Gunn Nyberg

Exploring ‘what’ to learn in physical education

Purpose: The aim of this article is to show a need for explicating ‘what’ there is to learn in physical education (PE) with a particular focus on learning to move with the meaning potential seen as integral to moving. Further, the aim is to provide an example of exploring ‘bodily knowing’ from the perspective of practical epistemology as outlined by researchers such as Michael Polanyi, Allan Janik and Gilbert Ryle. Background: Learning has been a prominent issue within the PE research for quite some time. Overviews of research show that the object of learning, the ‘what-aspect’ within the didactic triangle, has been taken into account, though the obvious focus is the ‘how-aspect’, as in how learning occurs. In PE, the ‘what-aspect’, according to teachers as well as pupils, is vague, and the aim of the subject is expressed in terms of ‘fun-aspects’ rather than ‘what-aspects’. Taking a standpoint from research concerning aims, content and important knowledge in PE in Sweden, with reference to international research, this article will shed light upon physical activity as a taken-for-granted content, conceptualized either as an instrument for fulfilling the demands of the contemporary health-discourse or an instrument for performing well in sports. In doing this, the article will argue for the urgent need of explicating what capabilities students are supposed to develop in PE. Key concepts: The concept of knowledge in relation to PE will be discussed. Drawing on Janiks discussion of the epistemological structure of practical professional knowledge, emphasizing the importance of making the base of knowledge explicit, capability to move will be regarded as an object of learning, a possible ‘what-aspect’, in PE. To overcome the boundaries between practical and theoretical knowledge, Polanyis concept knowing will be used. Conceiving knowings as embracing several aspects of knowledge as well as comprising both mental and physical processes, knowings in human movement will be elaborated. Conclusion: As our initial overview of research about ways of reasoning about knowledge and learning in PE suggested, there is an imminent need to systematically develop a language for learning in PE where what to learn, the specific knowings that PE is nurturing, is paramount, and where this ‘what’ is not reduced to superficial knowledge about health issues or physical skills. We believe that exploring the ‘knowing how’ aspect of learning will highlight potential ‘knowings’ in human movement. Following the concept ‘knowing’ as in line with Ryles ‘knowing how’, not separating mental and physical skills, can serve as an analytical tool and a starting point for articulating examples of ‘knowings’ as objects of learning and thus providing opportunities to conceptualize human movement in terms of knowing and learning.

Developing a ‘somatic velocimeter’ – the practical knowledge of freeskiers

The aim of this paper is to explore what it means to know how to move and how this kind of knowing could be understood and articulated. As an example, this study explores what it means to know complex movements, from the perspective of the mover. The paper discusses the potential of the findings for providing ideas for both teaching and learning capability to move in the context of physical education (PE). The knowing involved in moving is explored in the practice of free skiing, characterised by a tradition of learning movements where practitioners have a strong commitment to learning how to move in complex, different and new ways. In this study, knowing how to move is seen in line with Michael Polanyi’s theory of tacit knowing where knowing is always rooted in personal experience and comprising what Ryle calls ‘knowing how’ as well as ‘knowing that’. The findings show that the free skiers have developed specific kinds of knowing comprising a tacit component which is possible to articulate to a certain extent. Their capability to move can be conceived as complex knowing, comprising theoretical as well as practical aspects. If the educational objective in PE is expressed as developing ways of knowing such as those exemplified in this study, the subject content or at least part of it, could be described as movement education in which the intrinsic value of knowing movements could be recognised.

‘It doesn't matter how they move really, as long as they move.’ Physical education teachers on developing their students’ movement capabilities

ABSTRACT Background: Movement is key in physical education, but the educational value of moving is sometimes obscure. In Sweden, recent school reforms have endeavoured to introduce social constructionist concepts of knowledge and learning into physical education, where the movement capabilities of students are in focus. However, this means introducing a host of new and untested concepts to the physical education teacher community. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to explore how Swedish physical education teachers reason about helping their students develop movement capability. Participants, setting and research design. The data are taken from a research project conducted in eight Swedish secondary schools called ‘Physical education and health – a subject for learning?’ in which students and teachers were interviewed and physical education lessons were video-recorded. This article draws on data from interviews with the eight participating teachers, five men and three women. The teachers were interviewed partly using a stimulated recall technique where the teachers were asked to comment on video clips from physical education lessons where they themselves act as teachers. Data analysis. A discourse analysis was conducted with a particular focus on the ensemble of more or less regulated, deliberate and finalised ways of doing things that characterise the eight teachers’ approach to helping the students develop their movement capabilities. Findings. The interviews indicate that an activation discourse (‘trying out’ and ‘being active’) dominates the teachers’ ways of reasoning about their task (a focal discourse). When the teachers were specifically asked about how they can help the students improve their movement capacities, a sport discourse (a referential discourse) was expressed. This discourse, which is based on the standards of excellence of different sports, conditions what the teachers see as (im)possible to do due to time limitations and a wish not to criticise the students publicly. The mandated holistic social constructionist discourse about knowledge and learning becomes obscure (an intruder discourse) in the sense that the teachers interpret it from the point of view of a dualist discourse, where ‘knowledge’ (theory) and ‘skill’ (practice) are divided. Conclusions. Physical education teachers recoil from the task of developing the students’ movement capabilities due to certain conditions of impossibility related to the discursive terrain they are moving in. The teachers see as their primary objective the promotion of physical activity – now and in the future; they conceptualise movement capability in such a way that emphasising the latter would jeopardise their possibilities of realising the primary objective. Should the aim be to reinforce the social constructionist national curriculum, where capability to move is suggested to be an attempt at formulating a concept of knowledge that includes both propositional and procedural aspects and which is not based on the standards of excellence of either sport techniques or motor ability, then teachers will need support to interpret the national curriculum from a social constructionist perspective. Further, alternative standards of excellence as well as a vocabulary for articulating these will have to be developed.

Exploring “knowings” in human movement The practical knowledge of pole-vaulters

The aim of this paper is to explore and develop ways to describe what there is to know, from the perspective of the one who knows, when knowing how to carry out a complex movement. The paper will challenge the distinction between mental and physical skills, drawing on theories of tacit knowing (Polanyi, 1969), knowing how (Ryle, 1949) and knowing-in-action (Schön, 1991), together with empirical data from the context of elite sport. One assumption is that exploring knowing in movement, in this context, can contribute to developing students’ movement education in physical education (PE). Pole-vaulting provides examples of what there is to know, in terms of embodied capabilities possible to explicate and develop as an educational objective in PE, irrespective of the context of competitive sports. Explicating the knowing (or capabilities) involved in the “capability to move,” as exemplified in this study, could emphasize an educational aim concerning practical knowledge, such as knowing in movement, and not necessarily specific skills related to competitive sport activities.

What Would Physical Educators Know About Movement Education? A Review of Literature, 2006–2016

ABSTRACT This review article identifies the conceptual underpinnings of current movement research in physical education. Using a hermeneutic approach, four analogies for movement education are identified: the motor program analogy, the neurobiological systems analogy, the instinctive movement analogy, and the embodied exploration analogy. Three issues related to logical consistency and its relevance for movement education are raised. The first relates to tensions between the analogies and educational policy. The second concerns differences among the four analogies. The third issue relates to the appropriateness of specific analogies for dealing with certain movement contexts. In each case, strategies for improvement are considered. The article concludes with a brief summary, along with reflections on issues that require further attention.