European Journal of Educational Research Volume 5, Issue 4, 189 - 200. ISSN: 2165-8714 http://www.eu-jer.com/ Researching Sport Education Appreciatively Shane Pill * Peter Hastie Flinders University, Australia Auburn University, USA Abstract: In order to plan and enact appropriate learning environments in physical education (PE) teachers are increasingly directed to models based practice. The Sport Education model is one of these models for PE curriculum and teaching design that informs the content and pedagogical direction of sport teaching in PE. Despite Sport Education being well researched internationally, there are few examples of research consideration of this model in Australian PE in the last ten years. In this paper the aim is to appreciatively examine two secondary school PE teachers use of the Sport Education model in the context of their familiarisation of the new Australian Curriculum for Health and Physical Education. At the same time, exploring the use of Appreciative Inquiry to examine models based practice in PE was also an aim of the study. Data were collected from pre and post interviews with the teachers and an end of unit survey of the Year 9 students undertaking the Sport Education unit. The Sport Education model was found to be most suitable to teaching for student evidence of the personal and social skills elements of the Achievement Standard. Appreciative Inquiry was found to be suitable for foregrounding existing examples of teacher use of models based practice, highlighting what it is about the teachers that led them to stay with the model when the literature particular to Australian PE suggests mostly a continuation of the “traditional” physical education method. Keywords: physical, education, sport, appreciative, inquiry To cite this article: Pill, S., & Hastie, P. (2016). Researching Sport Education Appreciatively. European Journal of Educational Research, 5(4), 189-200. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.5.4.189 Introduction within the context of a prescribed curriculum framework. Curriculum frameworks contain clear Research concerning the Sport Education curriculum descriptions of student learning outcomes and model (SEM) has shown unequivocal results on achievement standards at “benchmark” levels along a students personal and social development, but continuum of achievement from entry (Foundation research is scarce about the limits, constraints and Year) to completion (Year 10) of compulsory school possibilities of the model for impact on student education. Research considering the impact of teacher learning outcomes (Araujo, Mesquita & Hastie, 2014). use of the SEM on student learning outcomes is limited Furthermore, there has been little research into the (Araujo et al., 2014; Hastie, Calderon, Palao & Ortega, application of the SEM and the achievement of students 2011). This research is relevant as it will address the learning outcomes in Australian secondary schools in gap in research related to student demonstration of the past ten-fifteen years, a time marked by the evidence of achievement of learning outcomes by the introduction of standardised curriculum frameworks study’s consideration of the utility of the model for the within educational jurisdictions (Australian states and student achievement standards of the Australian territories) to coordinate teaching and student learning Curriculum HPE at standard 6, Year 9-10. across education sites and sectors. Indeed, there has been no research consideration of the SEM within the Further significance of this study is derived from the context of student demonstration of the new Australian theoretical framework for the study. To date, SEM Curriculum for Health and Physical Education student research (and indeed, the majority of physical achievement standards (Australian Curriculum and education research) has been conducted through the Assessment Authority (ACARA), 2016). lens of critical inquiry. Research has either proceeded from the identification of a teaching and learning Although research has evaluated the impact of the problem and the subsequent framing of a research application of the SEM from practical implementation question that leads to the use of the SEM as solution to perspectives and its impact on various dimensions of the question, or from the evaluative “verses” student learning, in Australia the teacher choice to proposition that the SEM is possibly better than an develop curricula to reflect the aims of the SEM sits alternative, or to what is existing practice for some ______________________ * Corresponding author: Dr. Shane Pill, Associate Professor Physical Education and Sport, Flinders University, Australia Email: [email protected] 190  PILL & HASTIE / Researching Sport Education Appreciatively dimension of the teaching and learning equation. There major philosophy of the SEM is disruption of the multi- has been no research consideration of the SEM from activity program format through units that are longer the positive ontology of appreciative inquiry. than commonly programmed in PE, and which through Appreciative inquiry is an appropriate theoretical this extended nature, enable greater depth of content framework for this study as the teachers involved with coverage (Kinchin, 2006). The SEM is arguably the the research were long-time advocates of the SEM, and most researched and validated of the models based had established the use of the model in their teaching. curriculum and pedagogical programs available in the The research emerged from the teachers’ desire to literature. Five major reviews of the literature are understand the model and its impact on student available (Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005; Kinchin, 2006; learning outcomes from the teachers’ implementation Hastie, Martínez, & Calderón, 2011; Hastie, 2012; of the SEM. The study from which this paper originates Araujo et al., 2014). These reviews suggest that was thus not concerned with educational change per students are attracted to the model, with many se, but with the educative potential of the SEM within preferring the model compared to the PE they had the context of the Australian Curriculum HPE, and previously experienced (Kinchin, 2006; Hastie, 2012), specifically, the curriculum dimensions related to particularly for those often less inclined to personal and social skill learning associated with the participation (Hastie et al., 2011b). Enhanced curriculum sub-strand: Learning through Movement enthusiasm for PE from both boys and girls, and (ACARA, 2016). increase in student effort in PE during SEM units has also been noted (Kinchin, 2006). Generally, students Background are positive about team affiliation and the opportunity for specific role responsibility within the team and the The Sport Education Model opportunity to contribute to the ongoing format of the sport season (Kinchin, 2006). In 1994 Siedentop introduced in text the SEM. The contextualisation of key features of community sport in The research suggests that the majority of teachers PE provided by the SEM responded to Siedentop’s introduced to the SEM like and endorse it (Kinchin, research finding that sport in PE was typically 2006). While the SEM is acknowledged for its potential decontextualised from the rituals, values, histories and to be a curriculum model that addresses common traditions, and culture that give meaning and social issues of equity and inclusion in PE, research reports significance to community sport (Kinchin, 2006; some students still feel excluded in class contexts Siedentop, Hastie & van der Mars, 2011). PE consisting where there are roles (such as coach or team manager) largely of the teaching of isolated sport skills in that have more substance and/or influence on the activities mostly decontextualised from game play as season format than other roles (Wallhead & O’Sullivan, well as the absence of the identifying features typically 2005; Kinchin, 2006; Hastie et al., 2011b). Teachers found in community sport reasonably leads to the perceive the SEM as effective in developing personal conclusion that the teaching of sport in PE is often and social skills. The SEM’s essential feature of team “incomplete” (Siedentop, 1994; Kinchen, 2006; Pill, affiliation that provides persistent group membership 2015). is central in the SE model providing a context for personal and social skill development (Wallhead & The SEM contextualises sport teaching in PE through O’Sullivan, 2005; Farias, Hastie & Mesquita, 2015). six major features. The features provide a “design specification” of essential components that identify the The development of competence is also one of the model (Hastie, 2012, p. 1). The six features are: objectives of the SEM. Research suggests teachers report perceived improvements in skill, and that while 1. Activities are arranged in the format of a season of evidence of improvement of discrete skills to date is sport; equivocal there is burgeoning evidence of the SEMs 2. Team affiliation is established by teams that endure efficacy for tactical development, decision making and for the duration of the season; game play competency (Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005; 3. Formal competition is included in the season format Hastie et al., 2011b; Hastie, 2012). Research on game 4. Records are kept to recognise and reward individual competence using quasi-experimental design and/or team attainment; comparing direct instruction to the SEM showed that 5. The season of sport is finalised with a culminating although both models resulted in positive changes in event (like a “World Cup”, or finals play-offs); and skill ability the SEM elicited greater increases in game 6. Enthusiasm for sport is encouraged by the use of play knowledge and performance (Hastie, 2012). prompts such as team names, uniforms, team songs, However, research evidence concerning the SEMs team posters, team announcements and impact on student learning outcome achievement is newsletters. still warranted (Hastie et al., 2011b; Araujo et al., 2014) (Siedentop, 1994; Kinchin, 2006) and practitioners have questioned the validity of the SEM as a context for skill learning outcomes (Wallhead The six features were identified to enable PE to mimic & O’Sullivan, 2005). community sport in an authentic way (Hastie, 2012). A European Journal of Educational Research 191 Appreciative Inquiry inherently “real” about any social form. Results from AI’s are therefore more elaborative although Enright, Hill, Sandford and Gard (2014) stated that PE generalisations are still possible. AI shifts the “scholars have certainly worked hard to identify and interpretivist epistemology common of qualitative understand what is broken”, suggesting a research from problems to possibilities (Bushe, 2011; “preoccupation with failure and a problem-focussed Pill, 2013). Problems are not ignored in an AI as they orientation towards educational change” (p.914). This emerge through the generative manner of the AI four is a provocative claim, however, there is as Enright et step process (Bushe, 2011; Raymond & Hall, 2008), but al. (2014) suggested a well-documented research body a distinctive outcome of an AI is the development of a setting out a continuing litany of failure in PE. This positive anticipatory image of the future (Cooperrider, body of research addresses questionable pedagogy, 1990). Providing significance for this study, there has problematic for learning curriculum design, low levels been very little use of AI in physical education of PE teacher pedagogical and content knowledge, and research. Enright et al. (2014) and Fiorentino (2012) low learning effectiveness from dysfunctional multi- have argued the case for AI in PE research, and Pill activity program configurations and causal learning (2014) has provided the only research to empirically settings. Giles and Anderson (2008) claimed that use AI, in an examination of PE teachers’ use of a game- education research is frequently framed by, and centred approach. presented in, deficit language and messaging to education discourse generally, and so the treatment of Method PE curriculum and pedagogy as problems to be solved is not necessarily unique in the field of education. AI is a form of qualitative research where inductive logic is used to interpret the experiences of the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) emerged as a conceptual participants and the meanings that arise. Non- reimagining of critically orientated action research in probability purposive sampling was used as the the 1980’s to provide another way of thinking about participants revealed themselves to the researcher to “change” research projects (Cooperrider & Srivastva, be interested in researching their own SE curriculum 1987). Rather than begin with the identification and practice. Unlike probability sampling, the study did not articulation of a problem, AI commences with a focus evolve from a goal to achieve objectivity in the about organisations and/or individuals “at their best” selection of participants for the aim to necessarily by initially asking questions about success and make generalisations to the wider population of strengths. A premise of AI is that individuals and interest (PE teachers). Instead, the evolutionary nature organisations will move towards what they talk about of a study following AI protocols and the workings of and study, at least initially, what works and how to the study participants were of initial interest and the amplify that study – and so in an AI process it is making of generalisations from the sample a desired presumed that it is best to begin by focusing on what is but a secondary consideration. AI was also considered working (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987; Cooperrider, appropriate for the study as it was investigating Whitney & Stavros, 2003). The shift from problem teachers who were long time adherents of the SEM in initiated research to an appreciative perspective is PE and as such, the SEM was not positioned as the claimed to provide greater transformational potential potential solution to a PE pedagogical or curriculum (Cooperrider & Srivasta, 1987). The AI process entails problem in this context. This study was therefore an four steps. These are (1) identify the best of what is, (2) example of an AI that had as one of its aims to elevate identify what might be, (3) collaborative dialogue to the organisational consciousness of the participants achieve participant consent about what should be, and (Whitney, 2004). The use of AI in this study is also (4) collective experimentation to discover what can be. consistent with the use of AI to identify instances of The “4-D Method” is the most common expression of leading practice and the nuances associated with that the four steps: practice in order to inspire change with others who can identify with the stories of practice the research  Discover the best of what is occurring; presents (Pill, 2014). Hammond (1998) proposed that  Dream of what is possible when things are at their one of the assumptions of AI is that language creates best; our reality. Studies such as this where existing  Design possibility statements that give life and examples of use of models based practice in contexts meaning to the dream of what is possible; and where teachers believe the model provides curriculum  Deliver personal commitments to take action effectiveness may provide a platform for envisaging better PE practice and balance the “pedagogical crises” Where much qualitative research is underpinned by and “PE as broken” narrative suggested by Enright et logical empiricism that assumes that social phenomena al. (2014). are sufficiently stable to be replicable and therefore permit generalisations, AI on the other hand, is The study thus occurred in the “natural” setting underpinned by a socio-rationalist assumption that (Brooker, Kirk, Braiuka & Brangrove, 2000) of the social phenomena are unstable as so there is nothing secondary school PE and the curriculum implementation objectives of the teachers. There were, 192  PILL & HASTIE / Researching Sport Education Appreciatively therefore, parallels between the use of AI to organise strong advocates of the SEM, but mentioned working this study and the pedagogue research tradition with other colleagues who were reticent about the SEM (Bishop, 1992) of the teaching experiment which and held reservations about having to use the model, involves researchers working with teachers to study possibly only using it because it was required by Tony. their teaching and students responses to the curriculum (Rovegno, Nevett & Babiarz, 2001; Hastie & The teachers initially met with the chief investigator Curtner-Smith, 2006; Casey & Hastie, 2011). (CI), author 1, to discuss the tenets of the SEM and how they existed in the teacher’s unit planning to confirm Teacher data that the teachers were in fact using the SEM. This verification included the teachers providing the CI with The two participants in the study were “specialist” copies of the unit plans for the classes. Further, the CI secondary PE teachers in the same co-educational made two visits to the school to observe both classes secondary school (Year 8-12) and both teaching during the Sport Education unit. Practically, the CI different Year 9 PE girls’ classes at the time of the adopted a guiding and supporting role typical of the study. The participants provided informed consent for collaborative nature of AI. An audit trail was created by participation following school consent and institutional the CI to track fidelity to the SEM during the units of research board ethics approval for the study. To work (Figure 1). The role of the CI supporting the protect the identity of the teachers and the school, the teachers with their detailed forward planning by pseudonyms Tony and Chris will be used. Tony had reviewing with them the characteristics of the SEM and been using the SEM in his PE teaching “since the how they existed in each unit of work, the ongoing 1990’s”, while Chris was introduced to the model when conversation through the unit of work and site visits is arriving at this school and having to use the model as described by Penney, Clarke & Quill (2005) as a “key Tony, in his long standing role as Head of Department, role for university staff” (p.26) researching had mandated a unit of SEM in PE in Term 4 for all Year collaboratively with teachers. 8 and 9 classes. Both teachers identified themselves as Unit Preparation Meeting with CI Verification of understanding and inclusion of the six features of the SEM in the units of work. Mapping to ACHPE Student Achievement Standard for Yr9-10 Teacher Planning Teachers provided CI with the unit plans for the SEM units of work. Unit Delivery Extended unit of work 9 weeks x 2 lessons per week. Team Affiliation Students stayed in the same team for the duration of the unit of work. Multiple Roles Students allocated roles in addition to the role of “player” Teacher managed student performance in the roles Season of Sport Unit of work (netball and badminton) organised as season of sport with pre-season focus on technical and tactical skill development followed by competition. Formal Competition Unit of work included a season of competition. Record Keeping Team performances recorded and a premiership ladder created Student roles reported on their progress via a sports board Culminating Event Sport seasons finished with a finals series between teams. Enthusiasm Teams developed shared identity by creating team names, chants and mottos. Figure 1. The Sport Education unit implementation audit trail for model fidelity European Journal of Educational Research 193 The pre-unit and post-unit interviews and data analysis Delivering adhered to the 4-D model (Giles & Kung, 2010; Pill, 2014). The questions used in each of the interviews are  What will you continue to do? shown in Tables 1 and 2. The 4-D model was explained  What will you do more of? to the participants. Typical of AI, the CI took notes  What will you do differently? during the interviews to enable some collaborative theory building to occur during the interview. Designing Participant checking occurred throughout the interview and the themes identified audited by the  What are you most pleased about? interview participant for accuracy. The interviews were also recorded and later transcribed. Dreaming Following transcription, each interview was treated as  What is the future of Sport Education in your a single data set initially searched for recurring topics, school? words or phrases to check and refine where necessary  You are at the end of your career. You have clearly the themes developed during the interviews (Brogden been a leader in implementation of the Sport & Knopp Bilken, 2007). The transcription of the Education model, for which you are being interview and any refinement to themes were checked recognised. What does that citation say? with the participants. The four interviews were then re-analysed as a single data set to enable further data reduction and refinement of themes, permitting central categories to emerge via constant comparative analysis Student Data (Gribich, 2007; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The second author reviewed the data, coding and themes at each Data was also collected from the students via an end of stage of analysis. unit survey. The class teachers co-constructed the survey with the CI to enable the class teachers to get Table 1. Teacher Pre Unit Teaching Interview feedback on aspects of the SEM unit that were of interest to them as well as to the study. The questions Discovering were peer checked by author 2, and are listed in Table 3. Each class was a single gender girls’ class with 22  When were you introduced to the Sport Education students. Both classes ran for two, sixty-minute lessons model? per week for nine weeks during Term 4 of the school  What initially attracted you to the model? year. Tony’s class chose to do Netball and Chris’s class  Can you describe a peak moment in your teaching chose to do Badminton, with 17 students from Tony’s directly attributable to the use of the Sport (N=17/22) returning consent and the completed Education model? survey, and 10 students from Chris’s class (N=10/22), for a total of 27 returns (N=27/44). Analysis of the data Dreaming involved the CI in constant comparative analysis (Gribich, 2007; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), whereby the  What are your hopes for this unit of work? data was reduced and organised by coding into conceptual categories, followed by analysis of the codes Designing for regularities to generate themes, and then finally a re-reading of the raw data to select statements that  What will you do to facilitate those objectives and illustrate the themes (Gratton & Jones, 2007). The outcomes? second author reviewed the data, coding and themes at  Delivering each stage of analysis.  Why do you believe you have so enthusiastically adopted the Sport Education model? Table 3. Student Survey Questions What was your team role? Table 2. Teacher Post Unit Teaching Interview Did you like having a team role (please explain)? Discovering How did having a team role make you feel (please  What role did the Sport Education model play in explain)? student demonstration of the ACHPE student achievement standard - Students demonstrate What did you like or dislike about having a team role leadership, fair play and cooperation across a (please explain)? range of movement contexts What was your committee role? 194  PILL & HASTIE / Researching Sport Education Appreciatively things if you need to get a better idea if students are Did you like having a committee role (please explain)? achieving the curriculum outcomes” (Tony, end of unit interview). How did having a committee role make you feel (please explain)? The teachers concluded that the SEM was appropriate for the design of learning that enables students to What did you like or dislike about having a committee develop and then demonstrate the selected element of role (please explain)? the ACHPE. Central to this suitability was the sharing of responsibility between the students and the teachers Did having team and/ committee roles in PE this term necessitated by the role responsibility element of the help you develop better personal and social skills (like SEM, meaning that students were purposefully placed team-work, cooperation)? (please explain)? by the teacher in contexts where they had to work together in both design and delivery of the season of Was your relationship with your teacher different in PE sport. This is captured in this quote from Tony’s end of this term? (please explain) unit interview: Was your relationship with your classmates different The teacher steps off centre stage and students this term? (please explain)? have to work things out more for themselves […] students have to be invested in designing as Did you find greater opportunity for game well as doing [ …] They have ownership of participation? (please explain)? the season for it to work. It is their unit of work, and there is real life learning. It is not artificial like Did the team and committee roles enabled you to a lot of phys-ed lessons are artificial. There are demonstrate evidence of achievement of the Australian premiership points. They are undertaking roles. Curriculum HPE Achievement Standards set for the They get criticism from other students if they unit of work? (please explain)? don’t do a role properly. Chris concluded that “when you came to assess it, it Results was really obvious, you were really clear about what they had done, or maybe, what they hadn’t done […] Teacher data the questions about social capability and the things that sit in that aspect of the achievement standards come through so strongly in a SEPEP unit” (Chris, end Tony was an enthusiast for the SEM from the first time of unit interview). Tony believed the “all girl” class he was introduced to the model at a professional context was also important in the success of the unit learning event. In Tony’s words, “I went to the PD day specifically being able to reveal and further develop and thought ‘oh well’ let’s give it a go, I am always open personal and social skills. “The girls said that they were to new ideas. When I go back to school, I just found that more willing to try things without the boys present. It some of the results were results I hadn’t got from any was especially important for the less assured students other form of phys-ed pedagogy” Tony, (pre-unit who could extend themselves without feeling silly in interview). Like Tony, Chris did not encounter the SEM front of boisterous girls” (Tony, end of unit interview). while undertaking PE teacher education. Chris’s Chris reflected that, introduction to the SEM was beginning at the school where this study occurred and the SEM was an existing part of the PE curriculum. “I saw it and liked it straight “I think this model allows the educative purpose away for the benefits” (Chris, pre-unit interview). proposition of the Australian Curriculum to be seen a lot more. Criticism of PE traditionally has been that it is just a bit about play and sport. This is clearly about The propositions developed from analysis of the sport, but there is no way someone could walk in and teacher 4-D interview data are summarised in Table 4. not see the educative purpose of what is happening” The necessity for the students to be responsible and (Chris, end of unit interview). accountable to self and each other when they take on roles for the SEM to really work as intended feeds into the proposition that where this student “buy in” occurs, It was clear Tony and Chris shared a similar assessment is potentially more effective as the teacher enthusiasm for personal continuous improvement has more opportunity to listen and observe students. stemming from a desire to enhance student learning For example, Tony noted: “students take on one of the outcomes. Attending professional learning events, roles and so they have a sense of ownership which regular reflection on practice and review of units of enables them to more honestly achieve those (personal work, and a preparedness to learn from others and social skill) outcomes”, while also noting “roles emerged from this enthusiasm. Both teachers offered, allow the teacher to stand back and observe more. You however, they felt different from other PE teachers know you can then reflect, and prompt, and change they had worked with. For example, reflecting on why he hadn’t come across more teachers using the SEM European Journal of Educational Research 195 and the reluctance of some of the PE teachers at the “I think a number of years ago there was a big push. It school to embrace the model, Tony offered, “I just was taken up by some people, but if my understanding wonder if a lot of physical education teachers are in a is right, the funding dried up. I think the sporting comfort zone where as long as the students are bodies drove it and then the funding dried up and there reasonably active, no one cares.” (Tony, pre-unit has only been dribs and drabs of it since. I guess there interview). Chris also reflected on experiencing PE hasn’t been the champions of it, has there […] You need teachers who lacked enthusiasm for the SEM, including to have the opportunity at conferences to see it in colleagues “who feel they can’t do SEPEP for ten weeks action” (Tony, end of unit interview) because they would get bored, and the kids would get bored” (Chris, pre-unit interview). Table 4. 4-D Teacher Propositions Both teachers acknowledged a need in future to place What should be (Dream)? more detail in role descriptions and ongoing oversight into some of roles such as media, statistician and It is necessary for the students to be responsible and publicist – what Chris and Tony both described as the accountable to self and each other when they take on more “nebulous roles”. Both also felt compromised in roles for the Sport Education model to really work as their capacity to balance the three SEM aims of intended. competent, literate and enthusiastic even though the unit of work went for the entire nine week duration of Scaffolding to provide structure and support for the school term. The desire to achieve maximum student role responsibilities. activity time each lesson was balanced against time required for team meetings, role group meetings and What could be (Design)? time to allow the students to administer the season. This was in part addressed by adding “PE Homework” Assessment is potentially more effective as the teacher to the unit of work which involved the students has more opportunity to listen and observe students. meeting, preparing and producing for the role responsibilities. Sport Education model more accepted by the other PE teachers. Tony reflected that, “there was a push on the model in the 1990’s, and funding around for various sports” What was (Discover)? (Tony, pre-unit interview), referring to the 1995 Sport Education in Physical Education (SEPEP) Program Some roles are more prominent than others during the (Alexander, Taggart, Medland & Thorpe, 1995) season resource and the professional learning funded by the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) that accompanied Only two lessons per week means compromises are the release of the resource. “The SEPEP program was made in weighting of Sport Education features also really well resourced. It did give you a bit of a head contribution to class time and student engagement start” (Tony, pre-unit interview). Tony was introduced to the SEM at this time, and he reflected on the Sport Education model makes the job of assessment of importance of this professional learning in shaping his student accomplishment of the personal and social skill attitude to give the model a try. elements of the Achievement Standard easier “A guy came in for a couple of hours. He was the PE The potential for more explicit teaching of personal and Senior at a secondary school. He was fairly old grizzled social skills is the motivation for adoption of the Sport sort of guy. He had tried it and extolled the benefits of Education model it. That picked my interest. You know, someone who has been around for a long time, a grizzled old veteran The Sport Education model unit can be less work in who didn’t take things on lightly” (Tony, pre-unit class as you are facilitating, listening and observing, interview) and adding direction and information as you have prepared and enabled the students to have role However, Chris indicated a relative absence of SEM responsibility. professional learning opportunities in more recent times, with conferences more likely to emphasise Preparation and planning for student role game-based models such as the Game Sense approach. responsibility takes more teacher time out of class than Chris believed that, “Need to make sure SEPEP sessions other PE units of work. are provided at conferences. It needs to be consistently ensured teachers are hearing about it and having the What next (Deliver)? (PD) opportunity” (Chris, end of unit interview). This perspective was shared by Tony, who suggested that; Sport Education model needs a “champion” in Australia 196  PILL & HASTIE / Researching Sport Education Appreciatively Student data unit of work, as did their personal and social skills. For example, “Yes, because we got to make our own The student data in Table 5 revealed that students decisions and take responsibility for our actions” liked the extra responsibilities of the roles as helping (Student 14, Tony’s class). There was only one others was valued, and having a role made them feel respondent to the contrary, and this was because “I more important and valued in the class. However, there don’t know my mark” (Student 1, Chris’s class). In were two negative responses concerning role summary, students believed the SEM for the unit of responsibility indicating more homework required to work enabled them to have more impact on decision prepare for the role and having extra responsibility making about the PE experience. This is captured by was disliked. For example, typical of the responses the following comment: “Because of our team and about the need for PE homework to prepare for the committee roles we had more input into decisions roles, “We would often forget to do some of the media made and the way the season was planned and played work because we didn’t want PE homework” (Student out” (Student 8, Chris’s class). 3, Chris’s class). Students experienced positive feelings about role responsibility, mostly associated with being Table 5. Themes from the student survey able to have some leadership and be of help to others Students liked the extra responsibility of the team role making them feel important. However, two responses indicted that some students felt extra pressure. This There were negative aspects of role responsibility feeling is captured by this quote: “I felt there was even more pressure in (sic) my shoulders on top of studies” Role responsibilities did help to further develop (Student 3, Tony’s class). Of a similar type, this student’s teamwork and organisation abilities. response by a different student to the question “What did you like or dislike about having a team role?” The Sport Education model did not necessarily change further emphasises this feeling of “pressure” – “There the student-teacher relationship. was a lot of pressure to do your job because you didn’t want to let your team down” (Student 5, Tony’s class). The Sport Education model changed students’ relationship with each other. Overwhelmingly, the students mostly believed that the role responsibilities provided a context by which they Students believed the Sport Education model enabled developed teamwork and organisation skills, and to a them to show evidence of accomplishment of the lesser extent and depending on the role, leadership elements of the ACHPE Achievement Standard mapped skills. Those students in coaching roles were most to the unit of work. likely to indicate they believed their leadership skills had been developed. However, other students expressed feeling more “needed” because of the addition of the team and committee role Discussion responsibilities into the PE unit of work. The SEM was not part of the two teachers PE teacher Students who felt their relationship with the teacher education. Tony noted that there was a “push on model was different in this SEM model unit of work compared in 1990’s” through which he was introduced to the to other PE units felt they were being treated “more model, and there was indeed a large scale research like adults” and had more input into decision making project and accompanying professional learning about the unit of work, which they valued. However, program in Australia (Alexander, Taggart & Thorpe, equally totaled was the number of students that did not 1997; Alexander, Taggart & Luckman, 1998; Alexander believe their relationship with the teacher changed, & Luckman, 2001). The SEM was described as an either because they already had a good relationship “exemplary context for pursuing a broader range of with the teacher or they just didn’t feel it had changed. learning outcomes than PE has traditionally sought and However, most student believed the peer relationships achieved” (Alexander et al., 2001, p243). The push on in the class had changed. “We became much closer” the SEM at this time was likened to a “crusade” (Student 6, Tony’s class) and “I got closer to my class (Alexander et al., 1998). Tracking the path of the SEM mates through working together” (Student 1, Chris’s since the period of the SEPEP research project is class) typify the responses. difficult as there is scarce reporting in the literature of SEM initiatives in the Australian context in the last ten Mostly the students believed that the game format years (Pill, 2008, 2010; Spittle & Bryne, 2009). This improved opportunities for participation in the game perhaps add some support to the view from the and got more people involved. The three responses teachers in this study that the momentum surrounding contradicting this theme all came from Tony’s netball the SEM has not been sustained since the trialling and class, with two of those respondents not liking the research by Edith Cowan University’s Sport and modified game, “because we wanted to play netball” Physical Activity Research Centre (SPARC) with (Student 9, Tony’s class). However, students believed Australian Sports Commission (ASC) funding, with the that their sport skills improved over the course of the European Journal of Educational Research 197 result that it is not presently common in Australian well as competency to “apply and transfer movement secondary school PE and that SEM in Australia requires concepts and strategies to new and challenging a new “champion”. Pill (2010) suggested the need for movement situations” towards student demonstration continuity of SEM research in Australia because of the of the Achievement Standard (ACARA, 2016b). Central enduring cycle of curriculum renewal and the support to this conclusion was the SEM feature of role PE teachers would need in curriculum review and responsibility allowing two distinct contexts. The first refinement, however, little seems to have occurred being the more opportunity for the teacher to observe since the original Sport and Physical Activity Research students and interact consultatively. The second (SPARC) Centre and Australian Sports Commission context being the role responsibility feature (ASC) funded research and implementation initiative of necessitating meaningful peer-to-peer interactions to the mid to late 1990’s (Alexander et al., 1998). The plan and then execute the requirements of the season majority of teachers in SEM research literature endorse of sport in PE. Kinchin (2006) highlighted that the the model and having experienced it, continue to use it social system encouraged by the SEM is a major factor (Kinchin, 2006). This suggests the helpful role of in promoting meaningful and supportive peer relations pedagogical research in assisting PE pedagogical in a SEM unit. However, it was concluded by the change for the practioners involved and reinforces the teachers and noted by some students that not all roles need for continuity of research initiatives in the SEM in were equal, in the sense that some roles had more to do the Australian context in order that the model become both in class and in preparation outside of class than more commonplace in school PE curricula. other roles, with students in coaching roles most likely to indicate their leadership skills had been developed. The teachers in this study identified student “buy in” as imperative to the successful implementation of the While it was inconclusive in this study as to whether SEM. In this study, the teachers largely presumed this student-teacher relationships changed as a result of the buy-in given the nature of the students and the high SEM, the students did believe that peer relationships in socio-economic background status of the school. the SEM changed or were different than in other forms Previous research into student perceptions of the SEM of PE. This was attributed by the students to the need in Australia indicated broad student acceptance and to work more collaboratively with their peers than indeed preference for the SEM compared to previously normally is the case as in the SEM they have to “create” experienced curriculum and pedagogical forms of PE in partnership with each other and the teacher the (Alexander et al, 2001; Kinchin, 2006; Hastie et al., format of the season of sport as well as the content that 2011b; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). The literature is will create the student experience of the season. clear that generally students are very accepting of the Students also noted they often were required to work SEM, and the results from this study provide further in groups with people they would not normally choose weight to that evidence. to work with, and so they got to know people outside of the normal class social structures that had existed. The The role of the teacher in a SEM unit is different to the SEM literature suggests that the use of persisting teams directive and reproduction style of PE teachers in the model can foster student appreciation of the (Alexander & Luckman, 2001), using what Metzler opportunity to get to know new people, and generally (2011) described as the traditional PE Method students like the team affiliation feature (MacPhail, (Metzler, 2011). Both teachers described their role in Kirk & Kinchin, 2004; Kinchin, 2006) and that this the SEM as being more of a facilitator, describing the feature is one that promotes student enthusiasm for relational dimension with students in a way that the model (Hastie, 2012). positioned the students as co-creators of the learning environment as teacher with students worked Another feature of the SEM is the use of modified sport collaboratively to both design the season of sport and forms for the formal season of sport. Students in this enact the in class activities that comprised the season study reflected that they believed their sport of sport in PE. Although there was not universally a competence improved, which is consistent with student feeling that the SEM unit created a changed research findings that the SEM is a model capable of relationship with the teacher, students acknowledged fostering skill improvements (Hastie 2012). However, they were treated differently and “more like adults” some students did not enjoy the modified sport forms, because of the role requirements in the SEM unit. particularly in the netball unit where these students not appreciative of the modified rules “just wanted to One of the reasons for the research was the teachers play netball”. wanting to test the SEM as a context for teaching and assessing that met the ACHPE direction at Year 9-10 to Conclusion enable “opportunities for students to refine and consolidate personal and social skills in demonstrating Consistent with other findings concerning teachers’ leadership, teamwork and collaboration” (ACARA, appreciation of the SEM, for the teachers in this study 2016b). The teachers believed that the SEM enabled the SEM was attractive as they perceived greater them to better collect evidence of students capacity to student ownership and thus engagement in learning. demonstrate “leadership, fair play and cooperation” as The teachers appreciated the release from direct 198  PILL & HASTIE / Researching Sport Education Appreciatively instruction and move to a more supportive “facilitator” down under. Journal of Physical Education, role permitting the opportunity to give more attention Recreation and Dance, 64(4), 21-23. to student assessment and support to student achievement of the elements of the achievement Alexander, K., & Luckman, J. (2001). Australian standard assigned to the unit of work (Hastie, 2012). teachers’ perceptions and uses of the sport The AI method for the study was appropriate as the education model. European Physical Education SEM was not being initiated as a solution to a Review, 7(3), 243-267. curriculum or pedagogical issue, rather, the motivation for the teachers involvement in the research was to Araujo, R., Mesquita, I., & Hastie, P. (2014). Review of further understand the SEM as existing practioners of the status of learning in research on Sport the model, and to find the applicability of the model to Education: Future research and practice. Journal of the ACHPE Student Achievement Standard for Year 9- Sports Science and Medicine, 13, 846-858. 10. AI in this study therefore revealed how the teachers came to be persisting with the use of the SEM in their Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority teaching and advocates of the model. (ACARA). (2016). Sequence of achievement. Retrieved from The teachers in this study identified that for the SEM to http://www.acara.edu.au/_resources/Health_and_P become more commonplace in secondary PE teaching hysical_Education_Sequence_of_achievement.pdf it needed to be part of the professional learning landscape and that it needed a “champion” such as was Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority the situation that existed at one time with the ASC (ACARA). (2016b). Health and physical education: funding of SEM resources, teacher professional Curriculum. Retrieved from learning, research, and affiliated sporting bodies sports http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/health- promotion of the model. In this study, AI also showed and-physical-education/curriculum/f-10?layout=1 that in this school the model had its “champion” in Tony who as the PE Coordinator had enforced the use Bishop, A. (1992) International perspectives on of the model in the schools PE program. Therefore, research in mathematics education In D. Grouws when Chris came into the school there was the (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics opportunity to observe the model in action and learn Teaching and Learning (pp.710 – 723). New York, from a more experienced other. Supportive NY: MacMillan Publishing. environments such this have been noted as potential contexts for pedagogical updating (Curtner-Smith, Brogden, R., & Knopp Bilken, S. (2007). Qualitative Hastie & Kinchin, 2008). In addition to AI’s use as a research for education: An introduction to theories research method capable of “shining a light” on existing and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson. models of practice for others to learn from, as was the case of its use in this study, AI’s other use as research Brooker, R., Kirk, D., Braiuka, S., & Brangrove, A. method is to appreciatively guide change. There are (2000). Implementing a game sense approach to few existing examples of the use of AI in the PE teaching junior high school basketball in a literature, and so this study adds to that scare scholarly naturalistic setting. European Physical Education collection, however, there are no examples of the use Review, 6(1), 7-26. and thus consideration of the suitability of AI as a research method for change in PE curriculum and Bushe, G. (2011). Appreciative inquiry: theory and pedagogical practice. There is therefore a need for critique. In D. Boje, B. Burnes & J. Hassard research using AI specifically for the purpose of (Eds.), The Routledge companion to organisational capturing appreciatively pedagogical and curriculum change (pp. 87-103). Oxford, UK: Routledge. reform and renewal. Casey, A., & Hastie, P. A. (2011). Students and teacher References responses to a unit of student- designed games. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 16(3), Alexander, K., Taggart, A., Medland, A., & Thorpe, S. 295-312. (1995). SEPEP: Sport Education in Physical Education Program. Belconnen, ACT: Australian Cooperrider, D.L. (1990). Positive image, positive Sports Commission. action: the affirmative basis of organizing. In S. Srivastva & D.L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Appreciative Alexander, K., Taggart, A., & Thorpe, S. (1997). Teacher management and leadership (pp. 91‐125). San renewal through curriculum innovation: changing Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. teachers’ pedagogies and programs. Issues in Educational Research, 7 (1), 1-18. Cooperrider, D. & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In R. Woodman & W. Alexander, K., Taggart, A., & Luckman, J. (1998). Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change Pilgrims progress: the sport education crusade