editing and the selection or deselection of fragments, the use of these technologies may strengthen a hidden curriculum that categorizes bodies into suitable, desirable, visible and knowable bodies. Consequently, these videos become instruments that inform the production and reproduction of values and can create or strengthen social difference (Rose, 2012). These explicit and implicit effects of the processes of creating instructional videos and their use, turn these videos into instruments of discipline and biopower (Jones & Toner, 2016). Besides possibly refusing to participate, little is known how students resist this form of biopower. A questioning of the role these videos play in the gym and in the creation and challenging of normative and desirable bodies, may provide opportunities to reflect on hidden curricula and enable discussions on how technologies such as video instruction and feedback can be used in a responsible way, in educational praxis (Verbeek, 2014).

Conclusion Although there has been a considerable amount of research (as cited in the beginning of this chapter) on the hidden curriculum in PE, relatively little attention has been paid to the hidden curriculum that may be embedded in

Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum  175

the use of instructional technologies in PE. We have argued that these technologies can become instruments of discipline that control how children perceive themselves: as capable or incapable performers and as human beings who enjoy movement or not and whose bodies are celebrated or unappreciated. Modern forms of video technology stimulate the visual possibilities of the use of categorization, normalization and acts of (self-​)surveillance. Consequently, video technology may contribute to social inequality by marginalizing some bodies and privileging others. Discourses about the body are not only (re) produced however, but can also be negotiated, or resisted. According to Foucault (1977) individuals actively negotiate discourses and are influenced by discourses in unique and different ways depending on the context and how people are positioned in that context. Azzarito (2012) showed for example, how photographs can be used as pedagogical tools to uncover these hidden messages and deconstruct the discourses surrounding suitable bodies. Videos can have this power to disrupt normative discourses as well. Teachers and scholars can therefore challenge such normalizing practices. Not only do the negative effects of the use of instruction videos, need additional research and consideration (Gard, 2014; Lupton, 2015; Taylor et al., 2015) but teachers and scholars also need to acknowledge the mediating role of video technologies in moral actions and decisions (Verbeek, 2014) and reflect on the biopower of video technologies in the gym. We ask teachers to become aware of their assumptions in their use of technological-​pedagogical choices in both the explicit as the hidden curriculum so that their practices can mediate and decontextualize and disrupt “overt and hidden truths” of biopower associated with so-​called normal bodies. This does not mean that video instruction or feedback technologies should be ignored or eliminated, but that their use needs to be critically considered. This chapter attempts to highlight several of these considerations. We wrote this chapter using a social justice perspective. This means we used a critical voice to study the phenomenon of using technologies in PE classes. Dominant visual recordings offered in PE lessons influence students’ constructions of themselves and others as “suitable bodies” (Hill, 2015). Given the increasing importance placed on taking charge of one’s own learning and wellbeing (see for example, the description of skills needed in the twenty-​first century (Thijs, Fisser, & Van der Hoeven, 2014), and the current societal emphasis on able, healthy and visible bodies, a commitment by teachers, policy makers and researchers to move towards diversity in visual representations in PE is necessary. This diversity may widen the perspectives, opportunities and possibilities of students to accept their bodies as normal, regardless of size, ability, gender, race and other hierarchical social relations. As we stated in the beginning of this chapter, we believe that PE should be a place where teachers attempt to empower all young people to enable them to develop their potential and celebrate their own bodies and those of others. PE should therefore be a place where societal

176  van Doodewaard and Knoppers

hierarchies or inequalities based on bodies and biopower are challenged and not reinforced. PE should offer youth opportunities to verbalize, enact, celebrate and visualise this diversity of bodies. If students are empowered to create alternative narratives and selves within (digital) educational settings, they may have more room to articulate and experience a diversity of “moving-​identities.” By interrogating the discourses that surround digital practices in PE, teachers can identify biopower and its possible negative effects and work to ensure that PE is or becomes a place where social justice is practiced.

Discussion questions 1. How could the use of digital technologies have negative effects for students? Have you noticed this happening in your own use of technologies in PE? 2. Could you give several other examples of how body surveillance based on digital technologies may strengthen social inequalities in PE? 3. Which pedagogical opportunities can digital technologies offer teachers to critically deconstruct representations of “the normal body” and resist forms of biopower that tend to prioritize homogeneity in movement instead of diversity? 4. How could PE teachers provide educational spaces (with or without digital technologies) where young people can deconstruct, articulate and challenge explicit and implicit messages about bodies?

Further reading Azzarito, L. & Kirk, D. (2013). Pedagogies, physical culture, and visual methods. London/​New York: Routledge. Markula, P. & Pringle, R. (2006). Foucault, sport and exercise. London/​ New York: Routledge. O’Sullivan, M. & MacPhail, A. (2010). Young people’s voices in education and youth sport. London/​New York: Routledge.

Note 1 This does not mean that the use of technologies caused coaches to adopt a panoptic gaze. Research shows that coaches use a panoptic gaze to look at athletes without digital technology as well (e.g. Claringbould, Knoppers, & Jacobs, 2014; Cushion & Jones, 2014; Johns & Johns, 2000; Markula & Pringle, 2006; Taylor & Garratt, 2010).

Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum  177

References Armour, K. Casey, A., & Goodyear, V. (2017). A pedagogical cases approach to understanding digital technologies and learning in physical education. In A. Casey, V. A. Goodyear, & K. M. Armour (eds.), Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases (pp.1–​12). London: Routledge. Azzarito, L. (2009). The panopticon of physical education: pretty, active and ideally white. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 14, 19–​39. Azzarito, L. (2010). Ways of seeing the body in kinesiology: a case for visual methodologies. Quest, 62, 155–​170. Azzarito, L. (2012). Photography as a pedagogical tool for shedding light on “bodies-​ at-​risk” in physical culture. Visual Studies, 27, 295–​309. Azzarito, L. (2013). Introduction. In L. Azzarito & D. Kirk (eds.), Pedagogies, physical culture, and visual methods (pp. 1–​12). London: Routledge. Azzarito, L., Macdonald, D. Dagkas, S., & Fisette, J. (2016) Revitalizing the physical education social-​justice agenda in the global era: where do we go from here?, Quest, 1, 1–​15. Beltrán-​Carrillo, J. V., Dévis-​Dévis, J., & Peiró-​Velert, C. (2018). The influence of body discourses on adolescents’ (non) participation in physical activity. Sport, Education and Society, 23(3), 257–​269. Beth, J. (2014). Digitaliseren in de gymles. Factsheet. [Digitizing PE lessons. Factsheet] Retrieved March 10, 2017, from​onderzoek/​ onderzoeksthemas/​bewegen-​en-​sport/​bewegen-​school-​en-​sport/​digitalisering/​ over-​digitalisering/​early-​adopters/​ (last accessed February 4, 2018). Casey, A., Goodyear, V. A., & Armour, K. M. (2017a). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases. London: Routledge. Casey, A., Goodyear, V. A., & Armour, K. M. (2017b). Rethinking the relationship between pedagogy, technology and learning in health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 22, 288–​304. Claringbould, I., Knoppers, A., & Jacobs, F. (2015). Young athletes and their coaches: disciplinary processes and habitus development. Leisure studies, 34(3), 319–​334. Consten, A. & Van Driel, G. (2015). iBook of leskaart? Kansen van digitalisering [iBook or lessoncard? Opportunities of digitalization]. LO magazine, 103, 26–​29. Cushion, C. L. & Jones, R. L. (2014). A Bourdieusian analysis of cultural reproduction:  socialisation and the “hidden curriculum” in professional football. Sport, Education and Society, 19, 276–​298. Dodds, P. (1985). Are hunters of the function curriculum seeking quarks or snarks? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 91–​99. Duivenvoorden, J., Van der Kamp, J., & Van Hilvoorde, I. (2016). Video instructie en feedback met een tablet [video instruction and -​feedback with a tablet]. LO-​ magazine, 104, 17–​29. Evans J. & Davies, B. (2004). Sociology, the body and health in a risk society. In J. Evans, B. Davies, & J. Wright (eds.), Body knowledge and control: studies in the sociology of physical education and health (pp. 35–​51). London: Routledge. Evans, J. & Penney, D. (2008). Levels on the playing field: the social construction of physical “ability” in the physical education curriculum. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 13, 31–​47.

178  van Doodewaard and Knoppers Evans, J., Davies, B., & Wright, J. (2004). Body knowledge and control: studies in the sociology of physical education and health. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1976). Twee typen macht. Kollege van 14 januari 1976 [Two types of power. Lecture of January, 14, 1976] (tr. H.C. Boekraad). Te Elfder Ure, 29, 573–​587. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish:  the birth of the prison [Surveiller et punir: naissance de la prison]. (tr. A. Sheridan). New York: Vintage Books. Fisette, J. (2011). Exploring how girls navigate their embodied identities in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16, 179–​196. Fitzgerald, H. (2005). Still feeling like a spare piece of luggage? Embodied experiences of (dis)ability in physical education and school sport. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 41–​59. Flintoff, A. (2012). Playing the “race” card? Black and minority ethnic students’ experiences of physical education teacher education. Sport, Education and Society, 20, 190–​211.Gard, M. (2014). eHPE: A history of the future. Sport, Education and Society, 19, 827–​845. Giblin, G., Tor, E., & Parrington, L. (2016). The impact of technology on elite sports performance. Sensoria: A Journal of Mind, Brain & Culture, 12, 3–​9. Giese, M. & Ruin, S. (2018). Forgotten bodies –​an examination of physical education from the perspective of ableism. Sport in Society, 21(1), 152–​165.Hill, J. (2015). Girls’ active identities: navigating othering discourses of femininity, bodies and physical education. Gender and Education, 27, 666–​684. Hill, J. & Azzarito, L. (2012). Representing valued bodies in PE: a visual inquiry with British Asian girls. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17, 263–​276. Hodges N. J. & Ste-​Marie, D. S. (2013). Observation as an instructional method. In D. Farrow, J. Baker, & C. MacMahon (eds.), Developing sport expertise: researchers and coaches put theory into practice (pp. 115–​128). Oxon: Routledge. Jones, L. & Toner, J. (2016). Surveillance technologies as instruments of discipline in the elite sports coaching context:  A cautionary post-​structural commentary. Sensoria: A Journal of Mind, Brain & Culture, 12, 13–​21. Johns, D. & Johns, J. (2000). Surveillance, subjectivism and technologies of power: an analysis of the discursive practice of high-​performance sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35, 219–​234. Kirk, D. (2001). Schooling bodies through physical education: Insights from social epistemology and curriculum history. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20, 475–​487. Kirk, D. (1992, 2013). Physical education and curriculum study. Abingdon: Routledge revivals. Koekoek, J., Walinga, W., & Van Hilvoorde, I. (2015). Spelanalyse met Video-​ catch voor de iPad [Game analysis with Video-​catch for the iPad]. LO-​magazine, 103, 16–​18. Kok, M. & Van der Kamp, J. (2013). Digital video en (zelf)modellering in de gymles [Digital videos and (self) modelling in PE]. LO-​magazine, 101, 10–​13. Lang, M. (2010). Surveillance and conformity in competitive youth swimming. Sport, Education and Society, 15, 19–​37. Lee, V. R., Drake, J., & Williamson, K. (2015). Let’s get physical:  K-​12 students using wearable devices to obtain and learn about data from physical activities. TechTrends, 59, 46–​53.

Digital technologies and the hidden curriculum  179 Leight, J., Banville, D., & Polifko, M. F. (2009). Using digital video recorders in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80, 17–​21. Leenhouts, J., Van der Kamp, J., & Duivenvoorden, J. (2016). Het oog van de meester. Eindrapportage [The eye of the master. Final Report].​binaries/​content/​assets/​surf/​nl/​2016/​winnaar-​innovation-​challenge-​2015-​oog-​van-​de-​meester. pdf (last accessed March 15, 2017). Livholts, M. & Tamboukou, M. (2015). Discourse and narrative methods: theoretical departures, analytical strategies and situated writings. London: Sage. Lupton, D. (2015). Data assemblages, sentient schools and digitised health and physical education (response to Gard). Sport, Education and Society, 20, 122–​132. Markula, P. & Pringle, R. (2006). Foucault, sport and exercise: power knowledge and transforming of the self. New York: Routledge. Mathiesen, T. (1997). The viewer society: Michel Foucault’s “Panopticon” revisited. Theoretical Criminology, 1, 215–​234. Moreno, M. P., Moreno, A., García-​Gonzalez, L., Urena, A. Hernandez, C., & Del Villar, F. (2016). An intervention based on video feedback and questioning to improve tactical knowledge in expert female volleyball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 122(3), 911–​932. Nelson, L.  J., & Groom, R.  (2012). The analysis of athletic performance:  some practical and philosophical considerations. Sport, Education and Society, 17(5), 687–​701. Nelson, L. J., Potrac, P., & Groom, R. (2014). Receiving video-​based feedback in elite ice-​hockey: a player’s perspective. Sport, Education and Society, 19, 19–​40. Oliver, K. L. (2010). The body, physical activity and inequity:  Learning to listen with girls through action. In M. O’ Sullivan & A. MacPhail (eds.), Young people’s voices in physical education and youth sport (pp. 31–​48). Oxon: Routledge. O’Loughlin, J., Ni Chróinín, D., & O’ Grady, D. (2013). Digital video: the impact on children’s learning experiences in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 19, 165–​182. Palao, J. M., Hastie, P. A., Cruz, P. G. & Ortega, E. (2015). The impact of video technology on student performance in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24, 51–​63. Parrish, M. (2016). Toward transformation: digital tools for online dance pedagogy. Arts Education Policy Review, 117, 168–​182. Reijgersberg, N., Lucassen, J., Beth, J., & Werff, H. (2014). Nulmeting lichamelijke opvoeding in het voortgezet onderwijs:  Onderzoek naar de organisatie van lichamelijke opvoeding en sport in het voortgezet onderwijs [Baseline physical education in secondary education:  investigation of the organisation of physical education and sports in secondary education]. Utrecht: Mulier Instituut. Rich, E., De Pian, L., & Francombe-​Webb, J. (2015). Physical cultures of stigmatization: health policy & social class. Sociological Research Online, 20, 2, 1–​14. Rønholt, H. (2002). “It’s only the sissies…” Analysis of teaching and learning processes in physical education: a contribution to the hidden curriculum. Sport, Education and Society, 7, 25–​36. Rose, G. (2012). Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. Los Angeles: Sage. Solmon, M. A. (2014). Physical education, sports, and gender in schools. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 47, 117–​150.

180  van Doodewaard and Knoppers Ste-​Marie, D. M., Law, B., Rymal, A. M., Jenny, O., Hall, C., & McCullagh, P. (2012). Observation interventions for motor skill learning and performance: an applied model for the use of observation. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5, 145–​176. Sykes, H. J. (2011). Queer bodies: sexualities, genders, and fatness in physical education. New York: Peter Lang. Taylor, B., & Garratt, D. (2010). The professionalisation of sports coaching: relations of power, resistance and compliance. Sport, Education and Society, 15(1), 121–​139. Taylor, W. G., Potrac, P., Nelson, L. J., Jones, L., & Groom, R. (2015). An elite hockey player’s experiences of video-​based coaching:  a post structural reading. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 52, 112–​125. Tearle, P. & Golder, G. (2008). The use of ICT in the teaching and learning of physical education in compulsory education: how do we prepare the workforce of the future? European Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 55–​72. Thijs, A., Fisser, P., & Van der Hoeven, M. (2014). 21e eeuwse vaardigheden in het curriculum van het funderend onderwijs [21st century skills in the foundational curriculum of education]. Enschede: SLO. Van Amsterdam, N. (2013). Big fat inequalities, thin privilege. An intersectional perspective on “body size”. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 20, 155–​169. Van Amsterdam, N., Knoppers, A., Claringbould, I., & Jongmans, M. (2012). A picture is worth a thousand words: constructing (non-​) athletic bodies. Journal of Youth Studies, 15, 293–​309. Van Doodewaard, C. & Knoppers, A. (2018). Perceived differences and preferred norms:  Dutch physical educators constructing gendered ethnicity. Gender and Education, 30(2), 187–​204. Verbeek, P. P. (2014). Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In P. Kroes & P. P Verbeek. The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 75–​88). Springer Netherlands. Webb, L., Quennerstedt, M., & Öhman, M. (2008). Healthy bodies:  construction of the body and health in physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 13, 353–​372. Weir, T. & Connor, S. (2009). The use of digital video in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18, 155–​171. Wilkinson, S. D. & Penney, D. (2016). The involvement of external agencies in extra-​curricular physical education: reinforcing or challenging gender and ability inequities? Sport, Education and Society, 21, 741–​758. Wright, J. (2000) Disciplining the body:  power, knowledge and subjectivity in a physical education lesson. In A. Lee & C. Poynton (eds.), Culture and Text (pp. 152–​169). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Wright, J. (2009). Biopower, Biopedagogies and the obesity epidemic. In J. Wright & V. Harwood (eds.), Biopolitics and the “obesity epidemic”: governing bodies (pp. 1–​14). New York: Routledge. Wright, J. & Burrows, L. (2006). Re-​conceiving ability in physical education: a social analysis. Sport, Education and Society, 11, 275–​291.

Chapter 11

Using digital technology in physical education tailored to students’ learning phase Wytse Walinga, Arnold Consten, Gert van Driel and John van der Kamp

Introduction In recent years, digital technology has become increasingly integrated into the educational environment. Especially in Western European countries, access and availability of digital technology are becoming less of an issue for teachers. Also in physical education (PE) the use of digital technology is becoming widespread (Casey, Goodyear & Armour, 2016). Nonetheless the use of digital technology in PE is not without problems, because not all teachers have sufficient knowledge and skills to work with new technologies. Many PE teachers are still confronted with questions regarding the use of digital tools and applications, particularly in relation to purpose and scheduling. The current chapter addresses these questions from a motor skill learning perspective. Clearly, the present volume attests to the fact that scientific research is gradually increasing our understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of using digital technology in physical education. However, this growth of knowledge is relatively slow and naturally lags behind the introduction of new digital tools. Meanwhile, PE teachers have already adopted digital technology in their practice (Van Doodewaard, Knoppers, & Van Hilvoorde, 2017). As long as a fully evidence-​based toolbox for using digital technology is not available, teachers largely have to rely on their own expertise and insights in using digital tools. In the current chapter, we aim to provide a motor skill learning perspective for teachers to help them develop a digital pedagogy that underpins their decisions about what tools and applications to use for what purpose and when best to use them. We provide practical recommendations on using digital technology by referring to an operational model –​grounded in motor skill learning theory –​that describes the learning phases of PE students for typical PE activities. The recommendations are tailored to students’ learning phases, particularly focusing on two of the most popular categories of digital tools (i.e., multimedia instruction books and video-​analysis).

182 Walinga et al.

The student’s learning phase should guide pedagogical choices Although rigid demarcations cannot be provided and authors hold that one phase typically merges into the next, there is broad consensus that motor skill learning progresses in a series of phases or stages, (e.g., Bernstein, 1967; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980; Fitts & Posner, 1967; Newell, 1986; Schmidt & Lee, 1999). This consensus is the more remarkable given that these authors have (sometimes) formulated entirely opposing theories for explaining motor skill learning. This consensus also encompasses the assumption that in the early phase(s) learners typically require augmented information of some sort, such as, for example verbal and visual instruction and/​or feedback, to develop their motor skills. A straightforward usage of digital technology by PE teachers is to provide such information to the student learners. It is therefore critically important to evaluate the pros and cons of providing information to learners using digital technology from the perspective of motor skill learning theories. After all, the large appeal that digital technology has on teachers (and students!) can turn into a pitfall, especially if digital technology is merely implemented for the sake of using it and without any underlying theoretical and pedagogical rationale. Accordingly, PE teachers must critically consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of the use of digital tools and applications relative to the pedagogical values, goals and contents (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In this respect, Mishra and Koehler stress the importance of integrating technological knowledge (TK) with content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK) in their TPACK model. In line with this knowledge integration, Consten, Van Driel and Walinga (2014) have recently proposed an operational model that describes students’ learning phases in PE, and guides teachers in making choices on using digital technology relative to the complexity of the tasks, the amount and type of feedback, who to use as video-​models etc. The operational model, referred to as the ‘learning circle’ originates from expert pedagogical knowledge of physical education, but also aligns with theories on motor skill learning. In this respect, the model best relates to anti-​ representational dynamical systems theories, and in particular the constraint-​led approach developed by Newell and Davids (Newell, 1986; Davids, Button, & Bennet, 2008; see also Bernstein, 1967). In brief, Newell (1986) distinguished three phases of motor learning: coordination, control and skill. In the initial coordination phase, learners attempt to get a first grip on the task. They do this by converting the many independent degrees of freedom of the movement system (e.g., joints, muscles, motor units) into a few controllable ones. This conversion into a controllable system is called coordination. Coordinating the many degrees of freedom allows a learner to manage the task to further improve it. In the second phase, learners increase their ability to adapt to different performance conditions. Performance becomes both more stable and more flexible. The control phase therefore

Using digital technology in physical education  183

refers to the learner attuning the remaining degrees of freedom to the environment. In the final skill phase, control is further optimized and/​or additional degrees of freedom are incorporated. The phases that are identified in the ‘learning circle’ (Consten, Van Driel, & Walinga, 2014) largely overlap with the coordination, control and skill phases distinguished by Newell’s motor skill, although they are not identical to it (see below). To better understand the components of the ‘learning circle’ it is important to have some background knowledge on PE in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands PE primarily aims for students to become proficient problem solvers. It aims for students to become confident in addressing and learning to solve movement problems in a broad range of dynamic contexts. This can be contrasted to motor skill learning practices in sports, in which learners strive towards optimized or elite performance, typically within one specific sport or sport discipline. The approach taken by Dutch PE is also advocated in, for example, the American national standards of PE (shapeamerica. com), in which students becoming physical literate individuals (Whitehead, 2001) is a main objective. Hence, rather than repetitive drills to optimize a few motor skills, Dutch PE teachers aim for students to acquire transferable, flexible skills, which can be exploited to address multiple movement problems (problems in this context have a positive connotation and can be compared to challenges). Hence, challenges in similar movement categories are presented and gradually problematized (or modified) to introduce learners to solve categories of movement problems such as invasion games, balancing, jumping, throwing, net/​ wall games, target games, dance, etc. Clustering movement activities (see also the model-​based approaches, Kirk, 2013; Bunker & Thorpe, 1986) allow a focus on the development of a broad and adaptable movement repertoire rather than learning of separate isolated skills. Learners are first introduced to solving a general problem in which a variety of different solutions is possible and gradually learn to specify this in different contexts. It prevents the content of PE from being narrowed down to teaching motor skills of which learners can make no sense yet (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986; Light, 2012). The ‘learning circle’ presented in this chapter heavily draws on these ideas. Similarly, also the dynamical systems theory, and in particular the constraint-​ led approach, holds that motor skill learning is about learners increasing adaptability to solve movement problems in dynamic contexts (Bernstein, 1967; Newell, 1986; Davids, Button, & Bennet, 2008). We will therefore refer frequently to this body of work for theoretically underpinning our recommendations regarding the use of digital technology tailored to the student’s learning phase.

New digital technology in PE There is a surge in new, innovative digital tools and applications, also for the use in PE. We restrict ourselves to discussing two popular application categories that are currently widely used by PE-​teachers in the Netherlands.

184 Walinga et al.

These are Multimedia instruction books and Video analysis through tagging and delay. Multimedia instruction books Multimedia instruction applications are used during PE as a substitute for the more traditional printed instruction cards. Multimedia instruction provides learners with information (i.e., instructions) through a tablet. Typically, these are ebooks enriched with videos, 3D graphics, questionnaires, pictures and so on. It allows the teacher to pre-​structure information through different media. This information can both serve to initiate an activity (e.g., explain the goals and rules to get students to work) and to provide students with additional information about how to (best) achieve the task or learning goals. Teachers often used to distribute printed cards with instruction for self-​ regulative purposes. Obviously, transferring such cards to pdf files on tablets is not really a big difference; it is at best a small digital innovation. However, providing the information through applications that allow embedded video, interactive questionnaires, 3D graphics and/​ or spoken language, such as Apple iBooks®, Microsoft Powerpoint®, Prezi® and Apple Keynote®, does allow much more innovative changes in instructional methods. Combining these with applications such as Skitch, BookCreator®, Explain Everything, Moviemaker, Sketch up®, and so on, offers teachers the opportunity to construct their own content, including short dedicated video or animated instructions (Figure 11.1). Except for easy design, multimedia instruction also allows teachers to share content. Yet, multimedia instruction in itself remains mute with respect to the purpose and scheduling of its use. Hence, it remains pertinent to address the underlying (motor skill learning) principles to underpin pedagogical decisions about the content that would be beneficial for promoting students’ learning, especially –​as we will discuss below –​in relation to students’ learning phases and/​or differences in students’ skill level. Video analysis through tagging and delay A second category of applications is designed to allow detailed analyses of the activity or motor skill by video-​recording (e.g., Huddle Technique, Coach’s Eye). These applications are used to provide detailed and precise immediate or offline feedback. Typically, they include functionalities such as slow motion and replay, drawing tools, measuring kinematics (e.g., movement speed, joint angles and so on), and split screen options for comparing with models, to name a few. Again, before using it, teachers need to decide to what extent and also when to use digital video-​recording to provide feedback supports students’ learning. These decisions require insights from skill learning and pedagogy. For example, while the applications have

Using digital technology in physical education  185

Figure 11.1  Example of a multimedia instructional card (Consten, 2015). (Note: The card has been edited and translated for the purpose of this volume. Currently, the iBook is only available in Dutch.)

proven to be useful for activities in closed environments (e.g., a trampoline jump, hurdle run, throwing the javelin, serving a shuttle), they may be less practical for the less predictable, open environments encountered in games. Also, beginner learners may be likely to be overwhelmed with all the information in video-​recordings. Hence, teachers may want to edit the video-​recordings to improve transfer of information to students. Yet, teachers simply lack the time for analysis and editing during PE-​lessons, certainly when teaching games. Fortunately, there are applications that allow teachers to instantaneously select recordings for providing video feedback without the need for a complex editing process. That is, tagging and delay software. Tagging applications (e.g., Dartfish®, O’see, Precorder, Video Tagger, and Video-​catch) are designed for selecting specific time intervals (coinciding with certain events) while recording (Koekoek, Van der Mars, Van der Kamp, Walinga, & Van Hilvoorde, 2018; Koekoek, Van Hilvoorde, Van der Kamp, & Walinga, 2014). For example, a teacher who intends to make students aware about shot opportunities in a basketball game obviously does not want to have the students watch the whole 15-​minute video

186 Walinga et al.

of their game. Ideally, students only look back and evaluate those brief intervals of a game that include (missed or used) opportunities to shoot. Tagging software allows a teacher to tag such intervals during a game. Before the recordings, the teacher adjusts the duration of the intervals to be recorded (i.e., based on an estimation of the duration of pertinent events). A basketball shot, for example, is well observable over a maximum period of five seconds. Tagging then results in separate short video clips, which are instantaneously available for watching. Yet, once again, these opportunities for providing feedback, both in the learning of skills in closed-​and open-​environments, also forces teachers to address for what purpose, for whom and when this video feedback is beneficial –​or perhaps a hindrance (Koekoek et al., 2018). Finally, using video delay applications has become popular in PE (e.g., BAM Video Delay, O’See delay). Teachers install a tablet on a mount to video record the students’ activities. During an activity, such as for example trampoline jumping, the tablet streams the activity online. However, depending on the duration of a student’s actions, the teacher can choose to delay the showing of the footage with a fixed time interval. This delay allows the students sufficient time, immediately after having finished the activity, to walk to the tablet to watch their own performance. Probably this is the most frequently used tool in Dutch PE lessons. But when and for what purpose is it best used? To answer these questions, we first present the ‘learning circle’ in more detail.

The learning circle-​m odel In this section, we describe the learning-​circle as an operational model to structure students’ activities tailored to their motor skill level. In doing so, we integrate the digital tools discussed in the previous section. The learning circle describes how different learning phases lead to a (digital) pedagogy (Figure  11.2). The phases are used to identify a student’s likely learning orientation (i.e., the type of challenges that needs to be solved). The learning orientations, in turn, help a teacher appropriately use digital technology to promote the student’s learning. The core layer of the learning circle is a portrayal of observable student behaviour in terms of different types of success or failure in solving the challenges posed by the task. The portrayal closely relates to learning phases distinguished in the learning theory by Newell and others. Changes in types of success flag a transition to the next learning phase. In addition to this portrayal in learning phases, we provide a brief characterization of the student’s likely task orientation (i.e., the student’s perception of the challenges that the task presents) in each learning phase. Accordingly, didactical recommendations for teacher roles and interventions to promote students’ learning are provided tailored to the student’s learning phase (and task orientation). These recommendations also include digital tools, which are further elaborated in subsequent paragraphs.

Using digital technology in physical education  187


anaging 1: M se a Ph

Frequent success



Failed success Playful failure








Stable success


b ili z i n g

First success


e n tin g




Figure 11.2 The learning circle (based upon: Consten,Van Driel, & Walinga, 2014).

To clarify the phases of learning, we use the example of a child learning to ride a (balance) bike. In the first phase, the child needs to find a way to move forward with a bike, which requires balance and propulsion. A first step is to decrease the overwhelming number of degrees of freedom, so that the biking task can be managed. To help starting this learning process, it is critical for the teacher to manipulate the constraints such that the number of degrees of freedom to be controlled is reduced. The introduction of a balance bike (i.e., a bike without pedals, which simplifies propulsion), adjusting height, air pressure of tires, and choosing surface and shoes can all help to offer a challenge that is within the child’s reach. In this early phase the learner on a balance bike shows hesitations, easily falls, tends to have a firm grip in steering and holds both feet steady on the ground. The latter two characteristics are fingerprints for freezing or reducing the degrees of freedom, a strategy to make the system controllable. Lifting a foot may cause immediate imbalance with the child struggling to prevent a fall. The child chiefly focuses on managing the task: moving forward without falling. After some practice, however, the child slowly discovers how to use the feet to move forward, and becomes more confident that this does not have to result in imbalance. The speed slowly increases and the sway to the left and right decreases. Moving on the bike becomes steadier and the child feels less need for making deliberate compensatory actions when (unexpected) perturbations in balance occur. The child is in control, and practice will

188 Walinga et al.

further stabilize this control. This is phase two, stabilizing. Next, stability allows the child to start exploring new challenges. For instance, she will use more forceful leg movements to generate speed, increase variability in steering and/​or take narrow turns, she may also try to keep the feet from the ground as long as possible and so on. In this experimenting phase, the child is now exploring the bandwidth of constraints within which the bike can be balanced. In her search for the opportunities for moving that the bike offers (its affordances), the child may sometimes barely prevent from falling or bumping against an obstacle. Yet, as long as the learning environment is sufficiently safe (i.e., do not try this in traffic!), the child will enhance her biking skill and discover a rich landscape of opportunities for action with a balance bike. The stabilizing and experimenting phases differ in the learner’s intention for effective and robust performance versus a playful performance to discover what more is possible. [Note that our description of the third learning phase perhaps diverges somewhat from the skill optimization referred to by Newell (1986).] Rather than optimizing, we argue that the natural progression after the skill has been stabilized is to explore further challenges. Rather than optimizing, we argue that the natural progression after the skill has been stabilized is to explore further challenges. The exception perhaps is sports, where players and coaches often deliberately strive for optimization (see Ericsson et al., 1993). In fact, we think that exploring further challenges would serve both contexts, as it appears that sports invests less time in this than PE. The phases of learning each require different interventions for teachers in supporting the learner, for example, in terms of the type, content and frequency of instructions and feedback they provide. The pedagogy that is used by the teacher needs to be tailored to a student’s learning phase and the concomitant task orientation. The pedagogy should connect to (and perhaps educate) the intention of the learner (Jacobs & Michaels, 2007). The learning circle distinguishes three main forms of pedagogy that correspond with the subsequent learning phases: (a) structure to manage, (b) inform to stabilize and (c) inspire to explore.

Phase one: structure to manage The first phase requires learners to find a way to manage the task in order to build further experience through practice. This step can only be achieved if the constraints allow this initial success. This requires that the teacher is aware of the constraints from which success in the to-​be-​learned task can emerge. In our example, providing a modified bike, the balance bike, permits the child to find a way to manage the task in a rudimentary way and start practising it. Task difficulty is typically such that the student is not immediately fully successful, but is also capable of preventing failure on every attempt. To consistently manage the task, the student must invest significant effort to achieve the goal (e.g., moving forward). It is the teacher’s responsibility to

Using digital technology in physical education  189

structure the learning situation such that the movement problem is challenging, but can be solved –​although not necessarily in a perfect and consistent manner. This ‘failed success’ is reminiscent of the Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development:  the learner has success within reach but is not yet there. The teacher does so by modifying or manipulating task-​and/​or environment constraints (Davids, Button, & Bennet, 2008). In this respect, constraint manipulation can also include verbal instruction, which should be directed at simplifying the movement problem, rather than prescribing its solution. In the managing phase, performance is often error ridden, erratic as if it consists of a series of disconnected movements, and may feel clumsy (Fitts & Posner, 1967). However, these are not of primary concern yet, since the focus is merely on managing the task (i.e., achieving the goal), thus creating a situation that permits students to start practising and build experience (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 2004). Accordingly, troubleshooting or the finding of a workable solution is the student’s main concern:  s/​he is directed towards finding an initial solution to the challenge presented or bringing the task under control. In terms of motor skill learning theory, this closely relates to coordinate the redundant degrees of freedom, that is, making the movement system controllable (Bernstein, 1967; Newell, 1986). Put differently, students discover what action the situation offers or affords (Gibson, 1979). Implication for using digital tools: supporting the managing phase How can digital technology facilitate the student’s progress through the managing phase? Digital tools should help constrain or structure a student’s search for workable solutions, that is, support the troubleshooting to find a rudimentary solution. The main task for the teacher is to constrain or structure the learning context so that the motor skill can arise. Arranging the task and environment (e.g., for the biker finding a place without traffic that affords safe practice) and scaling equipment (e.g., providing a balance bike at the right height) are examples of simplifying the movement challenge to help managing the task. Similarly, digital tools should contain content that support the structuring of the learning context. A  teacher can use digital technology to facilitate directedness to or understanding of task solutions –​ certainly among older children. Their content should be directed toward defining success and/​or support the discovery of affordances (i.e., action opportunities), that is, toward understanding the task goals. Typically, the focus is on a global solution. Too detailed instructions will be beyond the reach of the beginner student, and might even hinder his engagement in learning. In the final part of this chapter we will provide some practical recommendations that follow this line of reasoning. Constraining the environment to the students’ needs is in some cases more straightforward than in others. For example, structuring the environment for

190 Walinga et al.

teaching games is usually seen as a more complex than teaching track and field. Nevertheless, also when teaching games it is possible to structure the learning context such that it allows the students to enter the learning circle, that is, manage the task and start acquiring game skills (e.g., ball handling etc.). While these skills combine both decision making skills as motor skills they are preferably taught during game play. This requires constraining the game environment in such a manner that the opposing roles in a game (i.e., attack and defence) are balanced such that they offer the opportunity to develop game skills. Digital technologies can be of assistance in this teaching task. A digital application for Game Balance Analysis (AppBakkers, 2017) supports PE-​teachers in tailoring the environmental and task constraints to students’ skill level (see also, Koekoek et al., 2014). The application guides the manipulation of game constraints based upon the students’ achieved successes and failures in attack and defence. It helps the teacher to keep track of each team’s successful attempts (Figure 11.3a). If the game is unbalanced (i.e., the number of successful attempts indicates that either attack or defence is too dominant), the application suggests several alternatives for modifying the game (e.g., changing the amount of players, field size, goal size and so on, Figure 11.3b). The aim of this GBA application is to bring students in a context that supports them to search opportunities for actions (Walinga, Koekoek, Luchtenberg, & Rosink, 2017). In other words, it helps them managing the challenges presented by the game. The digital applications thus far are used to make it possible for the student to educate his intention (Jacobs & Michaels, 2007). That is, they direct a student’s attention towards information that helps to achieve successful participation (affordances) , and they help the student to understand what needs to be done to manage the task (i.e., enter the learning circle). As suggested above, however, the teacher should prevent giving too much and/​or too detailed information in the managing phase. As we will see, more detailed instruction of feedback might be relevant in the subsequent phase, but not for finding a rudimentary solution. In this respect, it is important to notice that a common pitfall of using digital tools is to overwhelm students with explicit information (e.g., digital video feedback tools like slow motion, editing, highlighting can provide a large amount of very fine-​grained information), because this may –​paradoxically –​affect learning adversely (Masters, 1992). The student is searching for a solution that works, and hence the teacher should prevent the student from starting to analyse the required movement patterns in too much detail. Instead, highlighting the global aspects that define the movement challenge is much more appropriate in ensuring rudimentary success. For example, a novice volleyball player learning to return a ball should first be guided to the global aspects like positioning himself under the ball. The use of digital video-​models or feedback delineating the precise handling of the ball fails to achieve the player’s learning objectives. The use of model instruction,

Using digital technology in physical education  191

Figure 11.3a Tracking and comparing each team’s success to analyse game balance.

providing feedback and asking questions should all be done with the aim of letting the student discover how to manage the task, rather than refine it. It is also pertinent to notice that emphasizing movement errors (i.e., building a reference of correctness) through the provision of video feedback can also lead the student to over-​analyse his movement pattern. Instead, it is perhaps more fruitful to use digital video applications to emphasize the successes that are achieved (see also Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2008). It is well established that enhancing perceived success limits the explicit analysis of the skill and reduces the accumulation of explicit knowledge (i.e., error-​minimized learning). This variant of implicit learning has been shown to result in more stable performance (Maxwell, Masters, Kerr, & Weedon, 2001). It is advisable, therefore, to use digital video to feedback successful attempts rather than focussing on identifying (detailed) errors. A final point is the use of video models for instruction. Teachers have to make a decision regarding the type of model, that is, who to choose as the model. In the managing phase unskilled or coping models are to be preferred to skilled or mastery models (Hodges & Ste-​Marie, 2013). Hodges and Ste-​Marie argued that coping models were especially beneficial for the self-​efficacy and motivation of beginner learners. This is often attributed to

192 Walinga et al.

Figure 11.3b  Recommendations for modifying the game constraints to enhance game balance increased opportunities for students to learn to manage the task.

coping models typically sharing more similarities to the learner. These similarities may also facilitate the pickup of skill-​level relevant information from the model (e.g., Aglioti et al., 2008). In addition, the use of mastery models typically goes together with an emphasis on detailed and subtle information to optimize movement patterns, which –​as we have seen –​may negatively affect learning for novices.

Phase two: inform to stabilize In the stabilization phase, the student both increases stability of the skill and flexibility by learning to maintain task performance in (slightly) different situations. Stability and flexibility are two sides of the same coin. Stability refers to an increased capacity to resist perturbations, while flexibility refers to increased capacity to adjust to changes in the situation. Newell (1986) argued that this phase involves the gaining of control over the remaining degrees of freedom (i.e., coordinative structure), that is, the attunement of the motor skill to the environment. During the stabilization phase, learners’ errors quickly become rare and fluency of movements increases. In addition, there is task optimization in the sense that success is consistently achieved,

Using digital technology in physical education  193

also, when task or environmental constraints are varying somewhat. Increasing stability and flexibility requires a more repetitive and refined search for a solution that is already in place, but can now be achieved consistently under a gradually expanding set of constraints. In contrast to the managing phase, in the stabilization phase teachers typically provide more detailed information about the effectiveness and efficiency of the solution. Implication for using digital tools: enhancing stabilization In the stabilization phase, the student shifts attention from managing the task towards enhancing stability and effectiveness. Success is now consistently achieved, and hence, the learner searches for information that allows performance under varying, that is, similar but slightly different, circumstances (e.g., the biking child improves balance by trying different speeds or different push offs with her feet). In this phase, teachers should use digital technology to inform the learners in more detail with respect to the intricacies of achieving task solutions, about how to achieve task goal under (slightly) different circumstances. Accordingly, in the stabilization phase teachers can be more specific and details in their instruction and feedback, because such details are more meaningful to the students than they would have been in the managing phase. If the teacher uses a digital video model for instruction, then preferably the model is slightly more skilled than the students, and may –​with appropriate additional verbal guidance –​ sometimes involve a mastery model as well. The way video modelling and feedback have traditionally been used in sport settings (i.e., analysis used to discover minor details) can serve as an example. It is critical, however, that stabilization can only be achieved by repetitive performance of the task in slightly different situations. In the end, stabilizing a skill is not about understanding the basics, but about increasing adaptability to the environment. This is foremost a repetitive-​action achievement. The frequency of digital video instruction and feedback must therefore be limited. Preferably, a fading schedule is implemented during which the frequency of instruction and feedback is gradually reduced with improvements in skill (e.g., Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). This prevents the student from becoming reliant on instruction or feedback (i.e., guidance, Salmoni et al., 1984). Hence, the teacher uses digital technology to inform about effectiveness and efficiency in achieving the solutions but should also gradually decrease its use. Interestingly, self-​ controlled instruction or feedback, during which the students rather than the teacher decide when instruction of feedback is provided, typically results in the desired fading schedule (see Kok & Van der Kamp, ­chapter 3).

Phase three: inspire to explore It is typically assumed that when the skill is stabilized, achieving automaticity, that is, being able to perform without the need to conscious control

194 Walinga et al.

or attend to the motor skill, would be the final phase for learning (Fitts & Posner, 1967). Even Newell’s (1986) skill phase, in which the learner strives towards further optimization in terms of control, is perhaps reminiscent of this position. Yet, certainly for PE automatization is not the only or most preferred outcome of learning. Instead, we think it is more consonant with a dynamical systems perspective that once the skill is stabilized, the learner starts searching to increase adaptability, transferability and creativity (Davids et al., 2008; Dreyfus, 2008; Orth, Van der Kamp, Memmert, & Savelsbergh, 2017). Therefore the learning circle encompasses a third phase in which the student starts experimenting, showing ‘playful’ behaviour, which may wilfully lead to failures as well. Notably, in the experimenting phase, the task goals remain the same, but the students explore (vastly) different time and space variations of the solution they had previously discovered and stabilized. They try to achieve the same solution in different ways (Davids, Button, & Bennet, 2008). It is pertinent to notice that the failures are of a fundamentally different nature than failures in the managing phase. In the experimenting phase, the failures are self-​induced and partly deliberate; that is, ‘fail it or nail it’. This is not unlike skaters or parkour runners searching for new ‘tricks’. The self-​induced explorative behaviour that characterizes learning in the experimenting phase allows the learner to extend the boundaries of success and/​or to increase adaptability (in dynamical systems terminology this is also referred to as enhancing degeneracy, see Seifert, Button, & Davids, 2013). It is expected that experimenting also facilitates transferability across tasks within movement categories (e.g., trampoline jumping, target games, invasion games etc.). The learner unravels the movement challenge by adding new variations to the skill, and this way pushes the boundaries of the skill. In this respect, unravelling refers to a profound understanding of the task solutions. It is the full exploitation of task and environmental constraints (cf. the exploitation of passive forces in Bernstein, 1967). Learning does not stop here. Typically, after the experimenting phase, the teacher confronts the student with a more complex task variant or a more complex task from the same movement category. These more complex tasks are imposed by task manipulations, including instructions (e.g., a new set of rules) or task and environmental modifications (e.g., providing a bike with pedals). The phase-​like learning will start over again, but for a more complex task, such as a change from learning an upright trampoline jump without rotation to a trampoline jump with rotation. In this respect, the operational model by Consten et al. (2014) is perhaps better considered as a learning ‘spiral’ than a learning ‘circle’ (Figure 11.4). Learning experiences from the initial circle are likely to be transferable to new task (variants) of subsequent circles and thus facilitates the learning of the new task (variant).

Using digital technology in physical education  195

Implication for using digital tools: inspiring playfulness In the experimenting phase, the student is unravelling the movement challenge and discovers different solutions for the same challenge. The student already masters the task, but may or may not need to be stimulated to explore its boundaries of success. Digital application can be used to ask guided questions about the solution (Koekoek et  al., 2018), to stimulate self-​evaluation and to trigger exploration. In other words, a teacher can use digital tools to inspire the student to discover alternative solutions for the given challenge (i.e., get students to experiment or play). For example, the teacher can use multimedia instruction to make a library available with all sorts of (non-​conventional) ways of addressing the movement challenge. In motor learning theory, this method to increase variability of practice is referred to as differential learning (Schölhorn et  al., 2006). For example, once a volleyball player has, following a set-​up, mastered playing the ball with one hand over the net, a teacher might encourage him to push the ball harder, make higher contact, or approach the ball with different velocity of jumping and so on. One way to do this is by showing the student a large series of video examples, which she can imitate. That is, rather than spiralling quickly into the next circle and learning to smash (as would have been done in a competitive sport context), the student is encouraged to find all kind of other solutions, which may or may not include the smash.

Practical suggestions The final paragraph elaborates some of the above practical recommendations. Importantly, the suggestions for using digital tool use are tailored to the learning phases identified in the learning circle. Practical ideas on multimedia instruction books Multimedia instruction books enable teachers to create their own content. The current operational model implies that for a particular activity the teacher (ideally) must prepare content for each learning phase (circling) and for different –​say three –​levels of complexity of that activity (spiralling). This ensures that content for instruction and feedback is tailored to the task orientations of beginner, advanced and proficient learners. Multimedia instruction books, such as iBook, permit the provision of task information that fits students’ skill levels and allows the teacher to deal with groups made up of students with mixed skill levels (as is typical for PE). Especially, in groups with large individual differences in skill level the multimedia instruction should not only contain instruction specific to the learning phase for a particular task (variant), but it is also pertinent to include task (variants) of different levels of complexity. A  metaphor of skiing slopes

196 Walinga et al.

Phase 1 video-model

Phase 2 video-model

Phase 3 video-model

Black slope Tasks

Phase 1 video-model

Phase 2 video-model

Phase 3 video-model

Red slope Tasks

Phase 1 video-model

Phase 2 video-model

Phase 3 video-model

Blue slope Tasks

Figure 11.4  Structuring multimedia instructions: slopes and phase-​models.

can be useful to illustrate the content structure of multimedia instruction books (Figure 11.4). Three tasks (variants) of different complexity can be compared with different skiing slopes (e.g., blue, red and black for easy to difficult activities like from balance biking to normal biking to trial biking). The teacher has pre-​structured instructional content for each of the three slopes (i.e., complexities). Per slope the content is tailored to the learning phase through three different video-​models (Figure  11.4). We found that if instructions (e.g., using video models) are shown simultaneously for the three phases than students (age 18–​22) were very well capable of choosing an appropriate instruction to start practicing the task based on previous experience. A  triple-​ split screen mode (one of the possible functions in for example keynote presentations that can be implemented as widget in iBooks) can be used to differentiate content for different complexity levels first, and later for the phases of learning (Figure 11.5) (Consten, 2017). For example, in a triple split window for the managing phase the teacher selects content that should be directed at global instructions to inform about the task goal. Additional content, tailored to the stabilization phase, may

Using digital technology in physical education  197

Figure 11.5 Who do you resemble the most? Models differentiated for different phases of learning (Consten, 2015).

include a model that allows the student to zoom in on the manner in which actions are executed, (i.e., how to increase, the effectiveness and efficiency of pertinent aspects of action). And finally, a model and video libraries can be made available in the multimedia books, which include inspiring video examples of experts performing the same task in manifold ways to encourage experimenting. Practical ideas with video analysis through tagging and delay Especially in the managing phase, digital video feedback should be used to emphasize the student’s success in order to direct her attention to achieving the task goal and to enhance motivation and self-​efficacy. Tagging applications with tags such as ‘good attempt’ or ‘success’ (Figure  11.6) allows the teacher to collect these successful attempts and give the student instant feedback. In this manner, the teacher guides the student’s attention to what success is in the managing phase. Indeed, Chiviacowski and others (2008; see also Ste-​Marie et al., 2013) showed that when children are in control of the provision of feedback (i.e., the teacher provides feedback on the student’s request), they more often ask for feedback after a successful attempt than following a failure. Video delay applications are very suitable to implement this self-​controlled feedback

198 Walinga et al.

Figure 11.6 Tagging events of interest by name or type of success.

during PE (Van der Kamp, Duivenvoorden, Kok, & Van Hilvoorde, 2015; Ste-​Marie et al., 2013). In the stabilization phase, the teacher can choose to focus on the essentials of the movement pattern that allow stable performance in varying circumstances. Tagging would then be directed to specific details of the action or movement pattern. For example, when a learner is repeating a mistake without appearing aware of this, tagging this mistake can enhance awareness and induce further progress. Unlike the managing phase, slow motion or stills may be helpful for students in the stabilization phase to identify the errors. It is important, however, that the teacher prevent these details from getting isolated from the action as a whole. Indeed, too much conscious or internal focus on movement execution has been found to harm learning (Wulf, 2013; Poolton, Maxwell, Masters, & Raab, 2006). In this respect, it is particularly important how the movement details are addressed and how instructions are given. Specifically, rather than focussing attention to movement execution, the teacher may focus the student’s attention externally to effects of the movements (Wulf, 2013). For example, the teacher should not use digital video feedback to direct attention of a baseball player towards the elbow (e.g., either verbally or by drawing

Using digital technology in physical education  199

Figure 11.7  Augmented drawings to enhance analogy thinking.

lines around the elbow in the video recordings), which should be directed more to the hip while hitting an incoming ball. Rather, attention should be focused on the desired movement path of the bat, that is, the effect of the movement) (e.g., by drawing a line in a video-​recording indicating the future path of the bat). Alternatively, providing a model swinging the bat over an animated table top can serve as a perfect analogy to improve hitting without directing the attention to movement execution (Liao & Masters, 2001) (Figure  11.7). Drawing tools in digital video provides a unique opportunity to illustrate these analogies without having to rely on the student’s capacity for imagery. Digital applications also offer many opportunities to compare the student’s own performance with models. These applications present the student’s and a model’s performances in a split screen mode, or sometimes even offer the possibility to overlay the two. This latter is done using the Huddle technique, in which two videos are projected over each other to identify specific differences in movement patterns. It promotes the identification of errors. For example, a golf player in the stabilization phase improving his chip can use the comparison to gain information on how to modify the speed of his stroke. Or a gymnast learning a trampoline flip can benefit from information

200 Walinga et al.

of the difference in making herself smaller by grabbing her ankles in flight or without grabbing her ankles. Finally, in the experimenting phase video feedback serves a different goal. Since the student has already acquired the skill, video feedback can be used to make the student aware of the deliberate changes in performance, such as, a different timing, speed and direction of movement. This helps deciding what changes are interesting for the student to explore further. Video delay or tagged videos are efficient tools to effectuate this. In addition, teacher can encourage the student to explore by asking questions while using slow motion, stills and instant replays to engage the learner in the experimenting process. There is a clear difference with the use of video in the stabilization phase. In the experimenting phase, video feedback and modelling should inspire students, while in the stabilization phase it is rather about informing them. The initiative for experimenting, however, should primarily be with the student. Hence, self-​control seems even more important than in the previous learning phase. If, for example, video tagging or delay is available, then it is for the student to decide when to use it. Sometimes, students are eager to proceed to the next level of complexity (i.e., spiralling upward to a more complex task) (Figure 11.4). However, in some cases the teacher needs to be in control of this transition, not in the least because of safety issues. The use of the operational model allows a teacher to better explicate when a student is ready to proceed to new challenge on a higher level of complexity. Since a teacher cannot see everything, digital technology allows the teacher to have an additional pair of ‘eyes’. Uploading the video-​recordings into a digital environment, allows the teacher to evaluate skill level after the lesson, and then decide whether or not students are ready to try new activities in the next level. Indeed, tagging apps provide a practical means to this by using student names as a tag button (Figure 11.6). If students think an attempt is reflective of a certain skill level they have achieved, they can tag performance and save it on their personal tag library for the teacher to assess. A  teacher is then able to check this ‘proof of playful control’ and decide whether indeed the student is ready to proceed to the next level of complexity. To conclude, we have presented an operational model, which is underpinned by stage-​like motor skill learning theories, to identify three phases of learning that typically unfold during PE. We show how these learning phases can be used to develop a digital pedagogy for PE students. In particular, it shows how to use the vast opportunities for instruction and feedback that are offered by digital application in such a way that they are tailored to the individual students’ skill level. In other words, we have shown how students’ learning orientations should direct the use of new technology. Based on this operation model, PE teachers will be able to structure decisions about the purpose and scheduling of using digital technology in physical education.

Using digital technology in physical education  201

Discussion questions 1. How does a dynamical systems approach to learning influence the use of digital technology in teaching? 2. What is expected in the early stages of learning a motor skill and how does it influence the type of digital feedback a teacher should provide? 3. What type of digital interventions are potentially useful in PE? Give examples of different use of digital technologies or type of applications.

Further reading Davids, K. W., Button, C., & Bennett, S. J. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition: a constraints-​led approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Koekoek, J., Van der Mars, H., Van der Kamp, J., Walinga, W., & Van Hilvoorde, I. (2018). Aligning digital video technology with game pedagogy in physical education, Journal of Physical Education Recreation, and Dance, 89 (1), 12–​22.

References Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-​loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3(2), 111–​150. Aglioti, S. M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., & Urgesi, C. (2008). Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 1109–​1116. AppBakkers BV (2017). Game Balance Analysis (version 0.1) [iPad software application] Retrieved from http://​ Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The control and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon Press. Bunker, B. & Thorpe, R. (1986) The curriculum model. In Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. & Almond, L. (eds), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 7–​10). Loughborough, England: University of Technology, Loughborough. Casey, A., Goodyear, V. A., & Armour, K. M. (eds.). (2016). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: pedagogical cases. London: Taylor & Francis. Chiviacowski, S., Wulf, G., Laroque de Medeiros, F., Kaefer, A., & Tani, G. (2008). Learning benefits of self-​controlled knowledge of results in 10-​year-​old children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 405–​410. Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araujo, D. (2006). Nonlinear pedagogy:  a constraints-​ led framework for understanding emergence of game play and movement skills. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 10, 71–​103. Consten, A. (2015). Bewegen. [iBook] Retrieved from http://​ Consten A. (2017) Digital instruction cards in Physical Education. Master thesis research, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences.

202 Walinga et al. Consten A.,Van Driel G., & Walinga,W. (2014). Digitalisering van bewegingsonderwijs. In I. Hilvoorde & J. Kleinpaste (eds.), Van tikken naar taggen: Digitalisering van bewegingsonderwijs en sport. Deventer: daM Uitgeverij. Davids, K. W., Button, C., & Bennett, S. J. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-​led approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Dreyfus, H. L. (2008). Skilled coping as higher intelligibility in Heidegger’s Being and Time. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). The five-​stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(3), 177–​181. Dreyfus, S. E. & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-​stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition (No. ORC-​80–​2). California Univ. Berkeley Operations Research Center. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-​Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363. Fitts, P. M. & Posner, M. I. (1967/​1979). Human Performance. 2.  Learning and skilled performance.Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Publishers. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: curriculum-​based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–​416. Hodges N. J. & Ste-​Marie, D. S. (2013). Observation as an instructional method. In D. Farrow, J. Baker, & C. MacMahon (eds.), Developing sport expertise: researchers and coaches put theory into practice 2nd edition. New York, NY: Routledge. Jacobs, D. M. & Michaels, C. F. (2007). Direct learning. Ecological Psychology, 19(4), 321–​349. Kirk, D. (2013). Educational value and models-​based practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(9), 973–​986. Koekoek, J., Dokman. I., & Walinga, W. (2014). Sportspelen [Sportgames]. Den Haag, Boom Lemma. Koekoek, J., Van der Kamp, J., Walinga, W., & Van Hilvoorde, I. (2014). Dutch elite youth soccer players’ perceptions of TGfU-​modified game practice. Ágora, 16(3). 232–​254. Koekoek, J., Van der Mars, H., Van der Kamp, J., Walinga, W., & Van Hilvoorde I. (2018). Aligning digital video technology with game pedagogy in physical education, Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 89, 12–​22. Koekoek, J., Van Hilvoorde, I., Van der Kamp, J., & Walinga, W. (2014). Accuracy and reliability of tagging and videofeeback to enhance tactical knowledge: students’ perspectives within a TGfU basketball setting. Practical session during AIESEP TGfU symposium February 9; University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zeeland. Lee, M. C. Y., Chow, J. Y., Komar, J., Tan, C. W. K., & Button, C. (2014). Nonlinear pedagogy: An effective approach to cater for individual differences in learning a sports skill. PLoS ONE, 9, e104744. Liao, C. M. & Masters, R. S. (2001). Analogy learning: a means to implicit motor learning. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(5), 307–​ 319.Light, R.  (2012). Game sense: pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment. London: Routledge. Masters, R. S. (1992). Knowledge, knerves and know-​how: the role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology, 83(3), 343–​358.

Using digital technology in physical education  203 Maxwell, J. P., Masters, R. S.  W., Kerr, E., & Weedon, E. (2001). The implicit benefit of learning without errors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 54(4), 1049–​1068. Merleau-​ Ponty, M. (1996). Phenomenology of perception. Motilal Banarsidass Publishe. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017. Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. Motor Development in children: Aspects of Coordination and Control, 34, 341–​360. Orth, D., Van der Kamp, J., Memmert, D., & Savelsbergh, G. J. (2017). Creative motor actions as emerging from movement variability. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1903. Poolton, J. M., Maxwell, J. P., Masters, R. S. W., & Raab, M. (2006). Benefits of an external focus of attention: common coding or conscious processing? Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(1), 89–​99. Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 355. Schöllhorn, W. I., Michelbrink, M., Beckmann, H., Trockel, M., Sechelmann, M., & Davids, K. (2006). Does noise provide a basis for the unification of motor learning theories? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 37, 186–​206. Schmidt, R. A. & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–​217. Schmidt R. A. & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning:  a behavioural emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Seifert, L., Button, C., & Davids, K. (2013). Key properties of expert movement systems in sport. Sports Medicine, 43(3), 167–​178. Ste-​Marie, D. M., Vertes, K. A., Law, B., & Rymal, A. M. (2013). Learner-​controlled self-​observation is advantageous for motor skill acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 556. Van der Kamp, J. & Renshaw, I. (2015). Information-​movement coupling as a hallmark of expertise. In: J. Baker & D. Farrow (eds.), routledge handbook of sport expertise. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Van der Kamp, J., Duivenvoorden, J., Kok, M., & van Hilvoorde, I. (2015). Motor skill learning in groups: Some proposals for applying implicit learning and self-​controlled feedback. RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte, 11, 33–47. Van Doodewaard, C., Knoppers, A. & Van Hilvoorde, I. (September 5, 2017). Of course I ask the best students to demonstrate. Digital normalizing practices in physical education (oral presentation). Sussex, University of Brighton; BERA Annual conference. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–​41. Walinga, W., Koekoek, J., Luchtenberg, S., & Rosink. D. (2017). Ontdekkend leren voetballen [Discovery learning in youth soccer]. Deventer: Dam uitgeverij. Whitehead, M. (2001) The concept of physical literacy, European Journal of Physical Education, 6(2), 127–​138. Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning:  a review of 15  years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 77–​104. Zanone, P. G. & Kelso, J. A. (1992). Evolution of behavioral attractors with learning:  nonequilibrium phase transitions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 403.

Chapter 12

ePE Using connectivism to theorise developments in digital technology in physical education in Aotearoa/​N ew Zealand Margot Bowes and Chris Swanwick

Introduction Connectivism emerged out of the explosion in scholarly and popular interest in recent decades, around the issue of the relationship between digital technology and learning. One specific debate that emerged from this interest was the issue of theories of learning. The question, put simply was, ‘Are existing learning theories sufficient, or do we need new ones to explain what we now see routinely happening in classrooms?’ The response to this from George Siemens and Stephen Downes, first collectively and later separately, was the development of connectivism as a new learning theory (2005), describing it as ‘the first learning theory for the digital age’ (Siemens, 2004). It was defined thus: Connectivism is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-​organisation theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements-​not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organisation or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing. (Siemens, 2004) From this definition there are three key concepts integral to connectivism that will be explored during this chapter; learners existing in a network, the notion of actionable knowledge, and encountering information and knowledge not for its own sake, but to enable us to learn more. 1.  Networks Educators have long understood the value of the metaphor of ‘networks’ to describe a community of learners (Moreno, 1934). However, there are a number of specific properties of networks that we see as important in taking

ePE 205 Table 12.1  Principles of connectivism. 1. Learner connects to a learning community. They benefit from it but also feed it with new information. Continuous dialogue between members. 2. A community is a node, part of a community of nodes that support a wider network. Networks encourage diverse, autonomous and creative knowledge building. 3. Diversity is strength. Knowledge resides within the individual; therefore, diversity of individuals in a network enriches the knowledge available to the learners. 4. Information/​knowledge is constantly changing. The network acts as a filter, constantly evaluating what is of worth, to retain and circulate within the network. 5. Networks situated in the internet have access to diverse sources of information. Therefore, networks are inter-​disciplinary by nature.

them beyond the metaphor. Networks strengthen the quality of learning that can occur both within individual networks, and when connected across networks. This happens because of the diverse composition of individuals and information sources within a given network, the network’s ability to scale rapidly, and the ability of the network itself to act as a filter; knowledge of the greatest utility that serves the participants best tends to surface and be retained most frequently. Some of these principles of networks and their implications for learning are summarised in Table 12.1. Siemens (2004), theorising on networks and network connection, introduces two key principles to the discussion of learning –​hybridity and exteriority. By hybridity we mean composed of human and non-​human actors, and by exteriority we mean exterior to the minds of the learners in the network. This distinction is clear from Siemens (2004) treatment of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism as theories that only deal with learning that ‘occurs inside a person’. They cannot account for learning that takes place somehow outside of the person or the brain. He gives the examples of ‘within organizations’ or that which is ‘stored and manipulated by technology’ (Siemens, 2004). The technological advancements involved in the development of the internet mean that, when it comes to knowledge retention and construction, networks should now be regarded as consisting not only of human actors but also a range of non-​human actors. He deploys the concept of a learning ecology to capture this (Siemens, 2004), which may be a more fitting metaphor than that of a network. The second and third of his ‘principles of connectivism’ point towards this notion of hybridity and how successful learners will need to negotiate it, specifically ‘Learning may reside in non-​human appliances’ and ‘Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources’ (Siemens, 2004). It is clear that the specific technological advancements that have taken place, in terms of its implications for the development and facilitation of

206  Bowes and Swanwick

connectivist ideas, is that bundle of innovations and technologies that facilitate the move from the ‘Worldwide Web’ to ‘Web 2.0’ (DiNucci, 1999; O’Reilly, 2005), sometimes referred to as ‘the read-​write web’. This shift, put simply, is the conversion of the internet from a one-​way, broadcast medium to a two-​way broadcast and publishing medium. The net effect is the transformation of the internet into a social space. The range of tools associated with the rise of the concept of Web 2.0, such as blogs, wikis, social networking tools and platforms, have served to turn the internet into a space that is more ‘user-​centred, user-​generated and user controlled’ (Gooding, 2009). This gives rise to the proliferation of ‘user-​generated content’ in the form of blog posts, status updates, multimedia uploading to photo and video sharing sites such as Flickr and YouTube, to name a few which one now associates with the internet. Teachers and educators have, over the past 10–​15  years seen the potential benefits of embracing these multiple forms of publication for the purposes of learning, seeing it as a way of mirroring the personalisation and personal control that has occurred in the web, and bring those same benefits of personalisation and student control to the learning process (necessarily mediated by digital technologies). Acknowledging that pedagogy is always specific to context and contingent on the complex interplay of a host of, there is a general argument to be made about the development of Web 2.0 and the extent to which it has enabled teachers to make learning more ‘student-​centred’. Richardson (2007, p. 150) explicates this by asserting that ‘We must be readers and writers, editors and publishers, to maximize the benefits of our participation; and we must be willing to collaborate and co-​create with others, working closely together to learn even more in the process.’ Siemens and Tittenberger (2009) used the notion of the participative web to maintain that ‘sensemaking is an emergent property of social interaction’ (p.  31), and that therefore collaborative tools, like wikis (they use wikis in their example), offer learners the ability to ‘connect (across a network), to collate and discuss content for themselves, engaging in a knowledge building process’ (p. 31). This argument extends to a whole range of online tools, including social media, which learners can learn to use collaboratively to build knowledge, and engage in a process of ‘participatory sensemaking’ (p. 31). A connectivist therefore would favour an approach to learning which seeks to develop a network or ‘ecology’ of learners, and it is this set of principles that we seek to apply not only to the web generally and wikis, as in the above example, but also to our continued use of tools such as those in the Google Apps for Education (GAFE) and the institutional Learning Management Systems (LMS) in New Zealand, that are also elaborated on in the cases presented later in the chapter. We seek to create an ‘ecosystem’ of learners, tools, resources and ideas to develop and support learning.

ePE 207

2.  Actionable knowledge Actionable knowledge, as defined in his general definition of connectivism given above, is Siemens preferred term for, and used synonymously with ‘learning’ (Siemens, 2004). This view produces a picture of learning where ‘facts’ distinguish themselves from being merely information by the action that immediately follows their acquisition. Stated another way, a fact only counts as knowledge if it is acquired with a specific purpose in mind, which follows on from its acquisition, or if it is acquired with the intention to develop the specific capacity to learn further itself. These characteristics are best summarised in the precept that ‘all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge’ (Siemens, 2006). 3.  Using knowledge to build learning capacity Under Web 2.0, learners now exist in networks that demand participation from them and the development of a distinct set of valued skills based around finding and selecting information and interaction to construct further knowledge. We understand this to be operating at the global level of educational discourse, with its core pedagogical ideas and tenets permeating educational thought, policy and practice in diverse and varied ways that are often not explicitly associated with connectivism.

Connectivism in the New Zealand context In this section we attempt to build on these connectivist ideas, and specifically the three concepts discussed in the previous section into the New Zealand teaching policy literature. We begin by describing six themes of Future-​Focused Learning (Bolstad et al., 2012) that are currently informing teaching and educational policy in New Zealand. The emergence of these future-​focused themes are the result of a synthesis of ten years of national and international research into generic innovative practices of teaching and learning by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER). The six themes of Future Focused Learning in New Zealand (Bolstad et al., 2012) include: Theme 1. Personalising learning This theme captures a key shift towards students being in control of their own learning. In practice this means that students understand how they learn and have agency to use this to meet their learning needs and achieve individual success. It also means that students and teacher co-​design the learning activities from the curriculum and together develop the learning environment. In practice, while students help shape the content, this is in

208  Bowes and Swanwick

conjunction with the knowledge that teachers consider to be of high importance to learning. The key educational shift encompassed in this theme is that this knowledge is co-​constructed to ensure that the context is relevant for the students. It also signals a shift in thinking away from students fitting an education system to the education system meeting their needs. Theme 2: New views of equity and diversity This theme is about inclusiveness. It addresses educational success for those whose educational success has not kept pace with others. It includes those learners who have been discriminated against because they are different, a minority or from lower socio-​economical groups. This theme addresses disparity and discrimination in educational contexts. Diversity positions difference as a strength that enriches education and encourages world views that are different from one’s own. This diversity of ideas and people improves social justice and may assist to solve environmental, social and socio-​economic challenges of the twenty-​first century. Theme 3: Knowledge to develop learning capacity This theme challenges the traditional view of knowledge as the reproduction of discipline knowledge to define school subjects and their content. A Future Focused view of knowledge is to do something with it to find solutions. With this knowledge Future Focused learners can connect and collaborate with others with different knowledge, making the learning deeper and the solutions more considered. The key premise is the shift from discipline knowledge creating capabilities, to actionable knowledge, to develop key competencies that allow 21C learners to access and use knowledge to solve modern-​day problems. Theme 4: Rethinking the role of learners and teacher roles Teachers are no longer viewed as transmitters of knowledge since the learner no longer needs to memorise knowledge. This theme is about the role that teachers can play to support the different capabilities of learners. This is about building knowledge together by drawing on the strength of both parties. It is not a call for ‘anything goes’. It recognises that teachers bring considerable ‘knowledge’ to these new relationships by virtue of their experience and capabilities but the learning is no longer totally teacher driven. Theme 5. Continuous culture of learning for teachers and learners If we accept that there are new purposes for education and new knowledge in addition to what is already known about knowledge and learning, this

ePE 209

Future Focused theme simply sets the scene for a society where learning is recognised and valued beyond the school, classroom and qualifications. Theme 6: New partnerships and relationships Because of their intellectual and organisational forms, institutions tend to operate in ‘silos’, firewalled from each other. This theme is about generating learning or knowledge in the real world in which schools and communities exist. It values new partnerships and places considerable responsibility on the community to embrace the way that education and learning need to change. Bolstad et  al. (2012) argue that there are two further important subthemes to these six themes that facilitate Future Focused Learning; the role of new digital technologies and the effect of collaborative learning practices.These are also highly significant to any discussion about connectivism in physical education. Digital technology has made knowledge far more accessible to every student. Bolstad et al. sum this up succinctly, proposing that learning should provide students with the ability to ‘create and use new knowledge to solve problems, and find solutions as they arise, on a just-​in-​time basis’ (2012, p. 4). This provides the link to the concept of actionable knowledge, discussed earlier, and is perhaps best understood as using technology to acces the information that is required as required. We might best use terms like knowledge ‘on-​demand’ or ‘as required’ to capture this. Further to this, students require new skills to connect and collaborate with other members of digital networks, who collectively can contribute in complementary ways to achieve successful outcomes for learners (2012, p. 23). Integral to this is the idea that knowledge is a verb, not a noun. Learners no longer need a system that furnishes them with facts and then assesses their ability to retain those facts at a point that is disconnected from the learning moment (2012, p. 32). This collapses the time between the points at which (a) something is learnt, (b) the knowledge acquired is put to use, and (c) it is assessed. In the connectivist frame, all of these moments are/​should be combined, generating corollary arguments about how the structures of curriculum and assessment need to change. These connectivist themes and sub-​ themes as contemporary understandings of learning are strong drivers for the Ministry of Education New Zealand (MOE) and of the current New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) (MOE, 2007), which since 2008 has set forth the direction for learning and the accompanying ‘vision’ for learners graduating from secondary schools in New Zealand in all learning areas, including physical education. The hope for the vision of the NZC is for every student to be a ‘confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learner’ (MOE, 2007, p. 7). The critical linkage between the theoretical nature of the Supporting

210  Bowes and Swanwick

Future-​Focused Learning and Teaching report (Bolstad et al., 2012) and the NZC (MOE, 2007), explains the future-​focused potential of the NZC stating in their report that: The capacity for innovation already exists in our education system. The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa are flexible and enabling frameworks. The vision, values, and principles of these documents provide a strong foundation for teachers and school leaders to take a future-​oriented approach to learning and teaching. (Bolstad et al., 2012, p. 4) When reviewing the summary of the key principles of global connectivism (see Table 12.1), there appear to be also a number of synergies with the Key Competencies of ‘Future Focus’ and ‘Thinking’ in the NZC and the Māori medium parallel document, Te Marautanga o Aotearoa (MOE, 2007), to be developed in all learning areas, including in physical education. For example, in the NZC, the Key Competency ‘Thinking’ covers many connectivist ideas: Thinking is about using creative, critical, and metacognitive processes to make sense of information, experiences, and ideas. These processes can be applied to purposes such as developing understanding, making decisions, shaping actions, or constructing knowledge. Intellectual curiosity is at the heart of this competency. (MOE, 2007, p.12) In the PE context, a critical evaluation about the comparative merits of a Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) approach for developing skill in games compared with a Constraints Led Approach that emphasises the situated, social and distributed nature of skill learning (Ovens & Smith, 2006) would be an example of applying ‘Thinking’ as a Key Competency in senior school physical education. An additional Key Competency in the NZC, and in Te Marautanga o Aoteroa, is the ability to use ‘Language, Symbols and Texts’ to build knowledge. ‘Using language, symbols and texts is about working and making meaning of codes in which knowledge is expressed’ (p. 12). There is also research on the theme of knowledge building in a New Zealand context, which includes studies such as O’Hare (2012), Lai et al. (2012) and Russell (2012) that successfully incorporate Web 2.0 tools and social software in studies centring on New Zealand secondary schools. Digital technology has made knowledge far more accessible to every student, succinctly emulating the Future-​Focused themes of reimagined roles for teachers, using knowledge to build learning capacity and to personalise learning. This emphasises the importance of new (critical) skills to select and differentiate different

ePE 211

types of knowledge. Of particular relevance to the New Zealand context is the work of Noeline Wright who contends that ‘connected’ can easily refer to digital connections and the sorts of social networking that many young people already engage in, which can be ‘harnessed educationally’ (Wright, 2010, p. 2). Examples of connectivism and harnessing educational developments in digital technology in physical education in New Zealand are the focus of the next section.

Connectivism in the physical education context The growing ubiquity of mobile computing devices and wifi networks have been instrumental in transforming learning and the way schools and tertiary-​based practitioners conceive of the act of teaching and learning in New Zealand. These changes have been considerably accelerated by the rapid growth in personal ownership of a diverse array of smartphones, tablets, laptops and hybrid computers. These devices typically utilise different operating systems, software and apps, which both students and teachers increasingly bring to the learning experiences whilst at school, often orchestrated by school bring-​your-​own-​device (BYOD) or similar policies. This process has also been further accelerated in schools that have undertaken significant improvements to their wireless networking capability, investing on top of that provided by the Ministry of Education (MOE) commitment to upgrade school’s internal networks via the School Network Upgrade Programme (SNUP). The Ministry of Education in New Zealand has committed nearly $15 million NZD to a programme of school upgrades across the country since its introduction in 2013 ( In light of these developments, we argue that physical education practitioners in the New Zealand context have been amongst the first to embrace the potential opportunities that these technologies afford, relative to other subject areas. The subject-​specific dynamics of a ‘highly mobile, highly collaborative and a highly visual’ (Bowes & Ovens, 2014, p. 23) learning area has positioned physical education as a suitable space for incorporating learning through mobile devices. Arguably, New Zealand physical educators have for some time been experimenting with iPods, iPads and mobile phones and thinking through the implications of mobile devices movement pedagogy (Forrest, 2009). Developments in physical education teaching and learning include connectivist concepts such as networked classrooms, collaborative teaching spaces and a flexible and personalised curriculum. These have been achieved through blended learning and through the meaningful integration of subjects, devices and online platforms. Readily identifiable examples such as Coaches Eye, Coach Cam and Hudl Technique apps have been adopted and are now well embedded in learning about movement and

212  Bowes and Swanwick

skill analysis in physical education. We might argue that the relatively rapid uptake of digital technologies in this subject area is reflective of the way in which professional sport and the broader sporting culture have always embraced advances in technology. In the remainder of the chapter we draw on two specific examples of this and show how connectivist concepts and learning, are influencing developments in New Zealand physical education, across two different fields of our practice. Those two fields include initial teacher education (ITE) (Case Study 1 and 2) with a focus on physical education teacher education (PETE) and teacher professional learning and development (PLD) (Case Study 3). Both of these spheres of education we argue exemplify a connectivist shift, through the changing emphasis from pedagogies and interactions that are bounded in time and space and use digital technology as enrichment and augmentation of practice, to new practices that are no longer bound by the constraints of distance and synchronicity, and take the shape of new and networked forms of practice.

Connectivism in initial teacher education in PE (PETE) PETE initial teacher training is going through a period of intense experimentation and change, in order to find the best uses of mobile and networked technologies now available (Heap et  al., 2014; Matthewman, Bowes, Burchill, Heap, & Tickner, 2015). Of the six Future Focused themes identified through the Bolstad et al. (2012) research, many of them have been adopted in current PETE practice. Rapid digital advancement and the need for universities to lead in this area, has seen the advent of learning designers employed to work in digital technology pedagogy with lecturers and this practice has assisted the development of connectivism in practice as the following case studies illustrate. Case study 1: Formative assessment for learning in PETE Using the learning management system (LMS) of CANVAS with GAFE, a physical education PETE lecturer and students have been exploring how to successfully personalize learning for individual students and challenge the role of teachers and learners for graduate students. This case study captures an attempt to move the focus from summative assessment of learning at the end of a semester to assessment for learning using networks and actionable knowledge to assist students to learn throughout. The learning objectives for the courses included developing a senior school unit of work that could be assessed by a National Achievement standard in physical education. The lecturer and learning designer used digital technology to network with and between the students and to provide more effective and

ePE 213

immediate feedback to them on their learning and progress. To personalise the learning, students were given choice over the context they were preparing for the graded assessments. To facilitate the use of networks, the assessment was set up in two parts providing for a planning component in Part A that critical friends and the lecturer could provide peer assessment and formative feedback to their colleague. In an attempt to incorporate theme 3 and 4 of Future Focused themes of Bolstead et al. (2012) work, students could choose either written or video feedback and were asked to provide feedback on the feedback to the lecturer and peers by discussing the issues raised using one of these mediums. The students used their professional judgement to decide whether or not the feedback on Part A was valuable and if they intended to act on it and resubmit their work. Students could also choose to accept the grade for the first part and incorporate the feedback into the second part. Key to the success of this for the students was the speed and timeliness of the feedback of the media files on the LMS during the learning process and the opportunity for dialogue with the lecturer and peers. Additionally, to personalize the learning, the focus was changed to concentrate on each learner and the context they had selected to study. Students then went on to plan the second phase of their units again sharing with critical friends via GAFE before submitting a final piece of work through the LMS. The role of teacher, learner and peer was networked to build actionable knowledge and roles were reversed with the students driving the learning. Many of the students choose to develop units for the schools they would be working in following graduation and this action strengthened learners’ connections to the relevance of the actionable knowledge. This action further served to build capability to contribute to authentic teaching situations. A number of students chose to contextualise their work in traditional Māori games (Ngā Taonga Tākaro) to explore diversity through the significance of traditional cultural games in a multi-​cultural society. The students and lecturer’s co-​construction of this new approach took the ‘work’ aspect out of the assessment. The tasks were relevant, personalized and authentic and this combined with the ability to network and give and receive regular and immediate feedback effectively changed the role of the teacher and learner to reconceptualise learning. For physical education a shift to formative assessment, personalising learning and rethinking the role of the teacher and learner has enormous potential to improve student learning and engagement in this course. What this case study showed was that if tertiary providers wish to be research-​informed regarding Future Focused Learning, they will need to rethink the way the universities are organized for teaching and especially the way they assess. Digital technology is laying down both a challenge for the need to do this and providing solutions of how to achieve this.

214  Bowes and Swanwick

Case study 2: Using cloud-​b ased digital technologies in PE to network and use knowledge to build learning capacity Students are coming into university courses expecting to be able to successfully integrate multiple technologies into their lessons as new teachers and are looking for a way to address the issues of students being mobile, capturing and reflecting on movement, and collaborating in networked ways as they do so. In this case study the lecturer and learning designer planned a series of scenarios for groups of students to work on, in which they had to collaborate to produce a resource or strategy using the tools in the Google Apps suite. The university staff used a scenario based approach because it allowed them to create authentic tailored problems that were more likely to be owned by the learner. It also allowed for a more dynamic form of learning in which the students were networked to practise skills and actively construct meaning relevant to teaching in schools. Four physical education scenarios using one of four tools in the Google Drive suite  –​Google Docs, Slides, Sheets and Forms (GAFE) were constructed for students. Following this initial exploration of GAFE for teaching, the HPE department hosted an international symposium on Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). One of the things we wanted to achieve was to host a networked provocation with academics from around the world. The lecturers choose to use Google Hangouts as the network tool and a pedagogical strategy known as a ‘Fish Bowl’ to achieve this. Fish Bowl has a central discussion group with observers around the outside looking in to it (a metaphoric Fish Bowl). Academics in the physical room could contribute to the discussion by coming and going from the central table (Fish Bowl), but the lecturers hosting this symposium also wanted to find a way for delegates from the United States to join in as well. The lecturer and learning designer discussed the best way to turn a face-​to-​face strategy into a blended one. They decided to try Google Hangouts to accommodate the number of virtual participants and guests, and they also wanted consider the possibility of the event being livestreamed on an unlisted YouTube link. The results was successful using one of the Collaborative Active Learning Spaces (CALS) as the venue for the Hangout where there was a live video link on all the large TV/​video screens around the outside of the room with the guest experts contributing via the virtual Fish Bowl discussion. The lecturer and learning designer have now begun to think about how they can use Google Hangouts on Air for blended learning in other university courses and learning situations to bring flexi students into lectures from off campus. This comes with the added benefit of being able to embed livestream events and recordings into the LMS, Canvas, from YouTube. Using Google Hangouts-​on-​Air, as well as platforms such as Zoom and Appear In has proved to be a very useful connectivist strategy and stable

ePE 215

digital platform to overcome the problems of distance and provide multiple opportunities for students to learn at times to suit them.

PE teacher professional learning and development (PLD) A further change that we argue has taken place with the growing influence of connectivitist ideas in physical education in New Zealand is those that have taken place in the sphere of professional development and learning (PLD) for physical educators at all levels of teaching. This changing trend shows that the provision of PLD is timely as it affords teachers the rapid advancement of technology for enhancing student learning. We argue that the change is generally away from one-​off, face-​to-​face events for professional learning, and towards educators being continually networked through a variety of online communities with their professional peers. These networks allow physical educators to access information, support and resources that are immediately applicable to the challenges and issues they are confronting in their practice, making professional learning much more relevant, timely, and productive. Case study 3: From one off, face-​t o-​f ace to continuous networked PLD This case study is demonstrative or representative of a trend from face-​to-​ face to networked continuous PLD. We suggest that the annual national conference is assuming less significance in the professional learning and direct practice of physical educators. While conferences provide the benefit of face-​to-​face networking, they can be expensive, protracted in responding to PLD changes, and can lack specific applicability for physical education practitioners attending. Much of the content that teachers encounter at conferences, whilst being of significant general interest, may be limited in its ability to impact on their specific practice. Because of the advances in technology, teachers are now sharing and are wanting to share and have access to PLD in real time, every day. To demonstrate this, a document analysis of the National Conference presentations in New Zealand 2010–​2017 revealed perhaps surprising low growth in the number of abstracts detailing the use of digital technologies in physical education in New Zealand (see Figure  12.1). This relatively low percentage of total presentations increased from an initial 2% of the total conference presentations in 2011 to 12% in 2012 then fluctuated to 7.8% in 2013; to 3.95% in 2014; to 7.6% in 2015 and to 10% in both 2016 and 2017 (Figure 12.1). Although the data suggests that presentations have consistently remained low as a proportion of the conference, they do represent a shift over time from content based on technology itself, to presentations where the prime concern is issues of pedagogy and assessment,

216  Bowes and Swanwick

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010



2013 Dig tech






Figure 12.1  Digital presentations at Physical Education New Zealand (PENZ) national teaching conference 2010–​17. Conference presentations by teachers have remained relatively low and stable, indicating their growing selectiveness and discernment for when digital technology should be used and how.

and technology is considered in the more minor role of how it can be used to help support the address of those issues. The early years of our analysis, from 2010, reveal a focus on specific physical education orientated apps, focused on measuring fitness or training methods. Over the time analysed (2010–​2017), we chart a subtle but important change in the presentations from 2013 onwards, becoming increasingly orientated around specific issues of ePedagogy, and subsequently increasingly orientated to assessment and assessment practices in physical education (see Figure 12.2). We argue that the conference data demonstrates that as physical educators have become more aware of what digital technologies afford for teaching and learning, they have also become increasingly selective and discerning users of technology. This professional criticality is noted and timely in the light of the remarks we make at the end of this chapter. Similarly articles in the Journal of Physical Education New Zealand on the learning advancements of technology have also been surprisingly few. The articles also reflect the same trend with an initial focus on the ‘10 top apps’ to an increased focus on the pedagogy of using Google Classroom and Social Media to network, self and peer assessment in real time. What is also significant from the analysis of the conference presentation data is that there has been little growth in the number of presentations over the past seven years, yet we know from practice that physical educators

ePE 217

8 7 6 5 4 3 2








Pedagogy 2015



Pedagogy 2014



Pedagogy 2013



Pedagogy 2012



Pedagogy 2011



Pedagogy 2010






Figure 12.2  Changing focus of digital technology presentations at the Physical Education New Zealand (PENZ) national teaching conference 2010–​17. Over time PE teachers have become less interested in technology in and of itself, and more interested in the specific pedagogical opportunities that technology afford in the classroom, demonstrating an increase in their criticality.

are very high users of technology in the classroom. So, while the focus of presentations at National Conferences has changed from exciting, often fitness-​ based new apps, for teaching physical education, to a focus on networked classrooms, the lack of growth evidenced at national conferences and perhaps in the academic journals coincides with the increased growth in the use of social media to share effective PLD ideas amongst physical educators, and may account for this observation. In New Zealand this has been evidenced by the development of many social media PLD sites using Facebook, Twitter and blogging. Many are PE specific such as The PE GEEK, PE Gearshed, NZHPE Chat, PE CHAT, NZ PE Teacher, PE Office, World Class PE, PEPEPTALK, PhysEdMap, LovePhysEd, PE Scholar NZ PE Teacher and PE Review, to name but a few. These sites serve to network teachers and share online resources and comment. Teachers will find a useful link to a resource, comment on its use in PE and provide the link for others to access and use it in their teaching. Some of these social media sites are commercial, while most remain free to followers through the internet. Sites such as The PE GEEK will provide teachers with a taster such as ‘3 ways to capture and track student achievement’ and then encourage followers to sign up to online courses and nationwide workshop tours. The PE GEEK focus is on pedagogy, using digital technology to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes in the PE classroom. PE Gearshed is a free online platform ‘by and for PE teachers (using the NZ curriculum) made to share ideas, share resources, meet new people, collaborate, ask

218  Bowes and Swanwick

and answer questions’. These questions often involve access to resources that explore many of the socio-​critical health and physical education (HPE) contexts encouraged through the NZC (MOE, 2007). While the professional subject associations also have online presence such as Facebook sites that are well supported, an emerging trend is impacting on the way the subject associations will need to deliver PLD going forward: The annual membership that provides access to discounted workshops and conferences will find it hard to compete with the ‘free’ online networked PLD. While the national associations currently deliver annual national conferences and regional leadership initiatives that bring physical, outdoor and health educators together for PLD, there is no longer the need to wait a year to access and share knowledge. PE teachers now have the ability to access knowledge online, tweet one’s comments, receive immediate responses, access further research, re-​think, ‘re flect’ and re-​tweet. The challenges and affordances of digital technologies are not only changing the way physical educators access knowledge but are also changing the way we work as professionals. The knowledge is now networked, actionable and builds learning capacity. The effects of connectivism are highly evident in the learning area of physical education and the work of PE teachers in New Zealand.

Conclusion Hamilton (2013) proposed in the 1980s that what happens in schools is both ‘socially-​constructed and historically-​located’ (p. 151). This has set new expectations for schooling mirroring and representing changes in society. Similarly, Paechter (2000) suggests that ‘curriculum change … reflects, social change, [and more importantly], that how we as a society choose to educate our children reflects what we think is important’ (p. 5). In this chapter we have explored connectivism as a powerful contemporary learning theory that is changing learning in physical education in the twenty-​first century. We have considered connectivism as a highly relevant learning theory to underpin how we endeavour to educate students as ‘confident, connected, and active lifelong learners’ (MINEDU NZ, 2007). We have explored three key concepts of connectivism; Networks, Actionable Knowledge and Using Knowledge to Build Learning Capacity. Taking the six local themes of Future-​Focussed Learning (Bolstad et al., 2012), we have tried to illustrate the influence and bearing that connectivism, as a relatively new learning theory, is having on our practice as physical educators in the New Zealand context. We have argued that the rapid digital uptake in physical education is further underpinned by a number of subject-​specific affordances being the highly mobile and highly visual movement learning contexts with which we teach. We have described two local cases: PETE and the provision of continuing PLD in physical education in New Zealand, as examples of connectivist

ePE 219

learning theory as it relates to our particular work. Specifically, through the three case studies included in this chapter we have exemplified connectivism in action as a different way of viewing learning and assessment at university and in the changing nature of continuing PLD for physical educators. The chapter concludes with some questions for readers to consider what likely developments there may be for the digital future of physical education and its students. Therefore, we offer this chapter to describe a trajectory to students, present and future teachers of physical education, and policymakers in order to make clear the direction of curriculum and connectivism in these debates regarding the role of digital technology and ePE in order that professionals can make clear decisions about what they teach and why. In his article, ‘eHPE: a history of the future’, Gard (2014) cautions physical educators to the potential dangers of adopting connectivist ideas in PE without critique. Gard reminds us that without critique, connectivism in PE, or as we have also called it ‘ePE’, has the potential to be a ‘performative, dull, repetitive, stressful, intellectually narrow and ethically dubious experience for students’ (p. 845). The three case studies in this chapter have described ePE teaching and learning where the opposite is occurring and we trust this inspires you to explore connectivism as ePE in physical education in your own practice.

Discussion questions 1. What will be the likely developments in digital technology in physical education and sport in the future? 2. What learning theory will supersede connectivism? 3. Given the advancements offered by connectivism, in making professional learning (a)  networked and (b)  continuous, what is the future of PDL for teachers in the digital and mobile landscape?

Further reading Bowes, M. & Ovens, A. P. (2014). Curriculum rhythm and HPE practice:  making sense of a complex relationship. Teachers and Curriculum, 14, 21–​28. Gard, M. (2014). eHPE: a history of the future. Sport, Education and Society, 19(6), 827–​845. Ovens, A. P., Garbett, D., Heap, R., & Tolosa, C. (2013). Sustaining high quality pedagogy in the changing technological landscape. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 25 (1–​3), 21–​37.

220  Bowes and Swanwick

References Bolstad, R., Gilbert, J., McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting future-​oriented learning & teaching –​A New Zealand perspective: a report to the Ministry of Education (NZ). Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from​publications/​schooling/​109306 (last accessed 5 February 2018). Bolstad, R., Gilbert, J., McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., Hipkins, R., … with S McDowall. (2012). Supporting future-​orientated learning & teaching  –​a New Zealand perspective:  a report to the Ministry of Education (NZ). Wellington. Retrieved from​_​_​data/​assets/​pdf_​file/​0003/​ 109317/​994_​Future-​oriented-​07062012.pdf (last accessed 5 February 2018). Bowes, M. & Ovens, A. (2014). Curriculum rhythm and HPE practice: making sense of a complex relationship. Teachers and Curriculum, 14, 19–​25. DiNucci, D. (1999). Fragmented future. Print, 53(4), 32–​35. Downes, S. (2005). An introduction to connective knowledge. September. Retrieved from​post/​33034 (last accessed 11 October 2016). Forrest, G. (2009). Using iPods to enhance the teaching of games in physical education. In J.  Herrington, A.  Mantei, J.  Olney, and B.  Ferry (eds), New technologies, new pedagogies:  mobile learning in higher education. Wollongong, Australia: Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong. Gard, M. (2014). eHPE:  a history of the future. Sport, Education and Society, 19(6), 827–​845. https://​​10.1080/​13573322.2014.938036 (last accessed 5 February 2018). Gooding, J. (2009). Web 2.0: A vehicle for transforming education.  International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 4(2), 44–​53. Hamilton, D. (2013). Towards a theory of schooling (Routledge Revivals). Abingdon: Routledge. Heap, R., Garbett, D., Ovens, A., Tolosa, C., Bowes, M., Lee, S., & Leichtweis, S. (2014). Using technology enabled feedback in initial teacher education. In SITE International Symposium 2014. Lai, K., Bolton, C., Bennett, C., Campbell, M., Kelly, S., Proctor, T. Y., & Zaloum, T. (2012). Designing knowledge-​ building communities in New Zealand secondary schools:  Some preliminary reflections. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 24(3): 278–​307. Matthewman, S., Bowes, M., Burchill, D., Heap, R., & Tickner, S. (2015). The digital challenges to curriculum thinking. The 21st Century Curriculum?, 107–​121. Ministry of Education (NZ). (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum for English-​ medium teaching and learning in years 1–​13. Wellington: Learning Media. Retrieved from http://​​The-​New-​Zealand-​Curriculum#collapsible2 (last accessed 5 February 2018). Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co. O’Hare, S. (2012). Knowledge-​building communities: what, why, how? Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 24(3), 249–​258. O’Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly blog. Retrieved from

ePE 221​pub/​a/​web2/​archive/​what-​is-​web-​20.html (last accessed 20 January 2017). Ovens, A. & Smith, W. (2006). Skill: making sense of a complex concept. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 39(1), 72–​82. Paechter, C. (2000). Changing school subjects: power, gender and curriculum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Richardson, W. (2007). Teaching in a Web 2.0 world. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 43(4), 150–​151. Russell, J. (2012). Knowledge building:  what is it all about? Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 24(3), 239–​248. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from​journal/​jan_​05/​article01.htm (last accessed 5 February 2018). Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism:  learning as network-​creation. Retrieved from​Articles/​networks.htm (last accessed 5 February 2018). Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Lulu Press. Siemens, G. & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. Retrieved from​Articles/​HETL.pdf (last accessed 5 February 2018). Wright, N. (2010). e-​Learning and implications for New Zealand schools:a literature review. Retrieved from​publications/​ict/​e-​learning-​ and-​implications-​for-​new-​zealand-​schools-​a-​literature-​review/​ (last accessed 5 February 2018).

Part IV

Technological innovations for professional development

Chapter 13

Harnessing the power of virtual reality simulation in physical education teacher education Misti Neutzling, Karen Pagnano Richardson and Deborah Sheehy

It is easy to be overwhelmed by the pace of the technological change we face today as educators, as technology innovation is one of the greatest forces accelerating change in our world today (Friedman, 2016). Many aspects of society and the workplace, including physical education teacher education (PETE) programs, are being reshaped by technological change. As educators, we must be cognizant that the growth of change in technology is occurring on an exponential curve. For the past 50 years we have experienced a consistent pattern of exponential growth in computing power as represented in Moore’s law: that is that the speed and power of microchips would double every two years, for only slightly more money with each new generation (Friedman, 2016). The rate of growth in technology means that educators are often adapting to change; yet schools are not typically structured for quick change. The ability to adapt to innovation and to recognize how quickly technology innovations becomes affordable may allow physical education teachers to better harness the power of selected technological innovations. Innovation today requires quick cycles of experimentation, learning, applying knowledge, and assessing success or failure. Shorter innovation cycles yield less time to learn to adapt, thus creating constant states of instability (Friedman, 2016). If, however, teacher educators accept that we are in a constant state of technological change and strive for dynamic stability –​like the stability needed to ride a bike –​then we can be responsive to change rather than overwhelmed. On a bike, if you stop pedaling you fall off, but if you keep pedaling you stay on and travel to a new place (Friedman, 2016). Physical education teacher education faculty should “keep pedaling,” because the work context that we are preparing pre-​service teachers for is also in constant change (Persen, 2016). It is with the backdrop of this age of technological innovation that we frame this chapter. We will focus on how virtual reality classroom simulation (i.e., Mursion), which we were able to integrate into our PETE program, is taking center stage as a next generation environment for teacher professional learning (Kane & Staiger, 2012). Virtual reality classroom simulation

226 Neutzling et al.

can provide teacher education faculty with an innovative tool to educate the next generation of teachers aligned with how twenty-​first-​century students access information and learn (Kane & Staiger, 2012). Teacher education faculty who choose to integrate virtual reality simulation will need to do so in ways that are consistent with their perspective on learning and outcomes, and be ready to embrace new technologies as they emerge. In this chapter, we explore how our teacher education program faculty integrated virtual reality simulation into the curriculum. We will focus on how our constructivist perspective of learning shaped the development and implementation of the simulation experiences; we will share lessons we learned from the simulation; the overall impact of the virtual reality simulations; and our thoughts on the possibilities for virtual reality in physical education.

Constructivism and virtual reality simulations Global interconnectedness enabled by information technology calls for new skills, new knowledge and new ways of learning to prepare students with abilities and competencies that rise to meet the challenges of an uncertain, changing environment. (Kuhithau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2015, p. 5) One of the ways to prepare twenty-​first-​century students who aspire to become teachers is through constructivist learning or guided inquiry. Constructivism is based on the philosophical perspective that knowledge is constructed rather than discovered (Fosnot & Perry, 2005). It is a theory about learning with a perspective that emphasizes active learning experiences that inspire students to ask questions, take risks, and want to learn more. Prior knowledge is viewed positively and serves as a starting point for instruction. Learning occurs through the social interactions within a community of practice where students learn from one another as well as from the instructor (Kuhithau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2015). We employ this metacognitive approach to active learning whereby teacher educators provide a series of intentionally sequenced problems that encourage pre-​ service teachers to question, to explore multiple solutions, and to reflect on their own learning before encountering the next problem. The active learning process lends itself well to the process of learning to teach where there are many effective methods that can be valuable when working with students in a dynamic classroom situation. We were intrigued by the possibilities of using virtual reality classroom simulation for pre-​service teachers to explore some important problems they will encounter when teaching, such as understanding why and how they can establish a “comfortable” learning environment for each student. Constructivism posits that the context students encounter in the learning situation is of vital importance. Critical for student learning is the need

Harnessing the power of VR simulation  227

for relevance within the context in which subject matter is framed. While learning theories do not provide a recipe for learning environments, they do constrain the design of an effective learning environment (National Research Council, 1999). As teacher educators we are challenged to present pre-​service teachers with “real life” examples that go beyond role-​play and which are dynamic, interactive and represent various student characteristics, thus affording the integration of their understanding of learners, their content, and their pedagogy. Virtual reality provides a unique, interactive, and “life-​like” context within which to practice some interpersonal and pedagogical skills needed as a physical education teacher. It is our contention that university researchers and teacher educators are obligated to explore how emerging technologies (such as virtual reality) can aid in teaching and learning and that they must interrogate the ideas and innovations around training to recognize what is appropriate for wide scale adoption. A virtual reality simulation, called Mursion, is being used by more than 65 universities and other programs to prepare pre-​service K-​12 teachers for the challenges of teaching in today’s classrooms. In physical education, PETE faculty at Bridgewater State University integrated Mursion to introduce general teaching skills with students in methods courses prior to practicum experiences with K-​12 students (Neutzling, Richardson, & Sheehy, 2016). Similarly, K-​12 school systems use Mursion to help in-​service teachers hone their skills once on the job. Virtual reality simulation has also emerged as an important learning environment in a variety of professional fields (i.e., pilots, medical professionals, finance, and hospitality). The virtual reality simulation is used to replicate the most demanding interpersonal challenges that the aforementioned professionals regularly confront on the job. Mursion is a virtual reality environment that combines artificial intelligence with live trained improvisational actors who strive to deliver relevant and personalized simulations as they respond in real time to the pre-​service teacher who is teaching the lesson. As teacher educators, we have been able to use virtual reality simulation to allow our pre-​service teachers to rehearse, practice, and improve the manner in which they will interact with students. Mursion allows teacher educators to provide practice of teaching skills in the same way that flight simulators train airline pilots on the skills needed to fly a plane. A variety of teaching skills can be rehearsed in Mursion’s virtual reality simulator including: managing classrooms, working with children with special needs, and practicing specific instructional routines relevant to a particular subject area. An essential component to simulations are the interactors, who play the role of each of the five student avatars. They bring the avatars’ personalities to life and respond “in the moment” to the pre-​service teacher delivering the lesson. Interactors are real people who are trained in acting and consist of a diverse group:  artists, thespians, improvisational actors, writers, and teachers. The interactors are creative people with strong collaboration,

228 Neutzling et al.

communication, and problem-​ solving skills. The interactors are the key players who create an authentic feel during virtual reality simulation. “A control system provides an interface for virtual characters (i.e., avatars) during live avatar-​human interactions. A human interactor can select facial expressions, poses, and behaviors of the virtual character using an input device mapped to menus on a display device.” (Zelenin, Kelly, & Nagendran, 2017). To emphasize the interactive nature of Mursion, there are four compliance levels that the interactor plays in character that range from most compliant to least compliant. The levels are as follows: (a) Level 0 = complete compliance (e.g., eagerly answer the teachers’ questions), (b) Level 1 = mild misbehavior (e.g., teacher had to occasionally refocus such as reminding to put cell phone away), (c) Level 2 = medium misbehavior (e.g., off topic answers and additional requests from teacher to put cell phone away), and (d) Level 3 = high intense misbehavior (e.g., disrespectful behavior towards teacher and peers, or disengagement with the lesson). Unique to Mursion, the behaviors within the levels varied based on the individual characteristic of each avatar. In addition, the interactor could be texted during a simulation to increase or decrease the behavior level to make it a more appropriate learning experience for the pre-​service teacher. For each simulation we identified the compliance level at which we wanted the session to begin.

Integration of Mursion virtual reality simulation in a teacher education program In the next section, we will describe the five 7th grade avatars who entered our classrooms. We will share our experiences integrating virtual reality simulation in our physical education program and share how we developed simulations that aligned with our course outcomes. Through a detailed description of our process, we hope the reader will better understand the potential of virtual reality simulation for developing quality physical education teachers.

Meet the 7th grade avatars The 7th grade avatars were Ed, Sean, Maria, CJ, and Kevin who were seated behind desks in an academic classroom environment (see Figure 13.1). The avatars were able to raise hands, turn, talk, and could simulate writing on paper. They were unable to stand or move around the classroom. Mursion does not have a physical education setting, however increasing movement capabilities of the avatars is in development. The classroom setting constrained the practice of some essential teaching skills in physical education, such as efficient use of space, equipment, organization of students, and the ability to observe sport related movement. Despite the differences between the classroom context and physical education context

Harnessing the power of VR simulation  229

Figure 13.1  Picture of avatars: left to right, front row: Ed, Sean; left to right, back row: Maria, CJ, and Kevin. Adapted with permission from Mursion, Inc.

we were able to develop essential teaching skills in the classroom context. For example, our pre-​service teachers used the classroom context simulation to practice making connections with student avatars, to introduce classroom rules and expectations, and to respond to student misbehavior. Each avatar’s character had a unique personality that was representative of a 7th grade student. It was the combination of the unique personality and characteristics that each avatar possessed, which skilled interactors brought to life in each simulation, that allowed just five avatars to represent a range of students that our pre-​service teachers would likely encounter in a United States classroom. CJ was a disinterested female student who valued her cell phone and boyfriend more than learning the day’s lesson and appeared to be annoyed whenever she was asked a question. Kevin was the “cool” kid. He was a charming, laid-​back, and engaged student. Sean was the student who sat in the front row, was first to answer all of the teacher’s questions, and asked many questions that tested the teacher’s patience. Ed was shy, polite, and well-​behaved. He would often say softly, “Yes Ma’m” when called upon. Last, and sometimes the forgotten student, was Maria. Maria sat quietly in the back row with her head resting in her hand, seldom made eye contact, and appeared to be sad, but she was always compliant.

Methods and logistics To understand our pre-​ service teachers’ experiences using Mursion, we used qualitative methods to collect and analyze data. Data sources were as

230 Neutzling et al.

follows: pre-​service teachers’ written reflections, lesson plans, and videos of lesson implementation; two focus group interviews with faculty; two individual faculty interviews; and three focus group interviews with pre-​service teachers. Prior to implementation, we were Mursion trained. Training involved three areas of focus. The first training session emphasized the history of virtual reality simulation, how Mursion was created, and research on its effectiveness with pre-​service teachers. The second training included the logistics of using the Mursion equipment and what was called “technology time,” such as set-​up instructions as well as troubleshooting techniques. The final training involved the opportunity to practice interacting with each of the student avatars in a real simulation experience, within the “Mursion lab.” The Mursion lab was a designated classroom where the 60 x 60 inch TV-​like monitor/​computer screen with camera and speaker were stored and used from a cart, and included moveable long tables and chairs for 30 students. Included in this lab was a projector screen, document camera, and access to the Internet.

Virtual reality simulations On simulation days, 30 students arrived to the Mursion lab where they uploaded their visual aids (i.e., poster or PowerPoint) on the projector prior to the official start of the session and set their iPad up to video record their teaching. Faculty then engaged in a 15-​minute technology time check with the Mursion interactor, without the students present. Once the equipment was set up, a detailed process which at times brought technical difficulties, and the interactor was ready to begin, pre-​services teachers re-​entered the lab room. The tables were purposefully positioned in a rectangular shape so that pre-​service teachers could observe both the screen and their peers delivering a lesson. Each simulation was consistent with a constructivist approach. Pre-​service teachers were focused on a broad question. For example, “How do you make connections with students to establish a warm learning environment?” Their next step was to develop a lesson plan drawing on prior knowledge and resources as a solution to the broad question. To further engage in a social construction of knowledge, by observing and engaging in discussion with peers we used a fishbowl method in each simulation. The fishbowl method required faculty and peers to observe the pre-​service teacher in the simulation, and then for both peers and faculty to engage in debriefing. During the two-​hour simulation we asked the pre-​service teachers to take observational field notes on the lesson focus, and how the pre-​service teachers in simulation could better achieve the lesson focus, which they used to engage in discussion. Following the group’s simulation, we paused the simulation and led a whole class discussion using open-​ended questions. We asked pre-​service

Harnessing the power of VR simulation  231

teachers to reflect on their impact of their teaching decisions during the simulation on student behavior. Following the two-​hour session, to promote deeper reflection on their teaching, pre-​service teachers reviewed their video and completed a reflection paper that required them to consider areas of improvement. They were asked the following, “If given the opportunity to re-​teach this lesson again, what would you do different? What would you continue to do? Why?” Next, we will look more closely at each simulation. Simulation 1. An objective within our methods course was that our pre-​ service teachers learn to establish a warm learning environment (i.e., rules, routine, and expectations). We co-​planned a lesson simulation that required pre-​service teachers, in groups of four, to develop and implement a short eight minute lesson to the five middle school avatars (Sean, Edward, CJ, Maria, and Kevin). We submitted this lesson simulation scenario to a Mursion interactor two weeks in advance so they could prepare (see Table 13.1). As faculty, we were nervous as we prepared for simulation one. We were concerned about the possibilities of technical difficulties and scheduling challenges with the live interactor who was three time zones away, as well as using this methodological innovation. The purpose of the simulation was to teach the class rules and expectations and to gain student avatars’ interest while participating in a games lesson using constructivist approaches to learning. Each pre-​service teacher participated in a 1-​hour simulation experience, which included a 5-​minute simulation interaction with the avatars, observation of their peers’ simulation interaction time in the fishbowl, and several debrief discussions that was faculty led. The format during simulation was a fishbowl method in which faculty and peers observed each teaching, followed by a 3-​minute debrief that was faculty led (i.e., establishing a warm learning environment). Lessons learned from simulation 1. In hindsight, we learned we needed to provide more context about the Mursion simulation. Our error was that we had the pre-​service teachers mentally prepared to teach actual 7th graders, and when faced with the avatars they were surprised and somewhat unsettled when the avatars responded so realistically. The camera allows the interactor, who plays the role for each avatar, to see and hear all that the pre-​service teacher is doing, and respond in real time. Not sharing all the details of the Mursion simulation, which was recommended in our training, was done with an attempt to maintain “suspended disbelief.” Suspended disbelief means that the participant in the simulation gives up skepticism (e.g. you view the avatars on the screen as students to connect to), and accept what goes against what you think you know (e.g. looking at a video screen of prescribed fictional characters) and engage ‘in the moment’ by responding to the avatars’. Our pre-​service teachers were in “suspended disbelief”: they respond as if the avatars were real students with real needs (Wilson, 1996). Pre-​service teachers became invested in the avatars like one would while

232 Neutzling et al. Table 13.1  Simulation design for interactor and learning goals for pre-​service teachers. Simulation design for interactor Learning goals for pre-​service teachers: 1. Pre-​service teachers will be able to introduce their classroom rules and expectations. 2. Pre-​service teachers will demonstrate various pro-​active management techniques that maintain appropriate class engagement throughout the teaching experience. TARGET/​Objective Targeted acceptable responses to generated events or tasks


When might this occur in the scenario?

Pre-​service teacher will be able to generate student interest in the lesson focus during the lesson introduction by using a good hook that connects to students interests, motivation, and prior knowledge. Pre-​service teacher introduces students to classroom rules and expectations Pre-​service teacher will be able to refocus a student to the task at hand by using wait time proximity control, question redirection, and non-​ verbal signals. While students are completing a written pre-​ assessment (scenario for TGFU) Pre-​service teachers will engage in a large group discussion about the pre-​assessment

Student doesn’t see the importance of the lesson.

Initiation of lesson

Student listen and comply with teacher

Task 2 after the lesson introduction

Students engages in off topic conversation with peer Student asks a question that is way off topic Student is somewhat distracted and not completing assessment in timely manner

During the pre-​assessment  task During individual work on pre-​ assessment and in partner work

Several students share appropriately; one student who answers off topic

In the last task during group share

watching a theatrical play. Pre-​service teachers couldn’t respond in a proactive way to prevent misbehavior, and struggled to make adjustments in their interactions during the simulation in part due to the novelty of the avatars and the high quality of the responses from the live interactor. In simulation one, we learned that our pre-​services teachers had difficulty making connections to student avatars, they were focused on “getting through their part of the lesson” had an inability to manage off-​task behavior, and failed to establish a warm learning environment. As teacher educators we recognized that our pre-​service teachers would make the same mistake with actual students because they didn’t have a sophisticated repertoire of tools for responding to students. After simulation 1, pre-​service teachers identified the challenge of co-​planning and the sense of feeling rushed during the simulation. One student wrote, “After the first time [simulation 1], I did

Harnessing the power of VR simulation  233

not feel great. The pressure to get the lesson plan done and not being one hundred percent knowing what was going to happen, really made it hard to be excited.” Simulation 2. Based on what we learned in the first simulation about our pre-​service teachers’ struggles to respond to the avatars, we re-​structured simulation two and simplified planning. Simulation 2’s focus was on making a personal connection, and responding to student avatar misbehaviors. In groups of three, pre-​service teachers were assigned one of the following roles: (a) meet and greet to reconnect with each student avatar, (b) introduce and start the class activity in an engaging way, or (c) deliver a lesson closure with a focus on the affective domain. In this simulation, we paused when necessary. To pause simulation, the faculty member said, “pause classroom” and the interactor disengaged with the pre-​service teacher until the faculty prompted the interactor with “start classroom.” The “pause” allowed faculty to ask purposeful questions preparing the pre-​service teachers to redo the interaction. Using questioning during a “pause”, allowed pre-​ service teachers to draw on their prior knowledge or to get suggestions from peers, which led to more appropriate solutions regarding how they could engage with the student avatar. Changing the behavior level occurred frequently throughout simulation 2, and our pre-​service teachers responded more appropriately with positive approaches as they practiced their management skills. At times, we made the decision not to “pause” the simulation when pre-​service teachers struggled (Zelenin, Kelly, & Nagendran, 2017). The struggles became important learning moments for both the pre-​service teacher in the simulation, and for their classmates watching in the fishbowl. Lessons learned from simulation 2. Simulation 2 occurred just before the pre-​service teachers’ field experiences began with primary and secondary level students. The virtual reality simulation allowed them to practice teaching in a safe environment that did not place real students at risk. Pre-​ service teachers identified that simulation two was powerful and that they were better prepared to work with “real” students. One pre-​service teacher wrote in her reflection, “It gave me opportunities to try different methods and not be afraid to hurt a student. It let me see what it is like as a real teacher, because they are students, just like the ones we taught [avatars] and I am going to have to respond to these learners [actual K-​12 students] in a positive manner.” As PETE faculty, during simulation two we began to appreciate the advantage of using Mursion simulations, over peers’ role playing for practice. We were aware that peers were not trained actors; peers lack the depth and breadth of knowledge to be able to effectively represent the developmental characteristics of students; and we valued that faculty could easily change the behavior level without disrupting the flow of the lesson by texting the interactor.

234 Neutzling et al.

Simulations 3 and 4. The third and fourth time that we used Mursion was with pre-​service teachers in an introductory methods course and in an upper level methods the following semester. Based on our prior experiences with Mursion, we shared more detail about the setup of the lab environment (i.e., large screen) and introduced the pre-​service teachers to the student avatars by name and shared personality traits they should consider when planning their lessons. We used a previously developed simulation focused on building student teacher relationships. The following semester, the same pre-​service teachers were enrolled in two upper level methods courses. They experienced Mursion simulations on two consecutive days. By the second day, the pre-​service teachers embraced the avatars in their words, as “real students” and were more animated and focused on creating a warm environment. Lessons learned. Based on student written reflections and interview data with faculty and students the multiple opportunities to engage with the Mursion simulations were beneficial for both the pre-​service teachers and faculty as both parties could anticipate behaviors, and better respond to them. Providing pre-​service teachers with the specific details about the simulation conditions allowed them to be better prepared for simulation on their first attempt. The preparation did not interfere with their experience of “suspended disbelief.” In addition, since the faculty members now had more experience working with the student avatars they were better able to think and talk about them in the debrief as ‘real’ students with real interests, needs, and experiences. Thus, the debrief was richer and more authentic, and contributed to the creation of suspended disbelief for the faculty members and the pre-​service teachers. To reiterate, suspended disbelief is a point at which you give up skepticism, and accept what goes against what you think you know. The faculty achieved this through staying true to treating the student avatars as “real” 7th graders. For instance, during the fishbowl debriefs the faculty members referred to the student avatars by name, and provided feedback that was personalized for each student avatar. For example, one faculty member said to a pre-​service teacher, “For your next lesson, since Ed demonstrated a strong interest in basketball you may want to focus on that sport to make your tasks more relatable and therefore may promote more engagement.” The next lesson the pre-​service teacher used Michael Jordan as a way to get Ed to buy into his lesson which indeed worked.

Summary of simulation implementation The simulation created “problems to be solved,” that required pre-​service teachers to integrate their understanding of learners, their content, and their pedagogy. They were faced with classroom management problems, which rather than having one “right” answer required pre-​service teachers to draw

Harnessing the power of VR simulation  235

on a variety of strategies and approaches. The simulations were challenging, yet the pre-​service teachers took risks, built confidence, and they refined their teaching skills. The pre-​service teachers identified that the experiences were powerful and they were better prepared to work with “real” students. In addition, as faculty we were able to efficiently identify the strengths and weakness of our pre-​service teachers.

Impacts of virtual reality simulation technology As we reflected on the integration of virtual reality simulation, and analyzed the artifacts that we collected throughout the process, we moved from being interested, yet skeptical about using virtual reality simulation in our teacher education program to being enthusiastic supporters. In the next section, we look beyond the individual simulations, and explore how virtual reality has more broadly impacted our program in the following three ways, (1) virtual reality simulation allowed new opportunities for reflection-​in-​action by our pre-​service teachers, (2) virtual reality simulation allowed for additional development of proactive management skills, and (3) virtual reality simulation provided faculty a snapshot view of pre-​service teachers’ current ability to teach. Promoted reflection-​i n-​a ction One compelling effect of using virtual reality simulation was the ability to pause the classroom to allow for reflection-​in-​action. The pre-​service teachers could rethink with support and deliberation from peers and faculty and then would redo an interaction with the student avatars and experience a different result and often have a more appropriate interaction. Often, pauses occurred when pre-​service teachers struggled to properly address a student action or misbehavior in the classroom. The pre-​planned situations in simulations allowed the pre-​service teachers to experience some classic moments that may or may not occur in a live classroom, such as a student with a cell phone or a student who gets off topic with a long story or a student who responds with a sarcastic answer. With the virtual reality classroom, the engagement between the faculty and the interactor insured, in each teaching simulation, that pre-​service teachers experienced the inevitable challenges faced with real students. Since the simulation were scripted for the interactor, then each pre-​service teacher was challenged in unique ways (see Table 13.1). For instance, pre-​service teachers responded to students who gave incorrect answers or refused to answer a question or responded sarcastically The opportunity for pre-​service teachers to take risks, and practice teaching in an interactive context, without the pressure of negatively impacting “real students” was noted. In one pre-​service teacher’s written reflection they stated “It gave me opportunities to try different methods and not be afraid to hurt a student. It let me see what it is like as a

236 Neutzling et al.

real teacher, because there are students just like the ones we taught and I am going to have to respond to these learners in a positive manner.” Another pre-​service said in an interview, “It put me on the spot, so that I had to deal with the problem in the moment, and not just go by the book of what I had written in my lesson plan.” A key feature of virtual reality simulation, was that at any time the classroom could be “paused” and the pre-​service teachers were given support and an opportunity to rethink and redo interactions. Thus, they practiced “getting it right.” In our field experiences, pre-​service teachers have limited opportunities for immediate feedback from faculty due to program size which limit opportunities for “reflection-​in-​action” (Schön, 1983). Reflection-​in-​ action is “thinking about what they are doing even while doing it,” (Schön, 1983, p. 5) which was enhanced by the ability to pause the classroom to allow for thinking, and then to quickly return to the moment of challenge to repeat the interaction. One of the most challenging areas for pre-​service teachers to address was behavior management. The virtual reality simulation provided a powerful context for trial and error in developing proactive management skills and connections to students. Developed proactive management: “Trip down to the office for a referral” One of the most salient lessons learned was that pre-​service teachers were challenged by off task behavior (e.g., cell phone use, talking over teacher). They struggled to find proactive positive strategies during initial simulations. Pre-​service teachers, for the most part, simply reacted to misbehavior and did little to keep all students avatars engaged or to prompt and praise on-​ task behavior. For example, in the first simulation one pre-​service teacher asked the student avatars to raise their hands so he would know that they were ready to start class. When CJ, a student avatar, responded, “So, if I  don’t raise my hand I can just hang out?” The pre-​service teacher responded, “No, if we don’t all raise our hand and participate we can all take a trip down to the office for a referral.” Clearly, the pre-​service teacher relied on a punitive threat, which placed the misbehavior in the hands of the Principal as opposed to handling the situation in his classroom in a less confrontational way. Sometimes, the pre-​service teachers viewed student avatar questions about the content as off-​task behavior as opposed to important clarifying questions. This reactive approach did not support the development of a warm, caring environment. In fact, the student avatars stopped asking the pre-​service teachers questions and turned to their avatar classmates which then caused further disruption. Some of the pre-​service teachers reverted to using inappropriate and sarcastic tones and failed to hold student avatars accountable for on-​task behavior by just talking over them.

Harnessing the power of VR simulation  237

Over the semester, however, the pre-​ service teachers recognized they needed a variety of approaches to draw from for more effective classroom management. It is important to note that the pre-​service teachers were learning this both from their experiences with virtual reality simulation, and through their fieldwork with K-​12 students. As one pre-​service teacher commented, “The students [avatars] threw me a lot of obstacles, and challenges.” Another pre-​service teacher said, “You can never plan what students are going to say or how they will react, and this [VR] experience prepared us for that.” Though pre-​service teachers struggled with off-​task behavior and finding ways to respond more proactively, they learned to value real life 7th grade responses. Another pre-​service teacher remarked, “This opportunity [virtual reality simulation] allowed me to experience what it’s like to actually get responses and unexpected responses from students while teaching. I  learned that how you respond, what you say, or how you act towards a student can be taken positively or negatively.” Our pre-​service teachers were able to move from reactive, with the threat of a trip to the Principal, to drawing on a range of techniques to promote engagement and compliance. Afforded snapshot view A significant benefit of using virtual reality simulation in our physical education teacher education program was the snapshot view the simulation provided the teacher educators about each pre-​service teacher’s strengths and weaknesses. In one two-​hour simulation, we could see each of the 30 pre-​service teachers interact with the student avatars, in a manner far more efficient than with traditional early field experiences with students in a primary or secondary school setting. All the pre-​service teachers were focused on the same learning outcomes for each simulation, which immediately highlighted pedagogical skills that the pre-​service teachers struggled with. What was advantageous was the accelerated view provided by the virtual simulation that negated the need for the teacher educator to review hours of video. Virtual reality simulation offered us a clearer view of how each pre-​service teacher was developing before they began teaching lessons with students, and allowed time for some additional reinforcement of content. In a follow-​up interview, one of us stated, “Our pre-​service teachers were so challenged to build interpersonal relationships with the student avatars … I think the biggest thing our pre-​service teachers are seeing is that their students [Avatars] are not like them and they [pre-​service teachers] are not the typical PE student. I think that’s the beauty of this experience.” We were then able to provide pre-​service teachers with additional resources on how to create a warm and welcoming environment after the simulation and before their work with students. With this added support, the pre-​service teachers did not make the same mistakes with students.

238 Neutzling et al.

Through continued experience with simulation the pre-​service teachers made noticeable improvements that we clearly identified in the final simulation. As one of us stated in an interview, “One of the most notable improvements was that they [pre-​service teachers] actually stopped, acknowledged, and listened to what the student avatars said, and built on it, and I think that was the most powerful piece.”

Possibilities for virtual reality in physical education In this age of technological acceleration, the growth of virtual reality and augmented reality platforms and devices will likely allow virtual reality to be available at a reasonable cost, with more capabilities soon for both PETE programs and for K-​12 physical education. In the next section we will briefly share both our ideas for development and some emerging innovations.

Physical education teacher education (PETE) The future for virtual reality in PETE holds promise. We see in the near future more powerful platforms to practice teaching physical education using virtual reality simulations in dynamic movement environments. We have addressed with Mursion’s developers the need to create virtual reality physical education environments and to increase the diversity of avatar movement. Physical education environments including settings such as a gymnasium, pool, outdoor fields, and a fitness center would be ideal. Increased movement capabilities of the avatars would include their ability to manipulate equipment, and movement capabilities in games, dance, gymnastics, aquatics, fitness, and outdoor activities. Further development of the physical education environment would allow pre-​service teachers to practice more complex pedagogical skills such as content delivery and task differentiation. In PETE we have much in common with teacher educators in other content areas; thus we can use technologies that are classroom based and adapt them for our context. For example, all pre-​service teachers need to be able to respond to students’ misbehavior with compassion and understanding so students are ready to engage in the learning process. Pre-​service teachers may need to be able to step back and understand that students’ behaviors are often a socio-​emotional response to events that occurred outside of school that are not to be taken personally. Researchers have found that virtual reality is a tool that can expose new teachers to some of these behaviors and give them practice responding in real time and honing the explicit language needed to gain understanding of what caused a student to be where they are at that time (Anzalone, 2017). One recent innovation, at the University of Buffalo, in teacher education, is the use of virtual reality simulations that were created using a 360 degree camera to film classroom interactions, which could be done in a physical education environment as well to create simulations. This virtual reality teaching environment differs from other

Harnessing the power of VR simulation  239

teaching simulation platforms in that “actual footage of student behaviors occurring within real classrooms is used, enhancing the authenticity, fluidity and ‘immersiveness’ of the experience” (Anzalone, 2017).

Primary and secondary physical education Virtual reality at the primary and secondary physical education grades is also emerging (Robinson, 2016). There are multiple smart device applications available for physical educators that include: Anatomyou VR, CoSpaces, GoPro VR, and Final Kick VR. Virtual reality often requires a mobile smart device (i.e., IOS, Android) and a virtual reality headset. A virtual reality headset typically includes a stereoscopic head-​mounted display (providing separate images for each eye), stereo sound, and head motion tracking sensors which create real life experiences while using smart device applications. With each of these applications, once wearing a headset it places you in a believable three-​dimensional experience. For example, Final Kick VR simulates the experiences of being involved in a penalty soccer goal kick with top players. With the virtual reality headset on, students are placed into the action standing behind the goal with the impending decision making of the goalie. Although it is a simulation, the tactical decision making required is synonymous with an actual penalty kick. Though there are many benefits of virtual reality for those at the secondary level, such as motivation level, decision-​making process opportunities, and relatedness (Robinson, 2016), virtual reality also plays a vital role with children during the primary years. Studies of the brain have indicated that primary aged learners’ (6–​10 years) brains are twice as active and imaginative compared to adolescents’ and adults’ brains (Diamond & Hopson, 1999). Consequently, allowing virtual reality to be that much more believable, and exciting, which has much potential in physical education. Based on our experiences, we see the potential for developing simulations that will allow secondary level students to focus on important cognitive and affective domain outcomes. In the cognitive domain, virtual reality simulations have much possibility for the development of tactical decision-​ making needed for game play. In the affective domain, virtual reality provides opportunities for students to make mistakes without social consequences. It is a rich environment which can provide opportunities for students to develop and practice interpersonal communication and conflict resolution skills in increasingly complex situations.

Final thoughts As we began the chapter, we return to those ideas in our final thoughts. Integrating virtual reality simulation required us to make changes to our program structure, to rethink lab space, to learn the technological skills to implement virtual reality simulations, and to be open to the possibility that

240 Neutzling et al.

simulations would not be successful in achieving our outcomes. We know that we will continue to learn and be challenged as the technology changes. What we gained by integrating virtual reality simulation was an innovative learning environment to practice select basic skills needed for teaching with skilled interactors. In addition, simulations provided the opportunity to practice delivering content to “learners” with different backgrounds, abilities, and interests. We were able to do all of this in a virtual reality environment that could be adjusted to make it more or less challenging for each pre-​service teacher, as the interaction unfolded, without making these mistakes on real students. Virtual reality simulations will not replace field experience in schools; rather they can be an interactive space to practice select teaching skills before applying them with real students. With thoughtful implementation, virtual reality has the potential to be an integral part of pre-​service teacher education as we prepare teachers with twenty-​first-​century skills. In closing, we have chosen to embrace the concept of dynamic stability in our work as physical education teacher educators, which is the kind of stability you need to ride a bike. Remember, “If you stop pedaling you fall off, but if you keep pedaling you have no problem” (Friedman, 2016). We encourage you to make sure you are going in the right direction, but then get on the bike and keep pedaling.

Discussion questions 1. Describe the potential for virtual reality simulation for supporting your learning across your career as a teacher. What do you think the possibilities might be for implementing this technology? 2. Explore how virtual reality simulations are being used in teacher education. Cite the findings from additional studies. 3. What benefits did this teacher education program find by using Mursion prior to their field-​based experiences?

Further readings Damewood, A. (2016). Current trends in higher education technology:  simulation. Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning. A Publication of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology, 60(3), 268–​271. Kopcha, T., Ding, L., Neumann, K., & Choi, I. (2016). Teaching technology integration to K-​ 12 educators:  a “gamified” approach. Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning. A Publication of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology, 60(1), 62–​69. ISSN 8756-​3894.

Harnessing the power of VR simulation  241

References Anzalone, C. (2017). Virtual reality simulates classroom environment for aspiring teachers. Retrieved from​news/​releases/​2017/​06/​038.htm (last accessed February 5, 2018). Brandenburg, L., Donehower, C., & Rabuck, D. (2014). How TeachLivE is helping Kennedy Krieger build model classrooms. In Straub, C., Dieker, L., Hynes, M., & Hughes, C. *2014) Proceedings from Ludic Convergence: The Second National TLE TeachLiveE Conference. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida. Diamond, M. & Hopson, J. (1999). Magic trees of the mind: how to nurture your child’s intelligence, creativity, and health emotions from birth through adolescence. New York: Plume Book Penguin Putnam. Fosnot, C.T. & Perry, R.S. (2005). Introduction:  aspects of constructivism. In C.T Fosnot (ed.), Constructivism:  theory, perspectives, and practice (8–​38). New York: Teachers College Press. Friedman, T. (2016). Thank you for being late: an optimist’s guide to thriving in an age of accelerations. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York. Kane, T. J. & Staiger, D.O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: combining high-​ quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Kuhithau, C.C., Maniotes, L.K., & Caspari, A.K. (2015). Guided inquiry: learning in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-​CLIO, LLC. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Neutzling, M., Richardson, K., & Sheehy, D. (2016). Exploring mixed reality simulations using TGfU. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87 (Sup1), S81. Persen, L. (2016). The constant change [Blog post.] Retrieved from www.effdebate. org/​uncategorized/​the-​constant-​change/​ (last accessed February 5, 2018). Robinson, J. (2016). Virtual reality in physical education [Blog post]. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner:  how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Wilson, B.G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Zelenin, A., Kelly, B., & Nagendran, A. (2017). Control system for virtual characters. Retrieved from:  https://​​patent/​20170132828 (last accessed February 5, 2018).

Chapter 14

Experiences of using iPads in physical education teacher education Susan Marron and Maura Coulter

Introduction We live in an increasingly technology-​driven world. Most individuals under the age of 25 have grown up with technology readily available to them. They are consistently having technology integrated into their personal and social lives. As such, they are comfortable with the use of technology and even expect the use of technology in most areas of their lives. The purpose of technology for many university students is to communicate, whether through applications such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Snapchat or Instagram when communicating with peers, or through email and online student learning portals such as Moodle or Blackboard when communicating with faculty members. This chapter explores how two initial teacher educators (ITEs) became empowered, through situated learning, to use iPads as a pedagogical tool to enhance learning in pre-​service generalist teachers’ elementary physical education modules. The process of learning how to integrate technology into pre-​service teachers’ teaching practice is complicated and can be a challenge for ITEs. We set out to provide pre-​service generalist elementary teachers (PSTs) in our physical education modules with the inspiration and encouragement to employ iPads as a teaching methodology, in an authentic, creative, efficient and effective way for children to learn. The focus of this chapter is to recount how we managed, learned and integrated iPads in our teaching. Our use of technology in physical education was context bound. We had to work within the modules we were teaching and for which we had responsibility, the technology and software available to us and our technological knowledge. Underpinning the chapter, we include findings and recommendations from research undertaken over a three-​year period. This research examined the use of iPads to promote quality teaching and learning in one module, the focus of which was Fundamental Movement Skills (FMS).

Experiences of using iPads  243

Quality physical education teaching and technology The rapid increase in technological capabilities and falling costs have made the use of technology in physical education more accessible (Banville & Polifko, 2009). However, teachers today must not only be prepared to use technology, but must also know how to use technology to support children’s learning (Butler et al., 2015). Teaching elementary physical education with technology in a pedagogically appropriate way, and developing knowledge to design and implement technology-​ infused lessons in quality physical education, should be addressed in initial teacher education programmes (Kirschner & Sellinger, 2003). Participation in quality physical education for children is essential in order to learn the ‘skills, attitudes, values, knowledge, understanding and enjoyment necessary for lifelong participation in physical activity, sport and in society at large’ (UNESCO 2015, p. 1). The effective preparation of teachers in the use of educational digital technology has been extensively discussed by researchers (Butler et  al., 2015; Casey & Jones, 2011; Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Liang et al., 2006). Semi and Inze (2012) suggested that ‘university instructors could be better role models for technology integration’ (p. 1259). Thomas, Herring, Redmond and Smaldino (2013) believe that faculties must incorporate and model technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) within the teacher education curriculum to create a TPCK environment (see Chapter  1, Figure  1.1). Mishra and Koehler (2006) also recognised the importance of contextualising the learning and integration of technology into initial teacher education programmes. In the teaching process, we recognised that it is important not only how we teach (pedagogy) and what we teach (content) but also which materials (technology) we use while teaching (Jones & Moreland, 2004). While acknowledging these findings and undertaking to incorporate technology into our teaching, we aligned our work with Mishra and Koehler (2006) who sought optimal technological integration rather than perfect technological integration.

Context for the integration of technology Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programmes in Ireland have gone through recent substantial change. Bachelor of Education Programmes have changed in line with the criteria and guidelines for providers of programmes of ITE in Ireland (Teaching Council, 2011) while acknowledging the increasingly complex and diverse role of teachers. The once three-​year Bachelor of Education programme became a four-​year programme, with approximately 1,000 students entering the Irish system each year. Numeracy and Literacy, Information Communication Technology (ICT) were identified as a key national priority area and increased attention in these areas has been

244  Marron and Coulter

accommodated in the new programme design. We, as ITEs in elementary physical education, recognised that we were addressing numeracy and literacy in our physical education modules, but not the application of ICT in physical education. Our PSTs were encountering some technology integration in schools during their school placements and we wanted to enable them to use ICT. We were allocated extensive funding (the faculty provided 25 iPads and a charging/​storage trolley for use in elementary physical education modules) to develop different approaches and strategies to prepare PSTs to teach with technology in physical education. The re-​imagining of these ITE programmes, in Ireland (Waldron, Smith, Fitzgerald, & Dooley, 2012) has allowed many innovations, one of these being the introduction of specialisms in a number of curricular areas including elementary physical education. The aim of the specialism is to prepare a cohort of generalist elementary teachers, annually, to teach quality programmes in specific curriculum subjects. It is expected that these teachers would champion their chosen area of specialism and model best practice in their teaching, inspiring colleagues to teach quality programmes in early childhood and elementary school settings. There are approximately 50 PSTs each year undertaking a specialism in elementary physical education since 2013, in two Irish universities. In our university there are 430–​450 undergraduate students in each year group of which 25 are accepted to study the physical education major specialism. The introduction of this specialism allowed us to initiate the integration of technology into a FMS module. The purpose of the FMS module was that PSTs: describe how movement competencies are developed and learned; understand the cognitive, social and lifelong implications of movement competences; explore and develop formative assessment processes to enhance the performance of FMS; and finally acquire summative and formative evidence for movement performances. iPads and applications (apps) were integrated into the module. The seminars were mostly practical, based in the gymnasium or outdoors on a playing field, with a focus on athletics and gymnastics activities. Resources supporting the module included web-​based checklists and video clips of children performing FMS at introductory, development and mastery level.

Pedagogical theories that shaped our work Although our programme teaches content and methodology together in the curricular modules there are some aspects of methodology which are taught separately. These include modules in Digital Learning (DL), Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Assessment. While the DL modules increase PSTs’ confidence in using technology (Foulger, Buss, Wetzel, & Lindsey, 2012), improve their attitudes toward technology (Bai & Ertmer, 2008), and develop their technical skills, it has become clear that such modules do not facilitate meaningful technology integration into PSTs’ practices

Experiences of using iPads  245

(Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Wachira & Keengwe, 2011). Faculty members are expected to develop DL, SEN and Assessment further in their modules, in our case physical education, to facilitate ‘meaningful integration’. This chapter highlights our own challenges and growth as ITEs, while probing some of the tensions that exist within teacher education, which embarking on a new programme demands. We sought to ‘position our work to connect the past with the present and move it forward into a future state’ (Guilfoyle et al., 2004, p. 1112). Educators need support to implement the ideas, reflect on them, ask more questions, and try the technique or method again. They need someone to bounce ideas off. ‘This could be a formal meeting, a quick email exchange, or an impromptu chat in the hallway to discuss a few questions’ (Bretzmann, 2015, p. 14). We found that we needed each other for our learning to continue and to move out of our comfort zone. A constructivist approach to learning offered a useful framework to inform and integrate pedagogical practices in using digital technologies to enhance learning in physical education. Social constructivism, in particular, provides a useful and appropriate perspective within which to locate our learning. Knowledge and meaning are created or constructed within a social system and through interactions with that system and the people within it. Kirk and Macdonald (1998) conclude from a social constructivist perspective, ‘learning is an active and creative process involving an individual’s interaction with their physical environment and with other learners’ (p. 377). Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated learning theory is one example of a constructivist approach to learning. They emphasise the importance of contextualised learning and suggest that practitioners should generate knowledge within the practice in which it would be required. When translated into practice the learning environment created by the learning theorists rest heavily on a pedagogy that involves the learner interacting socially with others (peer teaching, cooperative learning, creating learning communities for example). In keeping with Lave and Wenger’s approach, the PSTs were introduced to digital technologies in context and through activities during the module which they would be teaching on their school placement. Although initially teaching was modelled, learning evolved and PSTs learned further from each other working through assigned tasks in pairs. Most seminars concluded with a plenary and this lead to increased sharing, the PSTs were developing into a learning community where new learning was shared and developed over the duration of the module. This supported Chambers (2011) summation, that learning occurs through engaging in shared problem-​solving experiences with an ITE or with peers, and responsibility for learning gradually shifts to the learner. We, the ITEs, actively encouraged our PSTs to construct new understandings and meanings drawing on their prior experience and learning gained from undertaking other modules, such as DL, in their ITE programme. Our pedagogical focus was practice-​based:  our technological tasks gave the PSTs

246  Marron and Coulter

opportunities to practise performing FMS in pairs, using prompt cards containing teaching points, to promote quality movement. The PSTs used checklists to observe each other’s movements in real time. They filmed each other’s movements using iPads resulting in video recordings to playback and critically observe. We were present to assist with technical matters that arose or queries about FMS performances and observations. The PSTs were progressing towards self-​directed orientated design and discovery (Wenger, 1998) in an active and energetic learning environment (Holt-​ Reynolds, 2000). We were acutely aware that we wished the PSTs to promote physically active lessons where physical, cognitive and social learning should occur. A key message we imparted was that the iPad should not detract but rather enhance the quality of the lesson. Shulman’s (1987) work on knowledge also informed our practice. Throughout our teaching we battled with switching foci between physical education content knowledge (CK), technological content knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (both physical education and technology) until we began to understand and master technological pedagogical content (physical education) knowledge (TPCK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) (see Chapter 1, Figure 1.1). We had to constantly remind ourselves in our planning that our purpose was to ensure our PSTs were successful in their teaching and both content and pedagogy were addressed simultaneously. We needed to ensure that the technology was being used to make learning in physical education more accessible. Just as aspects of pedagogical content knowledge is described by Schulman as ‘illustrations, examples, explanations and demonstrations’, to make a subject more accessible and clearer for the learner, these aspects can be represented using technology. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) is the basis of good teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts and technologies; pedagogical techniques that use the technology in a constructive way to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that learners face; and knowledge of how technology can be used to build on existing knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Therefore, planning to integrate technology into teaching and learning required intricate weaving of technology, pedagogy and physical education content. The TPCK framework guided our planning and helped us create coherent learning environments within a meaningful context. Central to this was the notion of situated learning.

Learning, managing and integrating the technology This section outlines our experiences with technology and how this knowledge affected both our administrative work and our teaching and learning in elementary physical education.

Experiences of using iPads  247

Teachers’ confidence (self-​efficacy) and motivation (outcome expectations) with regards to integrating technology in education are considered important variables in teaching effectiveness (Niederhauser & Perkmen, 2010). Graham et  al. (2004) believe that like students, ITEs also have a diverse range of technology skills. However, many do not feel comfortable teaching technology applications to students. Although high on outcome expectations, armed with what we believed was a reasonable degree of self-​ efficacy we were conscious that our experience with technology, in the pedagogical sense, was minimal. We had limited integration of technology in our teaching previously. Digital software applications influencing our work over the years included PowerPoint, Photo Story, filming and editing, Facebook, Twitter, Skype and Google Hangouts as a means of personal, professional and social communication. In the teaching and learning environment, technological advances such as Adobe classroom and Loop have facilitated online lectures, discussion fora and assessments. It has also become the repository for hosting physical education related materials and resources for our PSTs. Our interest in integrating digital technologies into our modules emerged from our personal use of these technologies and professional belief that to enhance learning in physical education at a basic level requires us to observe movement. Digital observation tools such as video, utilising the replay mode, or capturing the movement with an iPad and applications (Apps) like BaM Video Delay (an App which gives instant visual feedback of what you are doing, hands free) are more accessible and easy to use for school purposes than complicated and expensive movement analysis software. Our engagement with the literature coupled with our understandings of strengths and limitations in TPCK encouraged us to explore ways to increase our technological content knowledge and subsequently our technological pedagogical content knowledge. This was further underpinned by an ethos of collegial collaboration and cooperation. Setting out, one of us suggested that ‘we are going to learn from each other as problems arise and there should be a laugh or two as well’. In addition to our existing workload we had not anticipated the amount of time managing the technology (25 iPads, storage/​charging trolley, Mac mini, Apple TV and Wi-​Fi Airport) and learning the technology would take. There were several practical and logistical issues which had to be dealt with. These included PST ‘ownership’ of the iPads in each module each week and saving PSTs’ work securely on the iPad and ultimately on a secure server. Wi-​fi access was an issue in the initial year with no wi-​fi in the areas in which we taught our modules. This was resolved by using an Apple AirPort (a specific router for Apple hardware) to enable access to localised Wi-​Fi. Secure storage and charging of the iPads required consideration as space was at a premium. Management of updates, App uploading and general maintenance was also carried out by us. Some ‘set up’ support was offered

248  Marron and Coulter

by the iPad suppliers, as our university at the time did not offer support for Apple products. In preparation for the integration of technology we found that ‘time’ was our most valuable commodity. All planning, preparation, upskilling, personal learning, development in regards to engaging with and integrating the technology was self-​initiated. A brief two-​hour workshop which addressed our technological knowledge (TK) was provided by the iPad suppliers. Further technological knowledge was gained through online tutorials and two practical workshops. Face-​to-​face workshops were sourced where technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) and physical education were the focus. Professional learning was key to building competence and putting this learning into practice increased confidence. ‘To be honest I  felt a bit overwhelmed that I had to be an expert in all of this’ is not an uncommon feeling when fundamental questions about content and pedagogy are raised (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Obrusnikova & Rattigan, 2016) even by experienced ITEs. According to Lei (2009) we were ‘digital immigrants’ as we did not have the technological knowledge, skills and experiences necessary for teaching. We had not grown up with technology and therefore were not taught with technology. Being open to the integration of technology (Fielding et al., 2005) we questioned our self-​efficacy rather than our motivation to integrate technology in education (Niederhauser & Perkmen, 2010). Being able to voice these concerns was reassuring during the learning process and having collegial support proved valuable. We began to integrate technology by introducing TPCK to twenty-​five second year PSTs. This commenced in their first module of the specialism in elementary physical education as a teaching methodology to ensure quality physical education. Second year PSTs’ prior knowledge consisted of a module including games, dance, gymnastics, outdoor and adventure activities and athletics strands. Previously our physical education core modules employed technology such as stopwatches, pedometers, and videos of children undertaking tasks related to physical education, filmed and edited by us. Using a social constructivist approach, the PSTs’ summative assessment was to observe and analyse their performances of FMS using iPads. They represented the teaching of one fundamental movement skill in a two-​ minute video clip. This included demonstrating fun activities, to support the development and practice of the skill. FMS language had to underpin the audio descriptions. PST’s used the iPad collaboratively to collect digital media (pictures, video and audio) combining them to create a digital story with a narrative. Obrusnikova and Rattigan (2016) have described the benefits of using video recordings in physical education lessons to promote quality movement performance of FMS in children. They illustrated how most children enjoy watching videos and they can act as a novel but predictable stimuli which may motivate children to learn. They also outline how a child can watch a video clip, on a laptop in a corner of the activity space,

Experiences of using iPads  249

where they are not easily distracted and therefore can focus on the correctly performed elements of a skill. O’Loughlin, Ní Chróinín and O’Grady (2013) reported that self-​ assessment using digital video impacted positively on children’s performance of basketball skills. Mitchell (2001) has highlighted the value that children gain from viewing their videotaped skill performance in conjunction with teacher-​cueing where the teacher provides a word or a phrase that communicates the significant aspects of the skill they wish the child to focus on. Situated learning through ‘exploration’ and ‘problem solving’ was the methodology we used initially, in order to familiarise the PSTs with the device. The module seminars included showing PST’s how to use the Apps available to them for the purpose of observing and assessing FMS, namely BaM video delay, the video camera and Explain Everything. The PSTs were also guided in basic iPad operating gestures. Technical difficulties that arose, while the PSTs engaged with the task, included discovering that there was no zoom capability while filming, and how to upload video to other Apps or to a shared folder. The difficulties provided us with learning opportunities and our technological knowledge improved, even if it was time consuming. Overall the PSTs believed, ‘it was a great experience’ and ‘mixing PE and DL was new and exciting’. Flutter (2007) highlights ‘engaging with the student voice affords teachers an opportunity to refocus their attention on what really matters learners and how they learn best’ (p. 345). Following the introduction of the iPads we acknowledged that the PST voice was crucial in our knowledge development. It was important that the process of learning was flexible ensuring it allowed for collective participation and reflection on all aspects of the module. On completion of exit questionnaires PSTs reported using the iPads and observation Apps enhanced their awareness of their ability to demonstrate skills to children. One PST reflected ‘I thought I  was conscious of my ability. But when I saw my movements on the iPad I became more conscious.’ The majority of the PSTs in the specialism group (92%) reported that they would ‘try’ to use a digital technology device in part of future physical education lessons on school placement. However, they also reported that they would require more opportunities to practice using an iPad before attempting to use it in a physical education lesson. A PST wrote ‘I found the various different Apps were very useful and I found the module interesting and didn’t realise the importance of FMS development as much as I am aware now.’ From this PST’s response we can see that PSTs valued the ITEs modelling their use of the iPad, followed by practice using the iPads. This increased both the ITEs and the PST’s technological and technological pedagogical content knowledge and also their physical education content knowledge. As we became more proficient with the iPads and explored new Apps, we began to see opportunities to use the iPads in alternative ways for group assessments, for example using the Socrative App. This App provided us

250  Marron and Coulter

with an exit quiz to ascertain PSTs (n=23) level of competence and confidence using the iPads. Over half the cohort (n=12) rated themselves as confident or very confident, which was encouraging given that the PSTs had just completed their first semester of second year. The iPads provided the PSTs with the opportunity to observe the same movement a number of times and in slow motion if required: ‘they [iPads] allow the teacher to view the children doing the FMS in slow motion and pick up any difficulties’. Baert and Stewart (2014) found that students at the later stage of their programmes reported higher perception levels of TPCK in relation to usage of digital technologies. We were evidencing in our work Macdonald and Hay’s (2010) identification of the use of technologies in physical education in the context of four main purposes: (1) to assist children improve their ability to move; (2) to generate information for the application and evaluation of movement principles; (3) to develop formative assessment processes, and (4) to acquire summative assessment evidence for movement performances. After two years of self-​directed learning and as a consequence of our increase in knowledge we began to critically consider what Apps to embrace, with an elementary physical education focus. Armed with this knowledge, the iPads and relevant Apps, we proceeded to integrate the iPads into further modules with a range of year groups. An underpinning message when integrating technology is that PSTs and teachers should not limit children’s physical activity time in the physical education lesson (Mears, 2009) with technological skills but rather communicate information using technology (Clarke, 2008; Hall, 2012; Mears, 2013). This resonated with us and we kept reminding each other to concentrate on achieving the outcomes of the module rather than improving our own and PST’s technological skills alone. Our focus was to ensure PSTs teaching and learning with the technology otherwise the iPad could simply become a gadget. By year three of integrating iPads, we were including them in almost all our module seminars. All PSTs were provided with opportunities to use BaM Video Delay to observe and analyse each other’s movement skills. For most seminars only a couple of iPads were used as this was easier to organise and manage. It also imparted the message that a class set of iPads was not necessary, one or two iPads used efficiently could be effective. The outcome of our engagement with iPads is that we are more confident, competent and experienced integrating technology. We continue to take risks and continue to learn with curiosity rather than with pressure. The technological context of our workplace underwent a number of progressive changes. Currently we have access to wi-​fi in all teaching spaces and we have administrative and technical support in updating and maintaining the iPads, and the iPads are connected to the university network. Increasing our technological knowledge is not a priority for us as we have this support in our workplace with technicians immediately able to respond to our queries and requests. These advances have streamlined the management

Experiences of using iPads  251

of the technology and increased time for additional TPCK professional development, enabling us to plan authentic, engaging and meaningful learning experiences for our PSTs. We still require time to continuously ‘learn’ the technology and absorb and embrace the continual technological developments. Thomas et  al. (2013) reported that a quality TPCK rich environment is created where infrastructure is provided including time as a resource. Unkefer, Shinde and McMaster (2009) believed that staff require time to practice using devices to allow the innovation and change to happen at university level. Ciampa and Gallagher (2013) went further than simply providing release time to learn how to use technology for instruction. They emphasised the importance of time to think, to engage in discourse and to reflect in a context specific and safe environment. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1997) believes that ITEs must experiment with the effective application of technology for teaching and learning in their own contexts to inform PSTs’ skill development. They must develop a positive attitude in PSTs in relation to developing their technological skills and applications. It can be risky delivering a seminar and being unsure how to use the technology (Fielding et al., 2005), especially if there is no support available if something goes amiss.

What are the practical, applied implications to our work? We as ITEs aspire to ensure our PSTs experience quality physical education instruction, which, in turn, impacts the learning process and their ability to develop expertise. Our work is designed to promote reflexive practice for us as ITEs and for our PSTs, where learning can be reflected upon in order that PSTs can integrate their knowledge and develop deeper understandings of how that knowledge is put into practice. As explained earlier in the chapter we worked together as ITEs to learn and increase our knowledge in technology leading to TPCK. Then we engaged with our PSTs as a learning community to develop their knowledge and understanding of TPCK. Currently we provide all our PSTs with the opportunity to develop their TPCK in a variety of situations (Fazey et al., 2005). PSTs have been enabled to integrate technology as a teaching methodology, a demonstration tool (e.g. YouTube), an observation tool (e.g. BaM Video Delay), an assessment tool (Socrative) and a feedback tool (e.g. iMovie). In some cases, the iPad is used for self-​directed learning purposes (e.g. Stretch It App; Balance It App;). Other apps are used to support a learning activity. An example here is KlikaKlu, which is an excellent App for scavenger/​treasure hunting as part of the Outdoor and Adventure Activities strand in the Physical Education Curriculum (Government of Ireland, 1999). Our PSTs are now using iPads in modules, where they are being mentored by ITEs teaching dance, athletics and gymnastics to children from local schools in an unexamined context.

252  Marron and Coulter

The iPads and Apps we utilise prompt PSTs’ critical thinking and demonstrate how they can support children to learn in a meaningful way. Apple TV in conjunction with the iPads is used as an additional, useful resource to view demonstrations of skills and PSTs own movements on a large screen. Situated learning has allowed us to examine our understanding of the possibilities of iPad integration in physical education. Incorporating the iPad in a variety of ways in a range of contexts had the effect of generating a group learning dynamic for us as ITEs and our PSTs. Experimentation, discussion, review and application in an open environment have had a profound effect on our initial doubts, doubts that drove us as a group to question our ability in teaching, confidence in teaching and how effective our teaching could be using new technology. Our interaction, and self and group learning, generated a new found knowledge that has removed the doubts. Reflection on action (reflecting on how our practice can be developed/​ changed after the event) and reflection in action (reflecting on the incident while it can still benefit that situation rather than reflecting on how you can do things differently in the future) (Schon, 1983) were hugely important in our knowledge development. Having the support of a colleague while teaching, who could act as a sounding board or a problem solver while the seminar continued, was crucial in this learning process both as a support and as a critical friend. Initially, deciding to research our practice gave us the framework to methodically reflect, analyse and plan forward as we progressed in our learning. This reflective practice throughout the learning process helped both of us develop competence and contributed to effective practice. We learned valuable lessons about the use and integration of technology and worked through any issues that confronted us. We were driven as professionals to keep up with innovations in society and ensure that our subject was not ignored in the drive to integrate technology in elementary education. We were also driven by our commitment to each other to learn together and support each other in our learning. Although we progressed dramatically we are still developing our TPCK and our philosophy of practice in relation to the integration of technology into quality teaching and learning of physical education. The conclusions which were reached following the integration of iPads in our work to ensure efficacy include: • •

The need to understand the context and what technology and physical education the PSTs have been exposed to previously, and know what their current practices are; Knowledge to develop a realistic module as without resources (for example, the technology itself, technological support, collegial support) the likelihood of PSTs considering teaching physical education and integrating digital technology will be reduced; The importance of funding to provide ITEs and teachers with ongoing professional development in the integration of digital technologies;

Experiences of using iPads  253

Content (PE and technology) knowledge should be given as a precursor to pedagogical content (PE and technology) knowledge leading to technological pedagogical content (PE) knowledge. Improving content knowledge is vital for the PST, but it must be supported by showing how this new knowledge is applied in a relevant teaching context; Integrating digital technologies must be valued both by faculty and schools.

ITEs have the potential to inspire a passion for technology infused physical education. They are in a position to develop meaningful, worthwhile and relevant programmes for PSTs, which in turn allows the teachers of the future to design meaningful and inspirational learning experiences that help develop physically active children. Butler et al. (2013) believe that digital technologies can make things possible; however, it is people that make things happen.

Discussion questions 1. What are your considerations when choosing digital technology in teaching physical education? 2. What key messages have you taken from this chapter regarding using iPads as a teaching tool? 3. How can modelling be used as an effective strategy for increasing PST confidence when teaching with iPads? 4. Should an ITEs approach differ when working with a PST compared to a teacher working with a child? Why? 5. How would you optimise opportunities to work with other ITEs both new and experienced in the integration of technology and physical education? 6. How might ITEs and teachers deal with the challenge of the continuous advancements in digital technologies? 7. What role does reflection have for the development of TPCK? How might this reflection be facilitated?

Further reading Casey, A., Goodyear, V.A., & Armour, K.M. (2017). Digital technologies and learning in physical education:  pedagogical cases. London: Routledge. Haynes, J. & Miller, J. (2015). Preparing pre-​service primary school teachers to assess fundamental motor skills:  two skills and two approaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(4), 397–​408.

254  Marron and Coulter

O’Loughlin, J., Ni Chroinin, D., & O’Grady, D. (2013). Digital video:  the impact on children’s experiences in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 19(2), 165–​182. Dublin eLearning Summer School (2015). Presentations and panel discussion: “Primary, Secondary & Tertiary: Approaches to the Digital Age” with contributions from Deirdre Butler (DCU formally, St. Patrick’s College), Michael Hallissy (H2 Learning), Terry Maguire (National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education). Chaired by Larry McNutt of TU4Dublin. Delivered at DIT Aungier Street, Dublin 2, on 25 June 2015.

References Baert, H. & Stewart, A. (2014). The effects of role modelling on technology integration within physical education teacher education. Technology Integration and Role Modelling, 1–​26. Bai, H. & Ertmer, P. (2008). Teacher educators’ beliefs and technology uses as predictors of preservice teachers’ beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 93–​112. Banville, D. & Polifko, M. (2009). Using digital video recorders in physical education. JOPERD the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(1), 17–​21. Bretzmann, J. (2015). Personalised PD:  flipping your professional development. Bretzmann Group, LLC. 1 Edition. Brown, D. & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom:  students’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599–​621. Butler, D., Marshall, K., & Leahy, M. (eds.). (2015). Shaping the future: how technology can lead to educational transformation (1st ed.). The Liffey Press. Casey, A. & Jones, B. (2011). Using digital technology to enhance student engagement in physical education. Asia-​Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 2(2), 51–​67. Chambers, F. (2011). Learning theory for effective learning in practice. In K. Armour (ed.), Sport pedagogy: an introduction for teaching and coaching. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd. Ciampa, K. & Gallagher, T. L. (2013). Professional learning to support elementary teachers’ use of the iPod touch in the classroom. Professional Development in Education, 39(2), 201–​221. Clarke, N. (2008). Information and communications technology in physical education:  an innovative teaching and learning approach. In J. Lavin (ed.), Creative approaches to physical education (1st ed., pp. 92–​107). London and New York: Routledge. Fazey, J., Fazey, J. A., & Fazey D. M. A. (2005). Learning more effectively from expertise. Ecology and Society, 10(4), 1–​22. Fielding, M., Brag, S., Craig, J., Cunningham, I., Eraut, M., Gillinson, S., & Thorp, J. (2005). Factors influencing the transfer of good practice. (No. 615). Sussex: University of Sussex and Demos DFES Publications.

Experiences of using iPads  255 Flutter, J. (2007). Teacher development and the student voice. The Curriculum Journal, 18(3), September, 343–​354. Foulger, T. S., Buss, R. R., Wetzel, K., & Lindsey, L. (2012). Preservice teacher education:  benchmarking a stand-​alone ed tech course in preparation for change. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(2), 48–​58. Government of Ireland. (1999). Primary school curriculum introduction. Retrieved from​getmedia/​c4a88a62-​7818-​4bb2-​bb18-​ 4c4ad37bc255/​PSEC_​Introduction-​to-​Primary-​Curriculum_​Eng.pd (accessed 16 February 2018). Graham, C., Culatta, R., Pratt, M., & West, R. (2004). Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 21, 127. Guilfoyle, K., Hamilton, M. L., Pinnegar, S., & Placier, P. (2004). The epistemological dimensions and dynamics of professional dialogue in self-​study. In J. Loughren, M.L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (eds) International handbook of self-​study teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1109–​1167). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Hall, T. (2012). Emplotment, embodiment, engagement:  narrative technology in support of physical, sport and physical activity. Quest, 64, 105–​115. Holt-​ Reynolds D. (2000). What does the teacher do? constructivist pedagogies and prospective teacher’s beliefs about the role of teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 21–​32. Jones, A. & Moreland, J. (2004). Enhancing practicing primary school teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 121–​140. Kirk, D. & Macdonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 376–​387. Kirschner, P. & Selinger, M. (2003). The state of affairs of teacher education with respect to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 5–​17. Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In Committee on Innovation and Technology (ed.), AACTE handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3–​30). New York: Routledge. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: what technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–​97. Liang, G., Walls, R., Hicks, V., Clayton, L., & Yang, L. (2006). Will tomorrow’s physical educators be prepared to teach in the digital age? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 143–​156. Macdonald, D. & Hay, P. (2010). Health and physical education as/​ and technology:  an Australian perspective. Presented at Global Forum for Physical Education Pedagogy, Grundy. Center, IA, 13–​14 May. Mears, D. (2009). Technology in physical education:  Article 1 in a 6-​part series: Becoming tech savvy! Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Social Sport, 22(4), 30. Mears, D. (2013). Technology in physical education:  Article 4 in a 6-​ part series: Podcasts and Wiki’s: delivering content information to students using technology. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Social Sport, 23(1).

256  Marron and Coulter Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a new framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108(6), 1017. Mitchell, M., S. (2001). Using technology in elementary physical education. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Social Sport, 14(6): 28–​31. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher. Preparing for the 21st century classroom. New York: AT&T Foundation. Niederhauser, D. & Perkmen, S. (2010). Beyond self-​efficacy: measuring preservice teachers’ instructional technology outcome expectations. Computer in Human Behavior, 26(3), 436–​442. Obrusnikova, I. & Rattigan, P. (2016). Using video-​based modelling to promote acquisition of fundamental motor skills. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 87(4), 24. O’Loughlin, J., Ní Chróinín, D., & O’Grady, D. (2013). Digital video: the impact on children’s experiences in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 19(2), 165–​182. Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner:  how professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith. Semiz, K. & Levent Ince, M. (2012). Pre-​service physical education teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge, technology integration self-​ efficacy and instructional technology outcome expectations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1248–​1265. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching:  foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1): 1–​23. Teaching Council (2011). Policy on the Continuum of Teacher Education. Retrieved from​en/​Publications/​Teacher-​Education/​Policy-​on-​the-​ Continuum-​of-​Teacher-​Education.pdf (last accessed 5 February 2018). Thomas, T., Herring, M., Redmond, P., & Smaldino, S. (2013). Leading change and innovation in teacher preparation: a blueprint for developing TPACK ready teacher candidates. Techtrends, 57(5), 55–​64. UNESCO (2015). Quality physical education (QPE) guidelines for policy-​makers. Published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris France. Retrieved from http://​​images/​0023/​002311/​ 231101E.pdf (last accessed 5 February 2018). Unkefer, L., Shinde, S., & McMaster, K. (2009). Integrating advanced technology into teacher education courses. Techtrends:  Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 53(3 May), 80. Wachira, P. & Keengwe, J. (2011). Technology integration barriers:  urban school mathematics teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 17–​25. Waldron, F., Smith, J., Fitzgerald, M., & Dooley, T. (2012). In Waldron F., Smith J., Fitzgerald M. & Dooley T. (eds.), Re-​ imagining initial teacher education: perspectives on transformation. Dublin: Liffey Press. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice, learning meaning and identity. Cambridge, University Press.

Chapter 15

Pre-​s ervice and in-​s ervice teachers’ use of a Wiki platform within a physical education mentoring program Aspasia Dania

Introduction In recent years, Web-​based resources are increasingly being used within physical education teacher education (PETE) programs, as tools for providing beneficial affordances to pre-​service teachers to feel being supported and having contact with experienced colleagues. Adopted as venues for professional development, such tools usually incorporate best practices of face-​to-​face mentoring with technology, with the purpose of helping student teachers to overcome the “reality shock” of their first teaching position and deal effectively with the challenges of the physical education (PE) profession. Traditionally, mentoring has been used as an effective induction strategy for pre-​service teachers, in terms of their professional growth and knowledge development (Mooney & Gullock, 2013). Within teacher education programs, mentoring has been acknowledged as a reciprocal, developmental relationship between an expert (mentor) and a novice (mentee), which is built on mutual trust and functions in ways that enhance both individuals’ growth and achievement (Jones, Harris, & Miles, 2009). Alternatively, e-​mentoring is often suggested as a more flexible form of communication, one that can leverage the beneficial effects of the mentoring relationship by skipping obstacles of geography and time (Cothran et al., 2009), by updating participants’ knowledge (Smith & Israel, 2010), and by creating a supplementary context for networking and meaning construction (Hastie, Casey, & Tarter, 2010). However, even though research on e-​mentoring proves that this strategy can increase beginning teachers’ instructional confidence (McCaughtry, Kulinna, Cothran, Stylianou, & Kwon, 2015), many flaws can hinder this process. Teachers’ views towards technology use, along with the pedagogical rationale underpinning the design of many e-​mentoring applications, all interfere with the way that digitally centered initiatives are infused in practice. Given that preservice teachers’ quality of mentoring experiences may enhance career success and organizational commitment (Rikard & Banville, 2010), it is essential to examine the circumstances under which digital tools could support a

258 Aspasia Dania

mentoring relationship and add positive learning experiences to its agents. By building on social constructivism and the theory of cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1988), the aim of this chapter is to summarize illustrative issues and findings of research on e-​mentoring and discuss their relevance to PETE programs. With the scope of providing a comprehensive view to e-​mentoring within teacher education settings, the chapter is directed to questions about the pedagogy of e-​learning; how technology-​mediated support can alter the mentoring relationship; what are the practical and theoretical considerations that need to be taken into account when designing e-​mentoring programs. Therefore, the chapter is divided into three sections. In the first section the concept of mentoring is defined and theoretically supported and various uses of e-​mentoring programs are outlined. In the second section, empirical findings on e-​mentoring are presented under the categories of: (a) barriers and enablers to effective e-​mentoring schemes, (b)  lessons learned from teacher education programs, (c)  recent developments in e-​mentoring literature. Finally, the third section provides a practical example of a study inquiring into PE teachers’ experiences and use of an online tool designed to facilitate their face-​ to-​ face interaction within a practicum mentoring program. The results of this study are used as a point of reference for shaping the discussion around conclusions and directions of research on e-​mentoring within PETE programs.

Mentoring conceptual framework As a concept, mentoring dates back in time and is closely related to teacher education and professional development (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009). Within relevant literature, mentoring has been ascribed with various definitions, incorporating concepts such as collaboration, interaction, modeling, scaffolding and communities of practice. Despite the multiplicity in meanings and emphases (Jones, Harris, & Miles, 2009), beginner teacher mentoring is encountered as a reciprocal relationship between a more experienced practitioner and a novice, and is mainly employed as a strategy for assisting teacher learning within real activity settings (Tomlinson, Hobson, & Malderez, 2010). Within the broader field of research on the nature of teacher professional development, the idea of mentoring has been supported by theoretical approaches, such as the cognitive psychology of skill (Anderson, 2006), socio-​cultural theories of shared cognition (Edwards & Collison, 1996), teachers’ reflective practice (Zeichner, 1994), situated learning theories (Lave & Wenger, 1991), or theories of practical reasoning (Fenstermacher, 1994). However, despite the growing belief in the value of teacher mentoring and the paradigmatic pluralism in terms of its theoretical linkage and support

Use of Wiki platform in PE mentoring  259

(Tomlinson, Hobson, & Malderez, 2010), questions remain about which mentoring models are of better worth for today’s newcomers in the teaching profession (Chambers et al., 2012). Today’s diverse work structures, together with the decline of traditional career paths have given rise to the creation of digital mentoring models (Billingsley, Israel, & Smith, 2011). According to Bierema and Merriam (2002), e-​mentoring is usually perceived as “a computer mediated, mutually beneficial relationship between a mentor and a protégé which provides learning, advising, encouraging, promoting, and modeling that is often boundary less, egalitarian, and qualitatively different than traditional face-​ to-​face mentoring” (p.  214). On that premise, e-​ mentoring has become an emerging practice within higher education settings, especially in those cases when there are obstacles in time and geography, or when face-​to-​face relationships are either not practical or sufficient (Lamb & Aldous, 2014). Particularly, e-​mentoring programs have been used as contexts for providing emotional support (Shpigelman, Reiter, & Weiss, 2009), cognitive encouragement within communities of practice (Kim, Miller, Herbert, Pedersen, & Loving, 2012), communication that supplements face-​to-​face interactions (Hutchinson & Colwell, 2012; Shrestha, May, Edirisingha, Burke, & Linsey, 2009), online professional learning (Suk Hwang & Vrongistinos, 2012), distance education and training (Cothran et  al., 2009), and virtual coaching (Israel, Carnahan, Snyder, & Williamson, 2013). Even though various common findings have emerged from this area of research, a robust empirical base of successful e-​mentoring models remains limited, while literature on e-​mentoring within teacher education programs is still forthcoming (Smith & Israel, 2010).

Research findings: practical and applied implications Barriers and enablers to effective e-​m entoring schemes Findings from e-​mentoring research reveal that the creation and management of digital mentoring environments is a difficult task that requires sufficient forethought, scaffolding and support. Since mentors and mentees come to the mentoring relationship as autonomous learners with varied competencies and beliefs, the educational outcome of any e-​mentoring enterprise should primarily focus on both parts’ self-​actualization (Prestridge & Tondeur, 2015). Potential enablers in this process are participants’ proficiency with technology use (Dorner, 2012), their motivation to engage in practices of social exchange (DiRenzo, Linnehan, Shao, & Rosenberg, 2010; Kim et  al., 2012), their written communication skills (Naismith, Lee, & Pilkingtont, 2011), and their ability to maintain their professional focus beyond the use of any innovative medium (Suk Hwang & Vrongistinos, 2012). In contrast, the diversity of participants’ professional background

260 Aspasia Dania

(Risser, 2013), time obstacles and priorities (i.e. work, parenting, coursework deadlines) (Liu, 2012), the lack of confidentiality (i.e. constructive criticism, respectful interactions) (Hutchinson & Colwell, 2012) and the impersonal nature of many e-​mentoring environments (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2013) usually become barriers. Lessons learned from teacher education programs The transactional distance or otherwise the feelings of closeness, social presence and equality that have to be portrayed in the dimensions of an e-​ mentoring space, all are dependent upon the nature of the activities that are adopted, the size of the community (i.e. one-​to one versus group mentoring), as well as the expectations of its members (Prestridge & Tondeur, 2015). According to Liu (2012), collaboration between mentors and mentees will be achieved only in cases that clear and mutual learning goals are set. Research has shown that e-​mentoring environments should incorporate face-​to-​face mechanisms (i.e. real time conversations, online presence) (Israel, Carnahan, Snyder, & Williamson, 2013) and connections across a range of systems in order to enhance all members’ ability to project themselves socially and emotionally (Martindale & Dowdy, 2010). The building of a confidence climate, where mentors and mentees can express their emotions, desires and experiences without the fear of offending or being criticized by others, seems to be a significant e-​mentoring success predictor (Quintana & Zambrano, 2014). E-​mentors’ role is rather determinant in this process. Beyond a paternalistic or directive perspective, e-​ mentors should possess those affective skills and attitudes (i.e. trusted advisers, wise counselors), that will scaffold group-​level communication and empathy, while promoting autonomy and initiative. Jones, Ferreday and Hodgon (2008) agree that autonomy is an enabling factor in social activism, one that helps individuals feel personal agents of their learning. However, teachers will not be willing to share knowledge within social communities, if they will not have personal gains (i.e. better work status), or professional rewards (i.e. acknowledgement) (Dania & Zounhia, 2017). In an era, when knowledge sharing is linked to consumption (i.e. browsing behaviors) and online presence is rewarded in terms of frequency (i.e. Likes), e-​mentoring contexts should enable individual initiative in order to ensure their members’ long-​term commitment (i.e. variety of communication avenues, decentralized control, content management and editing) (Cole, 2009). Recent developments in e-​m entoring literature According to Rowland (2012), the mentoring relationship has been empowered in recent years by the infusion of technology, in terms of vocational, psychosocial and role-​modeling functions. Based upon the degree

Use of Wiki platform in PE mentoring  261

of computer mediated communication (CMC), e-​mentoring relationships are nowadays being established either as CMC-​only (exclusively through electronic means), or as CMC-​supplemental (supplementary to face-​to-​face interactions) (Wilbanks, 2014). Although not a generalization, the latter appears to be a more preferred communication mode. In her study with university students and their mentors, Murphy (2011) demonstrated that blended mentoring (e-​ mentoring combined with face-​ to-​ face meetings) can enhance developmental relationships between professionals and promote career satisfaction and planning. Used as a forethought phase for goal setting and program planning, these face-​to-​face interactions are helpful in giving a clear impression of participants’ roles, duties and capabilities (Redmond, 2015) and ensure immediate relevance to individual and organizational expectations and needs (Kahraman & Kuzu, 2016). However, technological literacy or otherwise the ability to use technology at the service of the learning process (Whitworth, 2009), seems to be an important predictor for e-​mentoring success. McCaughtry et  al. (2014) came to this conclusion while inquiring into beginning and expert PE teachers’ participation in an e-​ mentoring professional development program. Unavailability of computer access and lack of computer skills were perceived by participants as barriers to their cognitive, social and affective projection in chatrooms. Biasuti and El-​Deghaidy (2012) state that online managerial and technical competence seem to promote content delivery and interaction, helping e-​mentors and mentees become facilitators of their own-​ learning. In the study of Cothran et al. (2009), beginning PE teachers’ use of chatrooms was inquired as a possibility for in-​content professional learning. The findings showed that online access and use of digital media remained limited throughout the program, due to participants’ concerns about the technical and human dimensions of the e-​mentoring process. Course Management Systems (CMC) (i.e. BlackBoard or Moodle) and Web sites that host communities of practice are the most often preferred virtual mentoring spaces. Their selection is based on criteria such as communication options (i.e. asynchronous and synchronous chats), technical support and aesthetic layout, availability and cost (i.e. open source), options provided for non-​text based communication (i.e. videos, teleconferencing) and links to outside Web sites. In many cases, the structure of the above contexts challenges the establishment of a learning atmosphere, where student-​teachers and their mentors can develop rapport in the absence of non-​verbal cues (Schichtel, 2010). In these cases, it is participants’ long-​term involvement in the process, along with the quality of their digital discussions that will alleviate their initial feelings of frustration with the use of the new communication medium (Cole, 2009). In the study of McDiarmid and Moosbrugger (2011), the use of a virtual classroom for e-​mentoring purposes was experienced as an isolation-​breaking factor by preservice PE teachers. At the end of a 15-​week practicum program, participants in this

262 Aspasia Dania

study reported a greater level of teaching self-​efficacy, which was partially attributed to the digital support they received by experienced supervisors and field practitioners. Simonsen, Luebeck and Bice (2009) have shown that online mentoring programs can provide a safe place for beginning teachers and their mentors to discuss about sensitive issues, provided that secure electronic communication means are employed and consistently used for more than one year. In cases when the e-​mentoring relationship is developed between professionals of different physical locations (not familiar with each other’s context), then spontaneity, availability and support on teaching and non-​teaching related issues (home, family) are more likely to emerge (Owen, 2015).

The study Physical education teachers’ experiences and use of an e-​m entoring tool Despite the increase of literature on technology use in teacher education, very few studies specific to e-​mentoring appear in recent PETE literature (Cothran et  al., 2009; Lamb & Aldous, 2014; McCaughtry et  al., 2014; McDiarmid & Moosbrugger, 2011). To address this issue, the aim of the study described in this chapter was to research on PE teachers’ experiences and use of a wiki educational platform, within a practicum mentoring program that focused on the dissemination of model-​based practice in primary education. Participants 25 in-​service (mentors) and 44 preservice (mentees) PE teachers participated in a mentoring program that was designed by the Sport Pedagogy Laboratory of the University of Athens, Greece, in order to support its third-​year university students in their learning and use of two instructional models: the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986) and the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) model (Hellison, 1995). The mentors came from twenty different primary schools from the wider region of Athens, and had more than ten years of teaching experience. Before the beginning of the program, all mentors participated in three 3-​ hour training workshops, focusing both on mentoring strategies and on processes of applying the above teaching models within their school contexts. The mentor–​mentee pairs were created by the university (assigning one mentor to a pair of mentees), and all of them received specific organizational guidelines and manuals. Informed consent was received by all participants, along with approval by the university committee and the school district authorities.

Use of Wiki platform in PE mentoring  263

The mentoring program The aim of the two-​month mentoring program was to promote PE student teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge on model-​based instruction. Within all schools, the mentee pairs taught three 45-​minute PE lessons per week, while a one-​hour face-​to-​face conferencing session was planned on a weekly basis for mentors and mentees to discuss, plan and reflect on their teaching. Since the program took place concurrently in twenty different elementary schools, a blended mentoring scheme was decided. Particularly, a wiki platform was created to serve as a supplementary e-​mentoring tool that could foster all participants’ initiative and responsibility to learn and implement their case-​appropriate instructional model. The use of wikis for e-​mentoring purposes has received much attention in educational literature, showing benefits in students’ critical thinking (Cabiness, Donovan, & Green, 2013) and knowledge management skills (Lai & Ng, 2011). In the present program, the wiki platform was set up as a tool of collaborative nature, which could promote interaction and question seeking, provide resources or ideas, and encourage reflection in teaching. The wiki pages included text, hyperlinks, video and downloads organized around the TGfU and TPSR models, the content of which could at any time be collaboratively written, added to, modified and commented on by all. Before the start of the program, all participants received a specially devised video, introducing them to wiki use. During the program, mentors and mentees were asked to complete digital and written course assignments (i.e. lesson plans, daily reflective journals) and were encouraged to participate in wiki discussions focusing on experience sharing. Throughout the program, online administrative and technical support was given to all, while a wiki newsletter was sent on a weekly basis, as a reminder of scheduled activities and best practice solutions. At the end of the program, all participants were asked to assess its cohesiveness by completing a specially devised e-​questionnaire that was sent by e-​mail. Other data sources concerning participants’ involvement in the program included:  (a) daily wiki report outputs (frequency and content of wiki views, unique entries, messages, discussion postings and technical support requests), (b) lesson plans (content and relevance to model-​based practice), and (c) teacher observation notes and journal entries. A  content analysis of the above data revealed three broad categories of concern that were labelled as: • • •

Structure and process of interaction within electronic communities of practice; The e-​mentoring relationship; The pedagogy of e-​mentoring.

264 Aspasia Dania

These categories are discussed in the following paragraphs in regard to research on e-​mentoring within teacher education. Implications and relevant themes are drawn for PETE faculty. Structure and process of interaction within electronic communities of practice Research has shown that online mentoring interactions (e.g. discussions, postings, comments, debriefings, downloads) may vary in degree of their content, frequency and function (Alemdag & Erdem, 2017). In the present program, participants’ interactions within the wiki platform focused mainly on technical, managerial and organizational issues and few were the instances when feedback and comments were provided on others’ work. Many scholars agree with the above finding, arguing that online participants usually express concerns about content subjectivity and fears of vulnerability (i.e. being protective of their work, or unwilling to admit teaching weaknesses or failures) (Hutchinson & Colwell, 2012; Suk Hwang & Vrongistinos, 2012). The social and emotional support components of beginning teacher mentoring programs are important predictors of their future success and retention in the field (Richter et al., 2013). Sung and Mayer (2012) state that online users value other members’ social presence and immediate reactions to their queries, as these reduce their feelings of isolation and help promote their subject matter knowledge and reflection on experiences. This was not the case in the present program, since both mentors and mentees used the wiki platform mainly to get access to game material, without showing instances of critical thinking. Neither their wiki postings nor their page-​edits conveyed a will to reflect, share knowledge and encourage other members, since this was done mainly in their school meetings. “You need to invest lots of time on wiki (i.e. for messaging, postings and discussion), and for me it is easier to discuss about emerging issues in-​person” (mentor). Prestridge (2017) states that face-​to-​face meetings are a prerequisite step before social presence can be built in an online environment. Since electronic communication can often be ambiguous, in-​person interaction is helpful in providing a good first impression about mentor and mentee capabilities and needs. According to Shrestha et al. (2009), many e-​mentoring participants feel that they have to convert electronic interaction to face-​to-​face, but that is not the case. Between-​group collaboration and construction of meanings will emerge via highly interactive communication processes and not within face-​to-​face meetings of best-​practice exchange (Cole, 2009). Scholars argue that increases in collaboration time and problem-​solving attempts on shared concerns promote new teachers’ self-​efficacy and bring gains to experienced teachers’ professional identities (Graham, 2011). However, the regulation of collaborative work within online environments is not achieved simply by assigning e-​mentors to their mentees. Instead, it is a subtle art that

Use of Wiki platform in PE mentoring  265

requires scaffolding by the part of the e-​mentor (e.g. providing structure and freedom to program tasks) (Schichtel, 2010), a strong activist mentee attitude (Karasavvidis, 2010), and initial training sessions for both to familiarize in procedural and epistemological issues (Dempsey, Arthur-​Kelly, & Carty, 2009). In this study, even though initial training sessions were organized, they were of short duration (due to busy university schedules) and offered general introductory information. As a result, the majority of the mentor–​mentee pairs adopted a surface approach to model-​based instruction and logged in the wiki platform mainly to find new ideas. Such an approach was also evident in the frequency of their wiki visits and interactions. The latter were rather low on a daily basis, showing a clear increase before the start of practicum, as well as on days when supplementary material or guidelines were uploaded by the program administrators. Requests for technical assistance were also at their peak values during these periods, while showing a marked decrease throughout the program. Singh and Holt (2013) have suggested that beginners’ participation in open-​ source discussion communities is rather peripheral at the beginning, since they need time to get accustomed to this mode of interaction before they can participate legitimately. This suggestion partially justifies the present case large number of wiki views, in relation to the fewer unique entries (i.e. for editing content). Similar trends are reported in studies assessing the use of discussion forums within undergraduate education (Cheng, Pare, Collimore, & Joordens, 2011; Redmond, Devine, & Bassoon, 2014). Researchers agree that even in the cases when participants do not actively contribute to online dialogue they still have the ability to learn, depending on the richness and meaningfulness of the uploaded material. Appropriate topic selection, clear delineation of the web content, as well as the allocation of assessment scores to participants’ novelty of postings, are suggested by many as strategies to maintain interactivity in online learning platforms (Wei, Peng, & Chou, 2015). The e-​m entoring relationship Coming in agreement with Cole (2009), the present study proved that human behaviors established in one learning environment cannot easily be transferred to another. Our mentors’ and mentees’ face-​to-​face interaction was used as the principal means for providing immediate support and brought resistance to the adoption of collaborative options offered by the wiki platform (i.e. intra and inter-​group product creation, meta-​cognitive reflection within discussions, non-​linearity of product access). The formal structure of the program implied the creation of mentoring relationships that were established and managed by the university, while placing more value on mentor traits (i.e. professional rank) than on their behavioral attitudes towards PE teaching. Thus, many were the mentors who adopted

266 Aspasia Dania

expert roles and shifted their attention to knowledge transfer, at the cost of developing process-​oriented relationships of critical reflection. An e-​mentor’s role within a professional learning community is to facilitate mentees’ appraising of practice and give constructive feedback both to their worries and their work (Rowland, 2012). This is an easier task for an in-​content mentor who can help mentees experience less formal conferencing and more consistent talking. Within the present program, such talking could not be provided by our out-​of-​content mentors, who although willing to try out new instructional approaches, could not appraise their mentees’ model-​based understanding simply by relying upon web sources or short-​ term training sessions. Fletcher and Casey (2014) add that it is not easy to transfer the principles of model-​based instruction from text to practice, since an extensive commitment of time, energy and emotion is needed to make it work. In our case, all participants committed time and energy to the needs of the program; however, emotion was mainly nurtured within face-​ to-​face conversations. Alemdag and Erdem (2017) claim that when emotion is nurtured only through face-​to-​face meetings it can limit participants’ perspective to context-​specific experience. Quality of dialogue and equity of interaction both guarantee the effectiveness of an e-​mentoring relationship (Quintana & Zambrano, 2014). Since collegial discussion is an opportunity for teacher professional learning, it is easy to assume that effective e-​mentors are those who set the instances for non-​judgemental conversation and connectedness to flourish. According to Ensher (2013), low dialogue relationships do not allow high levels of social presence in a learning environment, and cannot promote the sense of community between its members. Online discussions formulated and actioned towards new content areas or everyday concerns set the basis for verbal reflection and progressive thinking to occur (Glassman & Kang, 2011). A  decision to invest in individual capital-​development and a reach beyond their comfort zone are other challenges that mentors and mentees have to overcome before their relationship can bring gains (Liu, 2012). “She lacks self-​confidence and pedagogical content knowledge, but she dares to try and she thrives to self-​improve” (mentor). According to DiRenzo, Linnehan, Shao and Rosenberg (2010), when mentors perceive that their mentees are highly motivated, a more reciprocal relationship will be established between them. The building of a reciprocal relationship with a virtual mentor is usually experienced as a long-​term process of reward, social exchange and stories of confidence crises (Owen, 2105). From the e-​mentors’ part, it requires an ability to align with mentees’ preferred learning styles and deal effectively with their social loafing (Jackson & Harkins, 1985), or otherwise their tendency to work with less effort, especially when it comes to group work. For e-​mentees, it requires a will to come out of their student profile (listening to lectures, doing assignments), and adopt a critical stance

Use of Wiki platform in PE mentoring  267

towards self-​improvement (Karassavidis, 2010). The present study quote reveals such a stance: “I did not imagine that I would love to work with young children, I thought I hated them, but it seems that I hated myself as a young child” (mentee). In cases when social exchange is low (e.g. mentors become unavailable or mentees show delay in their response), then breaks are experienced in reciprocity (Wallis, Riddell, Smith, Silvertown, & Pepler, 2015). E-​mentors’ availability, though placing pressure on their working timetables, may bring higher learning standards and raise mentees’ expectations of achievement (Smith-​Jentsch, Scielzo, Yarbrough, & Rosopa, 2008). Cole (2009) argues that the use of technology for the establishment of a rewarding mentoring relationship is primarily related to pedagogy and the existence of a non-​ hierarchical culture of collaboration, grounded in the context of teachers’ needs. This issue is addressed in detail in the following paragraphs. The pedagogy of e-​m entoring Within higher education settings, even though the use of social media for formal and informal purposes is constantly increasing, students’ involvement with technology remains mainly linked to their perception of fun (Cole, 2009). The dominance of transmissionist models of teaching and the focus on high-​stakes testing hinders the implementation of innovative practices that require digital interaction and collaboration. As a result, undergraduates’ participation in online collaborative activities (as those required for constructivist learning) is usually experienced with little appetite and without an understanding of the way that technology can open new avenues for subject-​matter expertise (Ng, 2016). The fault does not always lie with technology itself, but rather with the degree to which the digital course content accommodates all members’ previous habits and modes of work. In the present study, factors such as participants’ uncomfort with digital communication, their uncertainty about the positive effects of technology use within PE, along with the top-​down administration of the wiki platform equated wiki use with a dysfunctional process that was more trouble than worth for their mentoring relationship. As a result, most of the mentor–​mentee pairs developed their own-​preferred communication modes (i.e. e-​mail, phone calls) and did not take full advantage of the platform. According to Kemmis, Heikkinen, Fransson, Aspfors and Edwards-​Groves (2014), participants’ individual and collective habits within a mentoring environment create case-​specific practice architectures that support different kinds of professional identities and relationships. In our case, the face-​to-​ face practice architectures of the present program equated the e-​mentoring concept more with adjacent processes such as training, coaching and socialization and less with an opportunity to synthesize information and critically

268 Aspasia Dania

reflect on them. Therefore, where does the pedagogy of e-​mentoring reside or in what ways do e-​mentees best learn and how is e-​mentors’ knowledge most effectively communicated in practice? According to the channel expansion theory (Carlson & Zmud, 1999), participants’ capability for engaging in rich communication within an online environment is based on the quality of their previous experiences across the following domains: experience with the communication channel, experience with the messaging topic, experience with the organizational context, and experience with communication participants. The knowledge base of the above experiential factors will determine their success of communication and their perceived social influence or relevance of the messages conveyed. Cress and Kimmerle (2008) further support this view stating that communication within digital spaces can support the generation of collaborative knowledge, when the enacted social processes (i.e. sharing, editing, authoring) align with participants’ cognitive processes, or otherwise their ability to externalize and internalize knowledge. The externalization of knowledge and the effort to share it with others (i.e. writing or uploading new information) can extend an individual’s ability to process and clarify already acquired information. On the other hand, the internalization of available digital information can interact with prior individual knowledge and help collaborative learning to emerge (Kimmerle, Moskaliuk, & Cress, 2011). Electronic media nurture social constructivist learning only in cases when they are used as settings for conflict resolution and problem solving (Cress & Kimmerle, 2008). Online mentoring behaviors of this kind cannot be established simply by putting participants work with innovative technology, as was done in the present program. The wiki platform, although a collaborative web site, was content driven and behaviorist oriented (top-​down administration), and thus could not align with participants’ needs and facilitate within-​group constructivist learning. As the principles of E-​learning 2.0 pedagogy imply, digital contexts should be designed so as to promote self-​ management of knowledge through strategies of scaffolding and cognitive apprenticeship (Gray, Thompson, Sheard, Clerehan, & Hamilton, 2010). E-​mentoring strategies that are suggested as a means to this end are role assignment and topic selection according to mentees’ interests (Quintana & Zambrano, 2014), the breaking of mentoring tasks into sequentially ordered parts (Zeng, Niiya, & Warschauer, 2015), the provision of online tutorials, manuals and sources of advice that could facilitate understanding and communication (Thompson, Jeffries, & Topping, 2010), the design of digital activities of shared ownership that go beyond page downloading or browsing (i.e. authentic-​classroom projects related to the e-​mentoring subject matter) (Karassavidis, 2010), the adoption of a guided discovery communication style from the part of the mentors (Simonsen, Luebeck, & Bice, 2009), the design of e-​learning tasks that value and reward altruistic acts (i.e. assessment of the quality of shared ideas and not of end products)

Use of Wiki platform in PE mentoring  269

(Alemdag & Erdem, 2017), as well as the ongoing pairing of online with existing face-​to-​face contact (Redmond, 2015). In every case, initial training and ample time for all participants to familiarize with digital tools (i.e. technology sessions) and constructivist learning practices (i.e. inquiry sessions, group projects, build and share resources) are needed, before e-​mentoring contexts can serve as venues for critical thinking and empathetic exchange (Liu, 2012). This would imply a shift in educational policy (e.g. long-​term professional development opportunities for teachers), and the ensuring of teachers’ participation in online professional communities of practice. The latter would secure participants’ easy access to distributed expertise and resources, along with financial and academic support needed to sustain their motivation and focus throughout the mentoring process (e.g. technical personnel, software and hardware, research projects, seminars, publications).

Implications for physical education teacher education programs Up to the present time, mentoring programs have traditionally been recognized as beneficial strategies to support preservice PE teachers’ access to knowledge and experience within authentic settings. Nevertheless, conventional mentoring opportunities are usually available only to a minority of PE students, while their content and function is mainly idiosyncratic. University course requirements and diverse student expectations from PE practicum create practice-​specific architectures that constraint the concept of mentoring mainly to organizational domains. However, there is evidence to support the view that PE teacher knowledge is not an “end product” when they finish their university studies. Instead, it seems to develop experientially, on the basis of situational and particularistic issues. The nature of today’s PE profession (e.g. physical activity, motor development, performance and participation discourses), together with its claimed responsibility for bringing positive gains in public health and youth development (Armour, 2010), call for the establishment of a more developmental professional network perspective. The latter could help preservice PE teachers connect their university knowledge with ‘real world’ skills and provide immediate access to scientific developments in the field. Research evidence has indicated that e-​mentoring models can serve this purpose and provide ongoing and systematic support, both to preservice and in-​service PE teachers. However, their role and functionality has received minimal attention within PETE literature, partly due to the resistance that most practitioners and institutions show towards technology integration within the standard curriculum. Since technology can foster collaborative intelligence and augment individual and group reflection beyond the metaphors of page, a greater emphasis should be paid on the design, use and evaluation

270 Aspasia Dania

of e-​mentoring programs within PETE faculty. As has been suggested, the pedagogical rationale of such programs should support PE teachers’ professional identity formation (social, cognitive and affective attitudes), before setting them in the pursue of discrete learning outcomes. With a focus on the intricacies of the e-​mentoring process, this line of research could also provide insights into the benefits and drawbacks of using technology in acknowledgement to modern PETE students’ life circumstances (e.g. part-​ time employment, academic performance, dual athlete-​student career) and communication preferences (e.g. internet, communication apps).

Conclusions and recommendations The discussion of the present chapter was framed around e-​mentoring, both as a concept and a process related to teacher education and development. Throughout the chapter, theoretical and practical issues were reviewed in regard with research conducted in this area. Study results showed that each e-​mentoring program has its own originalities and practice architectures that are shaped by its agents’ expectations and willingness to support and get supported, to share and open-​up to new knowledge, and to engage in processes of exposing themselves socially to peers experiencing similar problems. Various barriers and enablers may affect the outcomes of this process, indicating that the setting of an online mentoring community is a difficult task depending on the recruitment, pairing and role-​preparation of its members. Knowledge derived from this field suggests that e-​mentoring schemes have only recently begun to gain attention in educational literature. Considering the changing nature of today’s classrooms (i.e. resources, size, diverse student populations) and the multi-​tasking profile of the twenty-​ first century’s teacher, several scholars have suggested that the taking of mentoring in digital environments can advance the quality and quantity of experiences that teachers receive during their preservice education. Thus, more studies are required with a special focus on teachers’ experienced and manifested action within e-​ mentoring contexts. E-​ mentoring conceptual definitions and theoretical underpinnings, mentors’ and mentees’ expectations of the process, optimal conditions for planning long-​ term interventions that focus on process and product educational outcomes (e.g. connecting e-​mentoring models with teacher and student achievement) are topics that need to be further articulated. These lines of thought hold true for PETE, where technology is not suggested to serve as an innovative mentoring venue, but instead as an empowered pedagogical possibility that can easily be adjusted to the changing and evolving needs of its end users. Obviously, more interdisciplinary effort and research is needed (i.e. between sport pedagogues and technology experts), before digital innovations can broaden already available mentoring practices and further advance PE curriculum learning scopes and outcomes. Until then,

Use of Wiki platform in PE mentoring  271

the claimed benefits of any e-​mentoring innovation should be reported with cautiousness and relevance to each PE context’s limitations and situational constraints.

Discussion questions 1. What are the benefits and drawbacks of integrating technology within Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) mentoring programs? 2. What are the most important attributes for a successful and mutually rewarding e-​mentoring relationship? 3. How can social loafing be minimized within e-​mentoring PETE programs? What are the core e-​ pedagogy principles that may underpin the effectiveness of this process?

Further reading Chambers, F. C. (eds.) (2015). Mentoring in physical education and sports coaching. New York: Routledge. Koehler, A. A. & Kim, M. C. (2012). Improving beginning teacher induction programs through distance education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(3), 212–​233. Stacey, E. & Gerbic, P. (eds.) (2009). Effective blended learning practices:  evidence-​based perspectives in ICT-​facilitated education. Hershy, PA: Information Science Reference.

References Alemdag, E. & Erdem, M. (2017). Designing an e-​mentoring program for novice teachers in Turkey and investigating online interactions and program outcomes. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 1–​28. Anderson, J. R. (2006). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers. Armour, K. M. (2010). The physical education profession and its professional responsibility … or … why “12 weeks paid holiday” will never be enough. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(1), 1–​13. Biasutti, M. & El-​Deghaidy, H. (2012). Using Wiki in teacher education:  impact on knowledge management processes and student satisfaction. Computers & Education, 59(3), 861–​872. Bierema, L. L. & Merriam, S. B. (2002). E-​mentoring:  using computer mediated communication to enhance the mentoring process. Innovative Higher Education, 26(3), 211–​227.

272 Aspasia Dania Billingsley, B., Israel, M., & Smith, S. (2011). Supporting new special education teachers:  how online resources and Web 2.0 technologies can help. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(5), 20–​29. Bunker, B. & Thorpe, R. (1986). The curriculum model. In R. Thorpe, Bunker, D., & Almond, L (eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 7–​10). Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough. Cabiness, C., Donovan, L., & Green, T. D. (2013). Integrating wikis in the support and practice of historical analysis skills. TechTrends, 57(6), 38–​48. Carlson, J. R. & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153–​170. Chambers, F. C., Armour, K., Luttrell, S., Bleakley, W., Brennan, D., & Herold, F. (2012). Mentoring as a profession-​building process in physical education teacher education. Irish Educational Studies, 31(3), 345–​362. Cheng, C. K., Paré, D. E., Collimore, L. M., & Joordens, S. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of a voluntary online discussion forum on improving students’ course performance. Computers & Education, 56(1), 253–​261. Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement:  lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141–​146. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 8(1), 2–​10. Cothran, D., McCaughtry, N., Faust, R., Garn, A., Kulinna, P. H., & Martin, J. (2009). E-​mentoring in physical education: Promises and pitfalls. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(3), 552–​562. Cress, U. & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-​Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105–​122. Dabbagh, N. & Kitsantas, A. (2013). The role of social media in self-​regulated learning. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 9(2), 256–​273. Dabbagh, N. & Reo, R. (2011). Impact of Web 2.0 on higher education. In D. W. Surry, T. Stefurak, & R. Gray (eds.), Technology integration in higher education: social and organizational aspects (pp. 174–​187). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Dania, A. & Zounhia, K. (2017). Introducing physical education teachers to the Teaching Games for Understanding model:  challenges and outcomes of a professional development program. International Journal of Sport and Society, 8(3), 51–​60. Dempsey, I., Arthur-​Kelly, M., & Carty, B. (2009). Mentoring early career special education teachers. Australian Journal of Education, 53(3), 294–​305. DiRenzo, M. S., Linnehan, F., Shao, P., & Rosenberg, W. L. (2010). A moderated mediation model of e-​mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 292–​305. Dorner, H. (2012). Effects of online mentoring in computer-​supported collaborative learning environments: mentor presence and cognitive engagement. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 157–​171. Edwards, A. & Collison, J. (1996). Mentoring and developing practice in primary schools. Buckingham: Oxford University Press. Ensher, E. A. (2013). E-​mentoring as a critical e-​learning approach: the impact of social presence on e-​mentoring. Communications and Network, 5(03), 1–​3.

Use of Wiki platform in PE mentoring  273 Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The place of practical arguments in the education of teachers. In V. Richardson (ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process: a case in reading instruction (pp. 23–​42). NY: Teachers College Press. Fletcher, T. & Casey, A. (2014). The challenges of models-​based practice in physical education teacher education: a collaborative self-​study. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33(3), 403–​421. Glassman, M. & Kang, M. J. (2011). The logic of wikis:  the possibilities of the Web 2.0 classroom. International Journal of Computer-​Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 93–​112. Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–​1960. Gray, K., Thompson, C., Sheard, J., Clerehan, R., & Hamilton, M. (2010). Students as Web 2.0 authors: implications for assessment design and conduct. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 105–​122. Hastie, P. A., Casey, A., & Tarter, A. M. (2010). A case study of wikis and student-​ designed games in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 79–​91. Hellison, D. (1995). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: what we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 207–​216. Hutchison, A. & Colwell, J. (2012). Using a wiki to facilitate an online professional learning community for induction and mentoring teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 17(3), 273–​289. Israel, M., Carnahan, C. R., Snyder, K. K., & Williamson, P. (2013). Supporting new teachers of students with significant disabilities through virtual coaching: a proposed model. Remedial and Special Education, 34(4), 195–​204. Jackson, J. M. & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: an explanation for the social loafing effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1199–​1206. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The 2012 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Jones, C. R., Ferreday, D., & Hodgson, V. (2008). Networked learning a relational approach: weak and strong ties. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 90–​102. Jones, R. L., Harris, R., & Miles, A. (2009). Mentoring in sports coaching: a review of the literature. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(3), 267–​284. Kahraman, M. & Kuzu, A. (2016). E-​mentoring for professional development of pre-​service teachers: a case study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 76–​89. Karasavvidis, I. (2010). Wiki uses in higher education: exploring barriers to successful implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 219–​231. Kemmis, S., Heikkinen, H. L., Fransson, G., Aspfors, J., & Edwards-​Groves, C. (2014). Mentoring of new teachers as a contested practice: supervision, support and collaborative self-​development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 154–​164. Kim, H. J., Miller, H. R., Herbert, B., Pedersen, S., & Loving, C. (2012). Using a wiki in a scientist-​teacher professional learning community: impact on teacher perception changes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 440–​452.

274 Aspasia Dania Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., & Cress, U. (2011). Using wikis for learning and knowledge building: results of an experimental study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 138–​148. Lai, Y. C. & Ng, E. M. (2011). Using wikis to develop student teachers’ learning, teaching, and assessment capabilities. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 15–​26. Lamb, P. & Aldous, D. (2014). The role of e-​mentoring in distinguishing pedagogic experiences of gifted and talented pupils in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 301–​319. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Liu, K. Y. (2012). A design framework for online teacher professional development communities. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(4), 701–​711. Martindale, T. & Dowdy, M. (2010). Personal learning environments. In G. Veletsianos (eds.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 177–​193). Athabasca: University Press. McCaughtry, N., Kulinna, P. H., Cothran, D., Stylianou, M., & Kwon, J. Y. (2015). E-​mentoring in physical education. In F. C. Chambers (eds.), Mentoring in physical education and sports coaching (pp. 136–​144). New York: Routledge. McDiarmid, P. L. & Moosbrugger, M. (2011). E-​mentoring and teaching efficacy in pre-​service physical educators. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 48. Mooney, A. & Gullock, L. (2013). “Back to the future” building mentoring capacity in physical education teacher education students. In R. Brandenburg & J. Z. Wilson (eds.), Pedagogies for the future (pp. 85–​98). Rotterdam Boston: Springer. Murphy, W. M. (2011). From e-​mentoring to blended mentoring: increasing students’ developmental initiation and mentors’ satisfaction. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 606–​622. Naismith, L., Lee, B. H., & Pilkington, R. M. (2011). Collaborative learning with a wiki:  differences in perceived usefulness in two contexts of use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 228–​242. Ng, E. M. (2016). Fostering pre-​service teachers’ self-​regulated learning through self-​ and peer assessment of wiki projects. Computers & Education, 98, 180–​191. Owen, H. D. (2015). Making the most of mobility:  virtual mentoring and education practitioner professional development. Research in Learning Technology, 23(1), 25566. Prestridge, S. (2017). Conceptualizing self-​generating online teacher professional development. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 85–​104. Prestridge, S. & Tondeur, J. (2015). Exploring elements that support teachers’ engagement in online professional development. Education Sciences, 5(3), 199–​219. Quintana, M. G. B. & Zambrano, E. P. (2014). E-​mentoring: the effects on pedagogical training of rural teachers with complex geographical accesses. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 629–​636. Redmond, P. (2015). Discipline specific online mentoring for secondary pre-​service teachers. Computers & Education, 90, 95–​104. Redmond, P., Devine, J., & Bassoon, M. (2014). Exploring discipline differentiation in online discussion participation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 122–​135.

Use of Wiki platform in PE mentoring  275 Richter, D., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Klusmann, U., Anders, Y., & Baumert, J. (2013). How different mentoring approaches affect beginning teachers’ development in the first years of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 166–​177. Rikard, G. L. & Banville, D. (2010). Effective mentoring: critical to the professional development of first year physical educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(3), 245–​261. Risser, H. S. (2013). Virtual induction: a novice teacher’s use of Twitter to form an informal mentoring network. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 25–​33. Rowland, K. N. (2012). E-​mentoring: an innovative twist to traditional mentoring. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 7(1), 228–​237. Schichtel, M. (2010). Core-​competence skills in e-​mentoring for medical educators: a conceptual exploration. Medical Teacher, 32(7), e248–​e262. Sharer, M. B. (2015). Mentoring:  experiences of physical education teachers with in-​content and out-​of-​content mentors (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University). Shpigelman, C. N., Reiter, S., & Weiss, P. L. T. (2009). A conceptual framework of socio-​emotional electronic mentoring. Procedia-​Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2627–​2631. Shrestha, C. H., May, S., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L., & Linsey, T. (2009). From face-​ to-​face to e-​mentoring:  does the  “e” add any value for mentors?. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 116–​124. Simonsen, L., Luebeck, J., & Bice, L. (2009). The effectiveness of online paired mentoring for beginning science and mathematics teachers. International Journal of E-​Learning & Distance Education, 23(2), 51–​68. Singh, V. & Holt, L. (2013). Learning and best practices for learning in open-​source software communities. Computers & Education, 63, 98–​108. Smith, S. J. & Israel, M. (2010). E-​mentoring: enhancing special education teacher induction. Special Education Leadership, 23(1), 30–​40. Smith-​Jentsch, K. A., Scielzo, S. A., Yarbrough, C. S., & Rosopa, P. J. (2008). A comparison of face-​to-​face and electronic peer-​mentoring:  interactions with mentor gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 193–​206. Suk Hwang, Y. & Vrongistinos, K. (2012). Using Blackboard and Skype for mentoring beginning teachers. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 172–​179. Sung, E. & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1738–​1747. Thompson, L., Jeffries, M., & Topping, K. (2010). E-​mentoring for e-​learning development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 305–​315. Tomlinson, P. D., Hobson, A. J. & Malderez, A. (2010). Mentoring in teacher education. In P. L. Peterson, E. Baker B. & McGaw (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, vol. 7 (pp. 749–​756). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Wallis, J. A., Riddell, J. K., Smith, C., Silvertown, J., & Pepler, D. J. (2015). Investi­ gating patterns of participation and conversation content in an online mentoring program for Northern Canadian youth. Mentoring & Tutoring:  Partnership in Learning, 23(3), 228–​247. Wei, H. C., Peng, H., & Chou, C. (2015). Can more interactivity improve learning achievement in an online course? Effects of college students’ perception and actual use of a course-​management system on their learning achievement. Computers & Education, 83, 10–​21.

276 Aspasia Dania Whitworth, A. (2009). Teaching information literacy within a relational frame: the media and information literacy course at Manchester. Journal of Information Literacy, 3(2), 25–​38. Wilbanks, J. E. (2014). E-​mentoring: examining the feasibility of electronic, online, or distance mentoring. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 14(5), 24. Zeichner, K. (1994) Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective practice in teaching and teacher education. In I. Calgren, G. Handal & S. Vaage (eds.). Teachers’ minds and actions:  research on teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 9–​27). London: Falmer Press. Zheng, B., Niiya, M., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Wikis and collaborative learning in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 357–​374.


Note: References in bold indicate tables and in italics indicate figures actionable knowledge 204, 207, 209, 213, 218 activity-​based teaching 89–​90 adults (self-​controlled video feedback) 33–​34, 36 affordances 128, 137–​138, 189, 190, 218, 257 Ahern, T. 150, 158 Alemdag, E. 266 Amara, S. 24–​25 Anderson, M 150, 158 André, M. H. 12, 115 anticipatory coincident timing-​task (study) 41 app-​based assessment 50, 55–​57, 58–​59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 151 appreciative inquiry 70, 72–​73 appreciative interviews 73 Araújo, D. 138 Armour, K. M. 72, 76, 79, 80 Ashworth, S. 98 Aspfors, J. 267 assessment 6, 11, 21–​22, 49, 50–​51, 52–​54, 55, 157; app-​based 50, 55–​57, 58–​59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 151; authentic 50, 58–​59, 65 assessment tool see movement assessment tool Atencio, M. 63 Atkinson, J. 150, 158 authentic assessment 50, 58–​59, 65 autonomy 41 Azzarito, L. 99, 175 Baert, H. 250 balance beam performance (study) 25 Barba, D. A. 33 Barton, G. 112

basketball free throw (study) 40 Biasutti, M. 261 Bice, L. 262 bicycle riding, learning to 187–​188 Biddle, S. J. H. 35 Bierema, L. L. 259 biopower 167–​168, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176 Blain, D. 77 Bodsworth, H. 71, 98 body performance 169 Bolstad, R. 209 Bowes, M. 12–​13 Bowman, N. 150, 158 Boyd, S. 209 Bridge, M. 76, 79, 80 Browne, T. 51 Bruzi, A. T. 34, 40–​41 Buchanan, T. L. 34, 40–​41 Bull, A. 209 Bunker, D. 126, 136, 137, 138, 139 Burke, L. 264 Butler, D. 253 Button, C. 138 Calderon, A. 93, 100, 101 Cambell, A. 49 capability, sense of 166 Carlsen, A. N. 41–​42 Carter, M. J. 40, 41–​42 Casey, A. 11, 72, 80, 98, 106, 266 Cauraugh, J. H. 33 causal attributions 42, 43 Cavalier, A. 26 Chaaben, H. 24–​25 Chambers, F. C. 245 Champenoy, J. D. 36 channel expansion theory 268

278 Index Chatzisarantis, N. 35 children 60–​62; movement ­competence 11, 48–​51, 63, 64–​65; personal ­information 60; self-​controlled video feedback 34 Chiviacowsky, S. 33–​34, 41–​42, 197 Ciampa, K. 251 Claringbould, I. 167–​168 Clark, N. 12, 147, 148, 152, 159 Cleary, T. J. 40 CMC (computer mediated communication) 261 cognitive apprenticeship 258 Cole, M. 265, 267 competence 41, 168; see also movement competence computer mediated communication see CMC connectivism 12–​13, 204, 205, 206, 207, 210, 211, 218–​219 Connor, S. 21 Consten, A. 12, 182, 194 constructivism 74–​75, 226, 230, 245 Coombes, S. A. 36 Corbin, C. B. 125 Cothran, D. 261 Coulter, M. 13 Cress, U. 268 Csikszentmihalyi, M. 135 Culatta, R. 247 cultural games 5 Dania, A. 13 Darsky, coach (case study) 154–​155 dartthrowing-​practice (study) 40 data security 60 Davids, K. 129, 138 Davis, B. 129 Deci, E. L. 37 Dent, A. L. 37 Dermitzaki, I. 40 digital innovations see technological innovations digital pedagogy 90, 92 digital tagging 6, 7, 8 digital technologies (DigiTech) 1–​5, 7, 8, 9–​10, 12, 19, 60, 164, 181, 243; assessment 50–​51, 54, 55, 56, 65; integration 69–​72, 73, 77, 80, 81; movement competence 49, 64–​65; video feedback 170–​171 digital tools 1, 6, 181, 182, 189, 193, 195

digital video 8, 11, 19, 20–​22, 28, 32; see also video technologies digital video applications 32, 33, 36, 42, 43 digital video feedback 22–​24, 27–​28, 50–​51; see also video feedback DigiTech see digital technologies dilemmas 11, 61–​63 disciplinary power 167–​168, 174 discourse analysis 167 discourses 166–​169, 175, 176 discovery learning 136, 137 Dodds, P. 165 Downes, S. 204 Duivenvoorden, J. 35, 36 Dyke, F. B. 34, 40–​41 Edirisingha, P. 264 educational praxis 165–​166, 171, 174 Edwards-​Groves, C. 267 El-​Deghaidy, H. 261 electronic portfolios 19, 20–​21 elementary physical education 243, 244, 246–​247, 248 elite hockey team (study) 171 elite sports 170–​171 e-​mentoring 13, 257, 258, 259–​260, 261–​262, 264–​265, 267–​271 EMMEs see eye movement modeling examples Ennis, C. 99 Enright, E. 72, 73 Ensher, E. A. 266 Erdem, M. 266 Evans, G. 76, 79, 80 Evans, J. 173 exaggeration games 136 experimenting phase 193–​194, 195 expert-​modeling 24 explicit curriculum see formal curriculum explicit messages 164, 165, 166–​169, 174 exteriority 205 eye movement modeling examples (EMMEs) 36 Facebook 12, 107, 109–​110, 112–​114, 115, 116, 117, 119 Faust, R. 261 feedback 8–​9; see also video feedback feedforward 19, 20, 25 Fernandez-​Rio, J. 93

Index 279 Fisette, J. 112, 172 Fish Bowl 214, 230 Fitbits 149, 169 Fletcher, T. 266 Flintoff, A. 166, 167 flipped learning 77–​78, 79 Flutter, J. 249 FMS (Fundamental Movement Skills) 7, 242, 244, 246, 248, 249 forethought phase 37, 39 formal curriculum 165, 166, 168, 170 Foucault, M. 167, 171, 175 Foweather, L. 61 Fransson, G. 267 Frehlich, S. G. 33 Freund, P. 151 Fu, H. 12 Fullan, M. 89, 93, 98–​99 Fundamental Movement Skills see FMS Future-​Focused Learning, New Zealand 207–​211, 218 GAFE (Google Apps for Education) 206, 214 Gallagher, T. 251 game constraints 127, 129, 136, 138, 140 game mechanics 127, 128, 137–​138 gameplay 127–​128, 129–​134, 135, 139–​140 gameplay identity 127, 128, 138–​139 Gao, Z. G. 35 Gard, M. 1, 72, 73, 219 Garn, A. 261 Gee, J. P. 125, 128, 135, 137, 138 gender categorization 168–​169 Gibbone, A. 71 Gilbert, J. 209 Godwin, M. M. 34, 40–​41 Goodyear, V. A. 71, 72, 77, 80, 98, 115 Google Apps for Education see GAFE Goudas, M. 40 Graham, C. 247 Grand, K. F. 34, 40–​41 Griffiths, M. 76, 79, 80 Groom, R. 157, 171 grounded theory 74–​75 gymnastic skills (study) 25 Hachana, Y. 24–​25 Hagger, M. S. 35 Hamilton, M. L. 218 Hammond, J. 129

Hartmann, K. 23 Harvey, S. 12 Hasler-​Waters, L. 117 Hastie, P. A. 93, 94, 97, 98, 107 Hay, P. 50, 58, 63 Hayes, E. 125 healthism 169 Heikkinen, H. L. 267 Herring, M. 243, 251 hidden curriculum 164, 165–​167, 168, 170, 174–​175; surveillance ­technologies 170, 171, 172, 173; video instruction 173, 174 Hill, J. 72, 73 Hipkins, R. 209 Hodges, N. J. 191 Hong (parent, case study) 129, 133–​134, 138, 139 Hopper, T. F. 12, 127, 136 Huizinga, J. 115 hurdle clearance skills (study) 24–​25 hybridity 205 implicit messages 164, 165–​169, 174 initial teacher education see ITE; PETE; PSTs initial teacher educators see ITEs instructional models 91 intellectual disabilities 26 interactors 227–​228 internet 107, 109–​110, 205, 206; see also social media iPads 13, 242, 246, 247–​248, 249–​253 Ireland 243–​246, 248–​252 ITE (initial teacher education) 212, 243–​244, 249–​251; see also PETE; PSTs ITEs (initial teacher educators) 13, 242, 244–​246, 251, 253; iPads 247–​248, 249–​251, 252–​253 Janelle, C. M. 33, 36 Jess, M. 63 Jones, A 49 Jones, L. 157, 171 Jongmans, M. 167–​168 Kathy (case study) 129, 131–​133, 135, 136–​137, 138, 139 Keating, T. 40 Kemmis, S. 267 Kimmerle, J. 268 Kirk, D. 89, 91, 92, 165, 166, 245

280 Index Kitsantas, A. 40 Knoppers, A. 12, 166, 167–​168 Koehler, M. J. 4, 182, 243 Koenka, A. C. 37 Kok, M. 11, 35, 36 Kolovelonis, A. 40 Kuklick, C. 12 Kulinna, P. H. 261 Lang, M. 171 Langworthy, M. 89, 98–​99 Lave, J. 245 Leahy, M. 253 learning capacity 204, 207, 208–​209, 210, 218 learning circle 182, 183, 186–​189, 194, 200; experimenting phase 193–​194, 195; managing phase 188–​192; ­stabilization phase 192–​193, 198 learning environments 5, 19, 154, 188, 207–​208, 227, 245, 247 Learning Management Systems see LMS learning phases 12, 181, 182–​183, 186–​189, 194, 200; experimenting phase 193–​194, 195; managing phase 188–​192; multimedia instruction books 184, 195–​197; stabilization phase 192–​193, 198; video analysis 197–​200 Lei, J. 248 Leiker, A. M. 34, 40–​41 Le Masurier, G. 125 Levent Ince, M. 243 Li, H. 11 Linsey, T. 264 Liu, K. Y. 260 LMS (Learning Management Systems) 206 Lochbaum, M. 35 Lopez-​Chicheri, I. 93, 100, 101 Lucas, S. 76, 79, 80 Luebeck, J. 262 Luguetti, C. 115 McCaughtry, N. 261 McDiarmid, P. L. 261 Macdonald, D. 245 McDowall, S. 209 McEvilly, N. 63 McMaster, K. 251 MacPhail, A. 91

managing phase 188–​192 Mann, Dan (case study) 153–​154 Marron, S. 13 Marshall, K. 253 Martin, J. 261 Martini, R. 25, 34 May, S. 264 Mayer, R. E. 264 mentoring 257–​259, 260–​262, 269; e-​mentoring 13, 257, 258, 259–​260, 261–​262, 264–​265, 267–​271; wiki educational platform 262–​264, 265–​267 mentoring environments 259–​260 Merriam, S. B. 259 Miller, N. W. 34, 40–​41 Mishra, P. 4, 182, 243 Mitchell, M. 112 Mitchell, M. S. 240 Mitchell, S. 89–​90 Mkaouer, B. 24–​25 modification-​by-​adaptation 136–​137 Mohnsen, B. S. 24 Moosbrugger, M. 261 Morley, D. 11, 61 Mosston, M. 98 motivational beliefs 33, 34, 35, 37, 38–​39, 41, 42, 43 motor skill acquisition 11, 22, 26, 137–​138 motor skill learning 27, 32–​33, 137–​138, 139–​140, 181–​183; self-​controlled video feedback 34, 35, 37, 40, 43 motor skills 2, 19, 20, 23–​24 Mousseau, M. B. 36 movement assessments 19, 50–​51, 63–​64 movement assessment tool 48, 52, 54, 55–​57, 60–​62, 63–​64; design process 52–​54; research example 57–​58 movement competence 1, 6–​7, 11, 51–​52, 54, 60–​62, 63; children 11, 48–​51, 63, 64–​65 multimedia instruction books 184, 195–​197 Murphy, W. M. 261 Mursion (virtual reality classroom simulation) 227, 228–​235 Napier, W. 117 Nassib, S. H. 24–​25

Index 281 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1997) 251 Nelson, L. J. 157, 171 Netherlands 13, 35, 173–​174, 183–​184 networks 204–​205, 207 Neutzling, M. 13 Newell, K. M. 182, 183, 186, 188 Newhouse, P. 49 new pedagogies education model 89, 98–​99 Newton school, UK 74, 75, 76, 77 New Zealand 12–​13, 206, 207–​212, 218–​219 New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) 209–​210 Ni Chróinín, D. 49, 249 nondominant arm throwing (study) 40–​41 Obrusnikova, I. 25, 26, 248–​249 off-​task behavior 236–​237 O’Grady, D. 49, 249 O’Loughlin, J. 49, 249 Olympic Games 109–​110 opaque technologies 12, 147–​149, 150, 152, 154, 157, 159 O’Sullivan, M. 112 Paechter, C. 218 Pagnano Richardson, K. 13 Pairs-​Check-​Perform 98 panopticon 171 Patrick (teacher case study, UK) 11, 12, 69, 74, 75–​77; digital ­technologies 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77–​78, 79–​81 PCK (pedagogical content knowledge) 4, 5, 7, 8, 26, 246 PE (physical education) 1–​2, 3–​5, 89–​90, 95, 175–​176 PE curriculum 48, 165, 170 pedagogical models 91–​94 pedagogies of technology 70, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 81 pedagogy 10, 69, 70–​71, 72, 188; digital 90, 92 PE homework 112, 117, 121 Penney, D. 49, 50, 58, 63, 173 performance phase 37–​38, 39, 40 personal information 60 PETE (Physical Education Teacher Education) 10, 13, 212, 238, 257;

black minority ethnic students 166; e-​mentoring 269–​270; New Zealand 212–​213, 214–​215, 218; virtual reality simulation 225–​226, 227, 239–​240 PE teachers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 69, 165, 170, 181; electronic portfolios 20, 21; teaching skills 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 43 physical disabilities 167, 168 physical education see PE physical education programs 89–​91, 228 Physical Education Teacher Education see PETE playability 127, 128, 135–​136 player identity 127, 128, 138–​139 PLD see professional learning and development Podlog, L. 35 Potrac, P. 157, 171 practicum mentoring program 13, 262–​264 Pratt, M. 247 pre-​service teachers 225, 226, 227, 238, 242, 257; off-​task behavior 236–​237; reflection-​in-​action 235–​236; ­snapshot views 237–​238; virtual reality simulation 228–​235, 239–​240; see also PSTs Prestridge, S. 264 primary school teachers 11, 49, 51–​52, 55, 64–​65; movement assessment tool 48, 52, 54, 55–​57 professional development 13, 51, 76, 257, 258; see also mentoring professional learning and d ­ evelopment (PLD), New Zealand 212, 215–​218, 219 PSTs (pre-​service generalist elementary teachers) 242, 244–​246, 247, 251; iPads 248, 249–​251, 252–​253 Quarmby, T. 77 Rattigan, P. J. 25, 248–​249 Redmond, P. 243, 251 reflection-​in-​action 235–​236, 252 relatedness 41 reliability 62, 64 Renshaw, I. 129 Richardson, D. 61

282 Index Richardson, W. 206 Romano, M. 21 Romar, J. 112 Rowland, K. N. 260 Rukavina, P. 71 Ryan, R. M. 37 Rymal, A. M. 25, 34 safeguarding 60 Ste-​Marie, D. M. 25, 34, 40, 41–​42, 191 Salah, F. Z. B. 24–​25 Sandford, R. 72, 73 Sanford, K. 12, 127 Sargent, J. 11 Schwartz, D. L. 23 Schwartz, J. 21 self-​assessment 49, 58, 249 self-​controlled video feedback 11, 32, 33–​34, 35–​37, 39–​42, 43 self-​controlled video modeling 32, 35–​37, 39 self-​determination theory 37, 41 self-​efficacy 20, 34, 35, 37, 39 self-​evaluation 40, 42–​43 self-​modeling see video self-​modeling self-​observation 38, 39–​40, 42, 43 self-​reflection phase 37, 38, 40 self-​regulation of learning model 33, 37–​40, 42, 43 self-​regulation skills 11, 32, 33, 36–​37, 42, 43 self-​review 19, 20 SEM see Sport Education model Semiz, K. 243 Sheehy, D. 13 Shinde, S. 251 shot put (study) 37–​38, 39 Shrestha, C. H. 264 Shulman, L. S. 4, 151, 246 Shuttleworth, R. 138 Siedentop, D. 90, 93, 94, 97, 106, 107, 126, 139 Siemens, G. 204, 205, 206, 207 Silberman, L. 125 Silverman, S. 71 Simonsen, L. 262 Sinelnikov, O. A. 12, 93, 94, 95, 100, 101 situated learning 13, 242, 245, 249, 252 skill acquisition see motor skill acquisition

skill analysis video apps see app-​based assessment skill learning see motor skill learning Smaldino, S. 243, 251 snapshot views 237–​238 soccer pass accuracy (study) 36 social cognitive theory 20 social constructivism 245, 258, 268 social inequalities 12, 164, 175–​176 social media 5, 12, 107, 108, 109–​110, 112–​120, 121 Socrative app 249–​250 Sport Education model (SEM) 5, 12, 92–​94, 101–​102, 106–​109, 126–​127, 139–​140; digital technologies 95–​97, 99, 100–​101, 102; social media 100, 108, 110, 111, 112–​120, 121; videogames 125, 126, 127; volleyball season 94–​101, 107–​108 stabilization phase 192–​193, 198 standing long jump (study) 26 Stanne, K. 112 Start to Move assessment tool 58, 59–​60, 64 Stewart, A. 250 student-​centered pedagogies 92 Sumara, D. 129 Sung, E. 264 surveillance 164, 168, 170, 171 surveillance technologies 170–​173 suspended disbelief 231, 234 Swanwick, C. 12–​13 swimming performance (study) 26, 171 synopticon 172 tagging and delay software 185–​186, 197–​198 Tannehill, D. 91, 112 Tarter, A.-​M. 98 Taylor, W. G. 157, 171 TCK (Technological Content Knowledge) 4, 5, 27 teacher educators 225, 226, 227, 232, 238 teacher-​led assessment 50 Teaching-​Assessment-​Learning cycle 50, 56, 65 Teaching Games for Understanding see TGfU team affiliation 114–​115, 116, 120 team websites 97, 113, 114–​115, 116 technicisation of education 89

Index 283 Technological Content Knowledge see TCK technological innovations 2, 6, 9, 10, 92, 93–​94, 170, 225, 227 Technological Knowledge  see TK technological pedagogical content knowledge see TPACK; TPCK technological pedagogical knowledge see TPK technological social-​behavior ­knowledge see TSB technology 1–​3, 4–​10, 147, 158, 242 technology integration 5, 11–​13, 89–​90, 110, 111, 147–​148, 150–​156, 157–​159, 243–​246; digital ­technologies 69–​72, 73, 77, 80, 81; iPads 13, 242, 246, 247–​248, 249–​253; wearable technology 12, 149–​150, 153, 155, 156, 169; see also Sport Education model Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, New Zealand 210 Tennant, L. K. 33 TGfU (Teaching Games for Understanding) 12, 117, 126, 139–​140, 210; videogames 125, 126, 127 Thomas, T. 243, 251 Thompson, A. G. 34, 40–​41 Thorpe, R. 126, 136, 137, 138, 139 Tim (PE teacher, case study) 129, 130–​131, 135, 136–​137, 138, 139 Tittenberger, P. 206 TK (Technological Knowledge) 4, 246 Tondeur, J. 77 Toner, J. 171 tournament website 113, 114 TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge) 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 26–​27, 110–​111, 151–​152, 154, 182 TPCK (technological pedagogical content knowledge) 5, 7, 243, 246, 248, 251 TPK (technological pedagogical ­knowledge) 5–​6, 26–​27, 112, 121 trampoline skills (study) 25–​26, 34 transparent technologies 12, 147–​148, 149–​150, 152, 154, 157, 158, 159 TSB (technological social-​behavior knowledge) 152, 157, 158, 159

UK (United Kingdom) 48, 55 Unkefer, L. 251 USA (study) 90–​91 Valcke, M. 77 Van Amsterdam, N. 167–​168 van Braak, J. 77 Van der Kamp, J. 11, 12, 35, 36 Van der Mars, H. 91, 93, 94, 97, 107 Van Doodewaard, C. 12, 166, 167 Van Driel, G. 12, 182, 194 Van Hilvoorde, I. 35, 36 Van Keer, H. 77 Van Rossum, T. 11, 61 Verheul, M. 63 Vertes, K. 25, 34 video analysis 184–​186, 197–​200 video assessment 19, 60, 249 video delay applications 39 video demonstrations 19, 20, 23–​24, 56 video feedback 1, 8, 9, 19, 22–​24, 175, 191, 248–​249; effectiveness 27–​28; self-​controlled 11, 32, 33–​34, 35–​37, 39–​42, 43; self-​modeling 24–​25, 26; surveillance technologies 170–​173; video analysis 184–​186, 197–​200 videogame design 12, 125, 126, 127–​128, 129, 135–​136, 138–​139 videogames 12, 125, 127–​128, 135–​136, 137–​138 video images 2, 5, 6, 8, 19, 60 video instruction 170, 173–​174, 175, 191–​192 video recordings 1, 58–​59 video self-​modeling 8, 11, 19–​20, 24–​26, 27–​28 video technologies 12, 19, 27–​28, 49, 64, 170, 175 virtual reality classroom simulation 13, 225–​226, 227–​228, 235, 238–​240; Mursion 227, 228–​235; off-​task behaviors 236–​237; reflection-​in-​ action 235–​236; snapshot views 237–​238 vodcasts 23–​24 volleyball game (study) 24 volleyball season, Sport Education model 94–​101, 107–​108 Wainwright, N. 77 Walinga, W. 12, 182, 194

284 Index wearable technology 12, 149–​150, 153, 155, 156; Fitbits 149, 169 Web 2.0 109, 206, 207 Weir, T. 21 Wenger, E. 245 West, R. 247 wiki educational platform 262–​264, 265–​267, 268 wikis 12, 98, 109, 112–​114, 115–​116, 119

Wright, N. 211 Wulf, G. 41–​42 Yego, J. (javelin thrower, Kenya) 5 Yi Chow, J. 129 YouTube 5, 173 Zhang, T. 11 Zimmerman, B. J. 33, 37, 39, 40