An Actor-Oriented Perspective on Implementing a Pedagogical Innovation in a Cycling Unit

in Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
View More View Less
  • 1 KAUST School
  • 2 Brock University
  • 3 University of Alberta
  • 4 Mary Immaculate College

Purpose: The purpose of this research was to use an actor-oriented perspective to analyze one teacher’s implementation of the Meaningful Physical Education approach in one Grade 5 classroom in Saudi Arabia. Method: A single case study design was used, with the case being defined as Andy and his teaching of a cycling unit to one Grade 5 class. Data consisted of blog posts, tweets, and semistructured interviews. Results: Andy identified several spheres of influence on implementation, including his personal philosophy, students, co-teachers, and several organizational/environmental characteristics of King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) School, as well as important attributes of the innovation that supported implementation. Discussion/Conclusion: An actor-oriented perspective offered insight into a teacher’s insider perspective of a pedagogical innovation, which enabled understanding of how he made sense of Meaningful Physical Education and used those ideas to guide planning, instructional, and assessment decisions in the cycling unit.

In order to make sustainable change efforts that better meet the diverse needs and interests of students, there has been increased advocacy for and implementation of a variety of pedagogical approaches in physical education. Many of these approaches take the form of models, such as Sport Education, Cooperative Learning, and Game-Centered Approaches and have generated substantial evidence to support and validate their use (Goodyear & Casey 2015; Harvey & Jarrett, 2014; Hastie, de Ojeda, & Luquin, 2011). Others, such as the Activist Approach (Oliver & Kirk, 2015), the Practising Model (Barker, Aggerholm, Standal, & Larsson, 2018), the Body Curriculum (Azzarito, 2019), or the Outdoor Adventure Education Model (Williams & Wainwright, 2016) are still novel and have a limited but growing literature base that examines their implementation. Among these new approaches, we place the Meaningful Physical Education (Meaningful PE) approach, which has been developed with an aim to prioritize meaningful experiences in physical education for learners. It is the Meaningful PE approach that provides the focus for this research.

One of the key challenges for developers of innovative approaches is to support navigating the transition from idea to implementation. This transition ultimately provides an opportunity where insights and ideas can be implemented, tested, and refined based on students’ and teachers’ experiences. However, Penuel, Phillips, and Harris (2014) warned that a recurring finding from studies of initial implementation shows “a gap between the intended and enacted curriculum, that is, between how designers intend for teachers to use curriculum materials to plan and lead instruction, and what in fact teachers do” (p. 752). This is not to suggest that teachers make rash or haphazard decisions when implementing innovations but rather that developers need to be sensitive to myriad reasons why teachers might adapt, add to, or ignore aspects of an innovation upon implementation. If innovation developers bring an appropriate level of sensitivity and awareness to studying the initial implementation process, it can then lead to refinements that better reflect the realities and complexities of classroom practice that are situated in the lived experiences of learners and the shifting cultures in which physical education occurs (Landi, Fitzpatrick, & McGlashan, 2016). Such sensitivity and awareness may improve the sustainability of innovations beyond the “honeymoon period” (Goodyear & Casey, 2015).

Recognizing the gap between intention and enactment has meant that researchers of innovative approaches (and particularly models) in physical education often pay close attention to fidelity of implementation. Analysis of fidelity implementation carries implications for claims regarding the effectiveness of the model or approach (Hastie & Casey, 2014). Curtner-Smith, Hastie, and Kinchin (2008) argued that unless fidelity is considered—and indeed made a centerpiece of research design and analysis—what ends up being studied may not be the model or approach (according to its structure and features) but a watered down or “cafeteria-style” version. This can result in outcomes for learners that are not necessarily attributable to the model (Hastie & Casey, 2014) but to any of multiple factors that influence student learning.

Penuel et al. (2014) described fidelity as an integrity-oriented perspective of implementation that has a “focus on the degree to which teachers adhere to guidance embedded in curriculum materials, maintain integrity to the principles of the designs in their delivery and provide students with sufficient exposure to opportunities to learn embedded within student activities” (p. 752). While it is acknowledged that most models or approaches have degrees of flexibility, integrity analyses are usually used with approaches that are clearly specified and that have moved beyond the development phase and which can lead to some generalizable claims.

Alternatively, actor-oriented perspectives of implementation seek to use the ways that teachers make sense of and alter components of new approaches to inform refinement and future development. Thus, from an actor-oriented perspective, any guidance or structure embedded in pedagogical innovations “requires teachers’ active sense-making” (Penuel et al., 2014, p. 755) and empowers them to make decisions based on past experiences and their beliefs and goals for student learning. While integrity-oriented perspectives offer a researcher’s view of implementation, actor-oriented perspectives lend themselves more to a teacher’s view (Penuel et al., 2014). Actor-oriented perspectives also work on an assumption that when teachers implement an innovation, they are not only making decisions about the innovation itself but about many other complex factors that occur from moment to moment in classrooms. For this reason, actor-oriented perspectives require explicit consideration of the geopolitical and social cultures and contexts in which teaching and learning occur.

The purpose of this research is to use an actor-oriented perspective to analyze implementation of the Meaningful PE approach in one Grade 5 classroom in Saudi Arabia. We seek to use insights gained from an actor-oriented perspective of implementing the Meaningful PE approach to gain a deeper understanding of how a teacher used their prior experiences, beliefs, and knowledge (in relation to curriculum, learning, students, and social context) to make decisions about and interpret ideas proposed in Meaningful PE and the reasons underpinning their pedagogical decisions. In turn, the teacher’s insights from implementing Meaningful PE can inform how future versions of the approach are refined and presented for others to implement.

A Conceptual Framework for Implementation Research

A strong literature base is centered around research on implementation of both established and novel approaches to physical education. For example, Dyson (2002) analyzed a teacher’s and students’ views of Cooperative Learning to illustrate the processes of teacher change and identify the challenges faced in implementation. Similarly, Harvey, Cushion, and Sammon (2015) examined dilemmas faced by preservice teachers in implementing Game-Centered Approaches , identifying the challenge presented by prior experiences of learning games, which were mostly based on a traditional approach, while Stran, Sinelnikov, and Woodruff (2012) considered facilitators and inhibitors in preservice teachers’ experiences of learning to implement a hybrid Sport Education-Game-Centered Approach. In the main, the specific study of implementation of established models has focused on analyses of barriers and facilitators. The same may also be said for the study of implementing new approaches. For instance, Luguetti and Oliver (2020) looked at challenges and facilitators in learning about and implementing the Activist Approach across time, as did Lindgren and Barker (2019) with the Practising Model, and Moy, Renshaw, Davids, and Brymer (2019) with Nonlinear Pedagogy. Considering challenges and facilitators to study implementation can inform how, for example, teachers might engage with professional learning opportunities that might best support learning about and implementing innovative and established approaches according to their structures and features (Dyson, 2002). However, there are few examples that have considered how the analysis of implementation can inform adjustments and refinements to the innovations themselves in physical education. For this reason, a more systematic approach to studying implementation may offer support for developers of innovations in physical education and enable new views on the study of implementation.

According to Century and Cassata (2016), the aims of implementation research are to provide insights into what an innovation “can and should be” (p. 173), document and describe what happens during and after implementation, and identify what has been and could be learned from studying implementation. Century and Cassata (2016) defined implementation research as “systematic inquiry regarding innovations enacted in controlled settings or in ordinary practice, the factors that influence innovation enactment, and the relationships between innovations, influential factors, and outcomes” (p. 170). Century and Cassata (2016) suggested that implementation research involves not only considerations of a teacher’s decision to adopt an innovation, “rather, it is about investigating what happens next—what is actually enacted, how an innovation is enacted, and why the contexts, conditions, characteristics, and other influences shape innovation enactment as they do” (p. 172). In justifying an actor-oriented perspective (Penuel et al., 2014), Century and Cassata (2016) acknowledged that questions should be asked that consider the complex nature of implementation, including the influence of social, political, contextual, and personal factors—thus raising questions about who is implementing the innovation (i.e., the teacher) and who the innovation is being implemented for (i.e., the students).

The main organizing principles of Century and Cassata’s (2016) conceptual framework address ways to conceptualize the innovation itself and to identify and organize social, political, contextual, and personal factors that influence implementation of the innovation. Where appropriate, we situate this framework in previous research conducted on the Meaningful PE approach or in other models and approaches in physical education.

Conceptualizing the Innovation

In many cases, an innovation will have been described conceptually and disseminated prior to its implementation by end users. It is typically these accounts that form a foundation for further research into an innovation. In these accounts, developers identify and organize core components deemed important for implementation by end users (Century & Cassata, 2016).

The Meaningful PE approach is grounded in social constructivism, whereby democratic transformation is seen as a major purpose of physical education. A main aim of Meaningful PE is therefore helping teachers prioritize meaningful experiences for students by drawing from pedagogical principles that are democratic, inclusive, and reflective. There is an emphasis on experiences that are meaningful in an educative way (Dewey, 1938/1997) that motivate students to seek further similar or extending experiences.

A core component of Meaningful PE is the use of several features of meaningfulness that can guide a teacher’s pedagogical decision making and support the use of a shared language between students and teachers (Beni, Fletcher, & Ní Chróinín, 2019). Beni, Fletcher, and Ní Chróinín (2017) showed that young people often identified a physical education experience as meaningful when it involved one or more of the following features: social interaction, fun, optimal challenge, motor competence, personally relevant learning, and delight. The subjective nature of meaningfulness in physical education (Chen, 1998) means there is potential for other features to be identified (e.g., creativity or personal expression); however, the features described offer a starting point for a shared language about meaningful experiences to be developed between students and teachers.

Other core components of Meaningful PE include the use of autonomy-supportive strategies that involve students in individual and collective decision making and reflective processes. Autonomy-supportive strategies can be enacted by encouraging students to make choices about their participation and use their agency to advocate for their own interests (e.g., the “level” at which they participate, with whom, for how long, and so on; Enright & O’Sullivan, 2010; Mandigo, Holt, Anderson, & Sheppard, 2008). Reflective processes can also help students develop an awareness of what makes physical education meaningful (and meaningless) to them, particularly through understanding how certain experiences are relevant to their lives now and in the future (O’Connor, 2019). Students can set personal or group goals for participation, which can enable strong connections to their lives outside of school (Ennis, 2017).

Organizing the core components of an innovation involves distinguishing between specific and general aspects (Century & Cassata, 2016). For example, the features of Meaningful PE provide general guidance for teachers’ discussions with or observations of students (e.g., Have they been provided with opportunities to be with or make friends? Have modifications to a task been suggested that provide different levels of challenge?), while the use of autonomy-supportive strategies and reflective processes represent more specific guidance. This distinction can also reflect the structure and process of Meaningful PE; for instance, time for students to set personal goals and reflect on an experience can be used to structure the beginning and end of lessons, while the processes used to support experiences that are meaningful are flexible in that they are open to interpretation and the teacher’s (and students’) knowledge and experiences.

Organizing the components of an innovation also requires consideration of the teacher’s prioritization of those components, which may lead to some being heavily emphasized while others are de-emphasized or perhaps even completely absent. While developers may intend for all components to be present, ultimately, there will be gaps in the teacher’s enactment of the innovation for a variety of reasons (Penuel et al., 2014). For example, there may be areas of alignment or misalignment between the teacher’s personal beliefs, philosophy, or value system (Ennis, 1992; Green, 2002) and the innovation, or there may be perceived strengths or weaknesses in the teacher’s instructional practice. Students might also provide input to identify components they deem irrelevant or meaningless. Depending on the innovation itself and the intentions of its developers, core components might be identified as “non-negotiable” or “desirable” or may be open to radical adaptation or removal based on the analysis of implementation.

Conceptualizing Factors Influencing Innovation Implementation

Identifying and organizing core components of an innovation represent the “what” of implementation, but it is important to ask questions about what influences the “why” and “how” (Century & Cassata, 2016). Multiple factors influence a teacher’s implementation and, when taken together, these spheres of influence can help researchers describe the context of the innovation. Spheres of influence can operate at the individual, organizational, and/or external level and can also include the influence of the innovation itself (e.g., the alignment of the innovation with a teacher’s beliefs). Important spheres of influence include the factors listed in the following sections.

Characteristics of Individual End Users

Century and Cassata (2016) identified an individual’s characteristics as influential in relation to and external to the innovation. These characteristics are important in actor-oriented perspectives of implementation (Penuel et al., 2014) because they acknowledge personal factors that go beyond characterizations of a teacher who is skilled at instruction. For example, a teacher’s knowledge, experiences, values, and beliefs will influence implementation (Ennis, 1992; 1994). A teacher’s openness to change, persistence in the face of adversity, interactions with other teachers and/or communities (Green, 2002), or engagement with innovative ideas can all strongly influence the ways any innovation might be implemented. Thus, these perspectives take into account who the teacher is in relation to their students and to how the innovation is taken up (or could be taken up) by end users.

Organizational and Environmental Factors

Organizational/environmental influences might include the people within the school or school district who influence a teacher and their work (including students, colleagues, and administrators) or the school or school district itself (e.g., its facilities, resources, and policies). For instance, the amount of time teachers spend teaching physical education can strongly influence how an innovation is implemented, regardless of their beliefs. These factors might also include influences outside of the organization, such as a teacher’s self-directed engagement with certain types of professional development or the perceived value of physical education in the local context (Century & Cassata, 2016).

Attributes of the Innovation

An innovation can have actual and perceived attributes (Century & Cassata, 2016). Actual attributes might consist of the number and type of components or evidence of effectiveness. For example, actual attributes of Meaningful PE might be the features of meaningfulness, in that those features represent a core component. Perceived attributes refer to things such as perceived ease of implementation; perceptions about the degree of alignment with a teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, values, or curricular goals; or the perceived ability of the innovation to be adapted to the teacher’s and students’ needs and the local context (Ennis, 1994; Ennis & Chen, 1995). The intersection of actual and perceived attributes can strongly influence how an innovation is implemented. For example, if an innovation is perceived to be difficult to implement, this may negatively influence implementation despite the appeal of its actual attributes.

Implementation Support Strategies

Intentional strategies and structures that support innovation are deemed vital to support innovation efforts. Supports may include human, financial and/or material resources, time to engage with the innovation and its implementation, professional development, and access to expertise. Depending on the level of implementation (i.e., individual or organizational), the strategies used will differ. In many studies of implementation in physical education, identifying support strategies for successful future implementation is a major outcome of the research (Dyson, 2002; Luguetti & Oliver, 2020).

Implementation Over Time

The nature of implementation will change over time, particularly from an individual perspective (Century & Cassata, 2016). For example, if teachers continue to implement an innovation, they will likely become more comfortable with the innovation to the extent that they can experiment with it rather than implement it in a mechanistic or formulaic way. Moreover, longitudinal studies of implementation can lead to more fine-grained analyses and refinement based on teachers’ and students’ experiences and suggestions to inform future design and implementation in various contexts.

Using these conceptualizing factors as a framework for implementation research and through taking an actor-oriented perspective to implementation, we generated the following research questions: How is a prototype version of the Meaningful PE approach implemented in a Grade 5 cycling unit? Why does the teacher make the decisions they do about implementation? and What suggestions are offered to inform future iterations of the Meaningful PE approach?

Methodology and Methods

Case studies offer analyses of bounded systems to provide insights and help generate an understanding of important features, problematic elements, and critical incidents related to a phenomenon and its context (Stake, 2005). A single case study approach allows inquiries into the complexity that is inherent in each particular case; for example, the case could be a single person or a single school. In this research, the bounded system is a Grade 5 cycling unit taught twice over 2 years (once in 2018 and once in 2019). We are particularly interested in analyzing the experiences, thoughts, beliefs, and actions of Andy as he implemented the Meaningful PE approach in a cycling unit for Grade 5 students.

Setting and Participants

The research was conducted at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) School in Saudi Arabia. KAUST School is a K–12 International Baccalaureate school located in a medium-sized city, and it is affiliated with a local university. It has a diverse student population that serves many children of local and expatriate families (school demographic data report that students represent 72 nationalities), typically of middle to upper socioeconomic status. Teachers and students come from the local area or tend to reside in housing attached to the school and university. The school has access to a wide variety of sporting and community facilities that are often used as part of the physical education program. Andy is a teacher at KAUST School, having additional responsibilities as a pedagogical coach for several subjects in the primary school. In the 2 years of research, Andy co-taught physical education the Grade 5 class with Eli (pseudonym) in 2018 and 2019, implementing Meaningful PE in a cycling unit in both years. Andy has been teaching primary physical education for 20 years, mostly in international schools. He is committed to innovative approaches and hosts a blog and podcast` where he regularly documents and reflects on his philosophy, experiences, and practices while inviting others to do the same.

Prior to commencing the research, Andy contacted Tim, expressing interest in implementing Meaningful PE in the Grade 5 class. Andy had read most of the work on Meaningful PE published in academic journals and on a research website and had interviewed Tim, Doug, and Déirdre about some of the main concepts of Meaningful PE for his podcast. As he implemented the Meaningful PE approach in a cycling unit with Eli, Andy suggested he would regularly write about his experiences on his blog. Tim also suggested maintaining contact through digital platforms such as Skype, WhatsApp, and Twitter where they could discuss any challenges or successes in implementation and identify any aspects of the innovation that Andy recommended be changed or modified based on his interactions with his students and Eli. These data sources support an actor-oriented analysis in that they enabled a co-construction of understanding what the Meaningful PE approach can and/or should be (Century & Cassata, 2016), how it was being implemented, and why decisions were made about its implementation based on the experiences of students and teachers in the Grade 5 class at KAUST School. Andy’s initiation of the process and his involvement in all phases of the research means he is considered a co-researcher. Due to several situational constraints, we did not actively recruit Eli as a participant in the research.

Data Sources

Andy regularly used Twitter to make written comments or upload visual material (photos and videos) about implementing Meaningful PE. In order to filter tweets relevant to Meaningful PE, and those he made that were not, Andy "tagged" (used a Twitter address) Tim and/or Doug in the tweet. There were 37 tweets used as data.

Several of Andy’s tweets contained links to his personal blog, where he wrote several posts that offered an expanded discussion on pertinent issues, experiences, insights, and challenges faced while implementing Meaningful PE. He often included appropriate visual material to complement the written portion of the blog. Six blog posts were used as data.

An initial individual interview was conducted with Andy after the first year the cycling unit was implemented (December 2018), with a second conducted after the second year the cycling unit was implemented (February 2020). These interviews were conducted over Skype and were audio recorded. The purpose of the interviews was to gain a deeper understanding of certain issues, experiences, and insights faced by Andy through implementing Meaningful PE and to make recommendations for improvement of the approach based on what worked (and why) and what didn’t (and why), giving a teacher’s insider perspective on the perceived experiences of their students and their learning.

It is important to comment on the ethics of using tweets and blogs for research purposes. Although we sought and gained ethical approval from Brock University Research Ethics Board, we were informed that because tweets and blog posts are in the public domain that ethical approval was not needed to use these as data. Independent of this research, Andy has regularly sought written and verbal permission from colleagues, students, and their parents to post photographs and videos on Twitter or his blog. For this reason, there are implications for the anonymity of the teachers, students, and school where Andy teaches (in that data are not anonymous) and for how this is managed as part of the research. We are therefore conscious of, in particular, protecting the rights to privacy of children and other teachers at KAUST School. Where appropriate, we have sought verbal permission to use pseudonyms of Andy’s colleagues and decided not to include visual data from tweets or blog posts, particularly those that included images of children.

Data Analysis

All data (blog posts, tweets, and both interviews) were reviewed and coded deductively by Déirdre, then reviewed and coded again by Doug for confirmation and clarity. Data were analyzed deductively whereby we searched for examples of how Andy and the other teachers enacted the innovation. These examples were coded and categorized according to the conceptualizing factors influencing implementation (Century & Cassata, 2016). The initial results were co-written by Doug, Déirdre, and Tim, then shared with Andy for input and facilitation as a co-researcher, which included adding comments about context or accuracy or identifying discrepant interpretations or accounts of implementation to foster trustworthiness.

All aspects of the research process were influenced by our positionality as a group and as individuals. As a group, we identify as pedagogues. We value and privilege our positions as teachers and teachers of teachers and see our research as being symbiotic with our teaching practices, with our understanding and insights from one always informing our understanding and insights of the other. We strive to have our teaching be research informed and our research teaching informed. Currently, our teaching and research focus on meaningful experiences shapes much of how we think about physical education, its purposes, and its possibilities. While we see value in prioritizing meaningful experiences, we do not believe it is “the” answer to problems or challenges in the field but that it may be one of many appropriate approaches. We are all White, English speaking, and able-bodied and recognize the privilege that comes with these characteristics and identities. They have also shaped the research process, including our interpretation of the results and their implications. Regarding our interpretation of the results, and in line with interpretive research approaches, we see that these are partial, provisional, situational, and grounded in the context in which the implementation of the cycling unit took place. We share our interpretations with others so they may identify any resonance with their own experiences and contexts.

Results

We used the conceptualizing factors that influence implementation (Century & Cassata, 2016) to interpret and gain insights into how Andy implemented the Meaningful PE approach at KAUST School. Andy clearly and explicitly identified several core components of Meaningful PE, including the features of meaningful physical education (Beni et al., 2017), its flexible nature, its alignment with his personal belief system and vision for teaching, and the role of reflection. For example, in one tweet (October 15, 2018) that included an image of a student riding a bike across flat sand, Andy stated, “[students] finding their ‘just right’ challenge. Building motor competence and confidence, lots of social interaction and loads of fun and joy.”

The feature of challenge was used as a primary driver of teaching and learning in the cycling unit. Andy explained how the impetus for focusing on challenge was organic initially, but ongoing engagement with the approach and reflections with students led him to make sense of how challenge could or should be explicitly prioritized in both the structure and process of the unit as it progressed: “We have found that when students can find the ‘just right’ challenge, everything else falls into place. By finding the ‘just right’ challenge, it is very relevant to them as it is an entry point to their learning that they have autonomy over” (Blog, May 5, 2019).

Throughout the data, references were consistently made to the ways the features of Meaningful PE guided some structures and processes within the unit. Another core component referred to by Andy was the flexibility of Meaningful PE, which allowed him to “play” with some of its characteristics to suit his beliefs and his students’ needs. In the first interview, he stated: “great implementation is flexible.” The following blog excerpt (April 7, 2019) exemplifies how he made sense of the flexibility of Meaningful PE in the context of the Grade 5 class and in consultation with Eli:

[We] are making sense of the Meaningful PE framework in our own way, tweaking and adjusting our approaches, testing out different pedagogical strategies, and most importantly, reflecting on our teaching and student learning every step of the way in order to refine the way we deliver our program.

Conceptualizing Factors Influencing Innovation Implementation

Several spheres of influence on implementation were identified by Andy. In particular, we noted the role of the students, Andy and Eli as end users of Meaningful PE, and several organizational/environmental characteristics.

Characteristics of individual end users

Andy’s personal beliefs were a key influence on implementation. In relation to Andy’s individual vision or philosophy of teaching, and that of KAUST school, he stated: “Because this framework aligns so closely with my fundamental philosophy about teaching and learning, it wasn’t hard for me to take on. It wasn’t a big adjustment for me, it actually opened up doors and I could actually explore the framework” (Interview 2). In both Andy’s individual vision and that of the school, there is a clear focus on student-centered learning (voice, choice, and autonomy), an invitational approach to participation, and a desire for students to engage at their own level. Each of these elements align with the pedagogical principles of Meaningful PE (Fletcher, Ní Chróinín, Gleddie, & Beni, in press). Thus, Meaningful PE had some “ease of use” in terms of both sensemaking and understanding of the innovation (Century & Cassata, 2016; Penuel et al., 2014) for Andy because the values underpinning the innovation aligned with his own and those of many of his colleagues.

It was also clear from the data that students were respected as learners. Throughout their experience at KAUST School, students were exposed to ways their autonomy could be supported across the curriculum. In one blog post, Andy wrote: “Creating meaningful and relevant movement opportunities for our young students is directly dependent on our ability to spark curiosity, wonder, imagination, and joy in their learning on a daily basis” (April 11, 2019). For the teachers to make sense of the meaning students were making in the cycling unit, Andy and students co-created experiences and challenges, co-reflected on their goals and learning, and made adjustments to plans for their learning. In one Tweet, Andy included an image of children as they identified their goals and levels of challenge. The image was accompanied by the caption: “Pre-cycling unit brainstorming with gr5 students about identifying ‘just right’ challenges for them in our upcoming cycling unit in #physed. … Will work on some of these challenges in first class next week” (September 3, 2018).

Andy expanded on reasons why he included students in the decision-making process:

I’m inspired, on a daily basis, to try and figure out what is most important in regards to planting the seeds necessary for intrinsic motivation to flourish in our PE programs. I’m a long, long way from figuring out the answers, but the greatest joy lies directly in the challenge of testing out and modifying ideas and really involving students in helping to figure out whether or not the approaches we are using in our PE program are actually working. (May 5, 2019)

Organizational and environmental factors

Administrators at KAUST School were described as highly supportive of innovative teaching and learning. In his role as a pedagogical coach, Andy referred to “daily opportunities to work closely with teachers during planning and reflection” (Blog Post). This school-wide “team approach” is looked at further in the implementation support section. While organizational factors at KAUST School were mentioned briefly by Andy, we inferred from several images and descriptions in the data that financial and material resources (e.g., equipment, number and type of teachers, facilities) at KAUST School played an important role.

The physical environment of KAUST School was also identified as a strong contributor to implementation. The school’s location enabled access to various spaces and terrains that facilitated students’ experiences of cycling: “we have flat pavement, we had flat sand, we had hills, and it was all within eyesight [of the school]” (Interview 1). The physical environment also facilitated how the feature of challenge was introduced to and experienced by students. Moving from cement, to rock, to sand and grass encouraged students to adjust how they cycled and the skills they used to suit the environment. For example, students were required to use different gears and to sit or stand in the saddle to use more or less power in their legs. Andy said:

We found that the hill they were on is kind of shaped really steep and then it shallows out and becomes shorter. Now they could use that whole face… it’s probably 75 metres and then along that base it was like: “Find the right challenge for you but you have all of these choices here. You can ride on flat land, you can race if you want, create a cycling race course, you can do this, you can go over these bumps, but go to what’s most meaningful to you.” (Interview 2)

In Year 2, an excursion to the nearby desert offered further opportunities for students related to the feature of challenge. Students were asked to design a “desert challenge,” involving various tasks and activities that could be undertaken using their bikes. Andy said: “It was quite cool seeing the challenges that they came up with in the desert challenge. They were racing against each other, riding up and down sand slopes and playing follow the leader on their bikes” (Blog Post). When students experienced an optimal challenge, Andy explained ways they interacted with others, had fun, developed skills, and found opportunities for personally relevant learning in that they engaged in activities they could do outside of school, thus referring to many of the features of meaningfulness (Beni et al., 2017).

Attributes of the innovation

The data showed that the Meaningful PE approach helped Andy make the idea of meaningfulness explicit to students through using various pedagogies and being cognizant of the class culture. Andy suggested that focusing on the features of meaningful PE through careful but flexible planning of learning experiences was critical to the perceived success of implementation: “To do it properly though … if I haven’t planned my teaching space and I haven’t analyzed my teaching space and really set up my space in a way that makes ‘challenge’ more accessible, then it’s just a watered-down version of challenge” (Interview 2). Although this suggests a detailed planning process, it was done in a way that clearly addressed students’ needs. In order to access those needs, Andy conducted interviews with students prior to beginning each unit:

You have to do a pre-unit interview… where you kind of talk about: “This is the upcoming unit. Think about everything you know about this unit. Think about what you really like about the unit, what you don’t like about the unit”. I collect the sticky notes [and] we put that down in front of us and we look at it: “Well, they actually don’t like this, this, and this, but they do like this, this, and this” and we do that with each class. … It’s not like we have to rollout the unit completely differently for each class in Grade 5, we can just get some general feedback about what’s meaningful to them even from the get-go. … It always provides me with more insight into the pre-unit planning process. (Interview 2)

Using Andy’s approach, the teacher facilitates the planning process by incorporating ideas gained during a preunit interview with making ongoing decisions and adjustments based on context (e.g., space, equipment, policies), student needs (identified through ongoing student reflections and discussions), and the teacher’s beliefs. For Andy, Meaningful PE offered some structure while still leaving plenty of room for creativity and innovation. In one blog post, he wrote about how opportunities for play were incorporated into planning decisions:

Eli and I are carefully planning how [students] play and explore in order to create meaningful movement experiences that connect them with their classmates, challenge them to learn new ways to move their bodies, and to use their imagination in ways that bring them joy and delight. (Blog, April 11, 2019)

Andy acknowledged the flexibility of the Meaningful PE approach as a core component, commenting that it does not involve “hand holding and step-by-step” (Interview 2). While the flexibility was mostly welcomed, this also came with some tension of wanting more prescriptive support, as illustrated by Andy in the first interview:

It needs to be really explicit. Not that it hasn’t been. There is a lot of permission to innovate, tinker, and modify . . . . When I was having the conversation with Tim and Doug earlier in the year, that was the only sticking point.

Another attribute of Meaningful PE that was consistently evident was the way it helped the teachers make the idea of meaningfulness explicit to students through discussion of, for example, learning goals, reflection on experience, assessment, and developing and using a shared language that embedded meaningfulness into the culture of the class. Andy explains how:

I want to take it in the direction that I’m being explicit with [a specific] feature and unpacking the feature with the students and everything we do is about the feature. Then the next engrained layer of this is just the day-to-day language that you use. Now we’re absolutely using the language of the feature, which means it’s embedded in the culture of everything I do with my teaching and that’s ultimately a sign that it’s an important part of what you do. (Interview 2)

The teachers’ focus on being explicit about “just-right” levels of challenge with students through cycling allowed them to use consistent language that facilitated planning, reflection, instruction, and self-assessment. In the following excerpt from his blog, Andy explained how challenge was made explicit to students during the self-assessment process:

If a [task] is impossible to the student, they simply take a red sticky dot and write their name on it and place it on the chart paper assessment. This often leads to the student practicing this particular skill either independently or with the help of a peer or teacher. Once the student has made progress and performed the skill some of the time, they go back to the assessment chart and use a yellow dot to self-assess themselves at this point. They write their name on the dot and place it on top of the previous red dot they had put down. They repeat the process until they are confident and competent in the skill and then self-assess themselves with a green dot which then goes on top of the previous yellow dot. What we now have is a progression of learning that is visible through the layering of the dots. … This is a fantastic assessment strategy because it provides so much insight for the teacher. When the teacher sees reds and yellow dots, they know who they need to provide immediate feedback to. (Blog, May 5, 2019)

Implementation support strategies

The collaborative teaching environment and mentorship within KAUST School and with members of the research team acted as a crucial support mechanism for implementation. For example, Andy described how several collaborations within the PE department led to important learning opportunities for both teachers and students: “Through close observation and data collection in X’s PE classes, I was able to share some important data with him that led to us discussing his use of voice and visuals in his teaching” (Blog, April 11, 2019). These ongoing interactions allowed for the innovation to evolve in response to context, teachers’ experiences and values, and student needs.

Members of the research team were also identified as supporting implementation through providing pedagogical case studies and other teacher resources on a research website or engaging in Twitter conversations and chats using WhatsApp. For example, in Interview 2, Andy said: “Much of my recent thinking has been shaped by the work of [the Meaningful PE research group]”. Andy also said of his ongoing chats on WhatsApp with Tim:

Our WhatsApp thing has always helped because in the moment of teaching, I can still be teaching and just … drop you a message. I do it often times because I can go back to it myself. So, having that connection and that live time where I can just share something that I’ve seen or sharing a photo or interview. (Interview 2)

Although these processes represent the importance of professional learning that occurs within a community, we are hesitant to describe the approach as a community of practice, which tends to be formed with intent and a reasonably stable membership (Parker, Patton, Madden, & Sinclair, 2010). Many of the interactions in this process, however, were spontaneous and involved a variety of contributors.

Implementation over time

Over the 2 years of implementation of Meaningful PE, Andy saw growth in his students’ learning and engagement with cycling both within and outside of school. For example, of one specific student who was an inexperienced cyclist at the beginning of the unit, Andy wrote of her progress: “To see her progress during the unit was amazing, it really was, and that’s what makes this whole thing worthwhile. It’s like changing the lives of kids like that” (Interview 2). He also noted other students who were already competent had developed their skills and interests in cycling. Several students also signed up for an after-school cycling club organized by Andy due to their interest in what they learned in class.

Despite Andy and his colleagues feeling that the implementation of Meaningful PE was serving their students’ needs after Year 1, Andy recognized a need to continue innovating and evolving. For example, in one blog post prior to Year 2, he wrote: “At this point, we have a few of the pieces in our hand and these pieces fit together nicely for us. They make sense to us. We have been able to draw meaning from the pieces that we have put together” (June 22, 2019). Other aspects that Andy felt warranted further attention and exploration included (a) expanding discussion of the ways meaningfulness could be experienced through other features and (b) involving students in contributing to the collective decision making of the class in other ways. When asked what will be important in future implementation, Andy noted the role that planning and collaboration will continue to play: “We can’t just make stuff up because we’re good teachers, but I think it goes back to, not disasters, but you can fall off the path really quickly if you don’t sustain the level of effort in the planning” (Interview 2).

Despite being an experienced teacher, Andy suggested that the Meaningful PE approach impacted his teaching and his students’ learning. When asked about his intent to continue implementing Meaningful PE, Andy suggested beginning in other related units of study, such as skateboarding and racket sports. As members of the PE department reflected on and planned for future implementation, Andy referred once more to the centrality of the features of Meaningful PE in supporting implementation at KAUST School: “for next year, we are thinking about how we can embed, more deeply, the features of the Meaningful PE approach and how we can better unpack these features to provide more authentic movement experiences for our students” (Blog, June 22, 2019).

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to analyze implementation of the Meaningful PE approach in one Grade 5 cycling unit. While integrity-oriented perspectives of implementation (that includes consideration of fidelity) are present and informative in the physical education literature (Curtner-Smith et al., 2008; Hastie & Casey, 2014), our research makes several significant contributions to the literature on implementation in physical education by (a) using an actor-oriented perspective that privileges a teacher’s perspective on implementation and (b) utilizing concepts from implementation research (Century & Cassata, 2016) that bridge individual, organizational, and environmental influences, which goes beyond the predominant approach of implementation in physical education that considers barriers and facilitators (e.g., Luguetti & Oliver, 2020; Moy et al., 2019; Stran et al., 2012). It is also possible that the findings in this paper serve as a bridge between subjectivist and objectivist positions on analyzing the implementation of models and approaches in physical education, offering a means to incorporate subjective experiences of implementation in a systematic way.

Understanding how and why teachers make decisions about and interpret the Meaningful PE approach is important to further development of the innovation and, indeed, other innovations. Taking an actor-oriented perspective (Penuel et al., 2014) allowed us to gain a teacher’s insider perspective of the innovation, providing insights into the ways that Andy’s personal beliefs and philosophies about students and teaching physical education informed how he made sense of Meaningful PE conceptually and used those ideas to guide planning, instructional, and assessment decisions in the cycling unit. Andy was both an experienced teacher of physical education as well as a pedagogical coach for other teachers at KAUST School. His breadth of knowledge and previous history of implementing pedagogical innovations provided strong foundations upon which to build in relation to this particular innovation. In addition, his own personal philosophy or value orientation (Ennis 1992, 1994) was already infused with ideas related to meaningfulness. Andy’s personal vision was close enough to the core components of Meaningful PE for him to interpret and “make his own” of it during implementation. This understanding is important when considering how beginning or less experienced teachers might be supported if they are contemplating implementation of this or other pedagogical innovations. For instance, less experienced teachers may need explicit encouragement to “make it their own” by giving them freedom to discard or prioritize aspects of the innovation, as Andy did, and be able to justify their decisions. This raises the question about where the boundaries of particular innovations lie and the point at which issues of integrity or fidelity become particularly relevant. We are encouraged that Andy followed the guidance and literature on Meaningful PE in ways that reflected its spirit. In response, while we do not promote an “anything goes” stance, we place the power for interpretation of the innovation in the hands of the teacher who is best positioned to make pedagogical choices in their local context but whose practice might be supported by specific ideas that particular approaches provide (Ennis & Chen, 1995).

Century and Cassata’s (2016) framework of factors that influence implementation of pedagogical innovations was particularly useful for us as developers of the Meaningful PE approach, who, at the time, were seeking to understand how the idea of this innovation transfers into the teacher’s and students’ worlds. The implementation framework (Century & Cassata, 2016) allows developers to identify modifications based on teachers’ and students’ experiences. This may arguably lead to the development of more robust innovations that have been subject to multiple iterations that may warrant the use of integrity-oriented approaches to implementation further on in their evolution. The implementation framework highlighted the important role of context in the implementation process, which also helps us make sense of the reasons for successes and failures of implementation. For example, teachers’ decisions were supported by an ideal physical environment for students to explore cycling in a variety of ways, through different terrains and gradients, which encouraged skill exploration and development and provided accessible spaces for students to access outside of school time. Also, the school community promoted innovation through the support of Andy as a pedagogical coach to co-reflect on progress and solve problems. External teacher supports, including an ongoing dialogue with a member of the research team, meant that Andy was never stuck without someone to talk to, seek advice from, and bounce ideas around with.

Further insights from the implementation framework (Century & Cassata, 2016) were enabled through its multiparticipant perspectives. For example, the children were an important source of information for the teachers. While Andy had used student feedback to inform planning and instructional decisions prior to using Meaningful PE, core components of the approach allowed him to focus how he sought, obtained, and filtered that feedback. Specifically, student feedback led Andy to prioritize the feature of challenge as a facilitator for meaningful experiences in cycling in Year 1. This served as a basis for the development of a shared language that enabled students and teachers to identify tasks, situations, skills, and experiences that could be engaged with, modified, or developed to support the quality of students’ experiences. Andy also consistently accessed and incorporated students’ voices, supported them in making choices in and about their learning, and valued reflection; all of which are core components of the Meaningful PE approach that were evident in the data.

One of the main justifications for using an actor-oriented perspective is to inform how developers of innovations make changes; as such, there are several insights from this research that are useful for guiding the ongoing development of the Meaningful PE approach. While Andy responded favorably to the flexibility of Meaningful PE, he also expressed a desire—not only for himself but for other teachers potentially interested in implementing Meaningful PE—for some more explicit guidance in implementation. Based on Andy’s responses and experiences, and by claims made by Beni et al. (2019), we suggest that teachers begin with an examination of the ways their personal philosophies about teaching physical education align with the vision of Meaningful PE. For teachers whose personal philosophy may not align well, it may mean that implementation is unlikely to be a success.

Andy’s practice of interviewing students prior to commencing a unit also warrants considerations as a “core component” of the Meaningful PE approach. If one of the foundational components of Meaningful PE is to have teachers understand and be able to respond to students’ needs and interests, a preunit interview (or similar) that uses some of the features of Meaningful PE as a filter for those discussions can provide an important access point to enable students to use their voices about what they like and do not like, are looking forward to, or would like to achieve in physical education. In turn, this can help teachers prioritize components of Meaningful PE so that the approach can be put to good use to meet students’ needs in ways that align with a teacher’s overarching philosophy of physical education.

Century and Cassata’s (2016) implementation framework encouraged us to take an actor-oriented perspective of implementation, which enabled an understanding of factors that influence implementation of pedagogical innovations. These ideas have value in providing insight on innovation implementation, highlighting the importance of both teacher characteristics and contextual factors in determining the extent and success of implementation in relation to Meaningful PE, and they offer other researchers of implementation guidance on rigorous analysis of both novel and existing pedagogical approaches. It is inevitable that teachers will prioritize and discard elements of the innovation based on their personal characteristics and local context, but our research offers a way for teachers to respond to the needs and interests of children within their local setting while staying true to the spirit of the Meaningful PE approach.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support of colleagues, administrators, and students at KAUST School in Saudi Arabia, and Adam Carter’s contributions as a research assistant. We also acknowledge the valuable suggestions and comments from the reviewers of the original manuscript. We have no known conflicts of interest to declare. This manuscript draws on research funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Insight Development Grant No. 430-2018-0188.

References

  • Azzarito, L. (2019). ‘Look to the bottom’: Re-writing the body curriculum through storylines. Sport, Education and Society, 24(6), 638650. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barker, D.M., Aggerholm, K., Standal, O., & Larsson, H. (2018). Developing the practising model in physical education: An expository outline focusing on movement capability. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(2), 209221. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beni, S., Fletcher, T., & Ní Chróinín, D. (2017). Meaningful experiences in physical education and youth sport: A review of the literature. Quest, 69(3), 291312. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beni, S., Fletcher, T., & Ní Chróinín, D. (2019). Using features of meaningful experiences to guide primary physical education practice. European Physical Education Review, 25(3), 599615. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Casey, A., & Goodyear, V.A. (2015). Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature. Quest, 67(1), 5672. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Century, J., & Cassata, A. (2016). Implementation research: Finding common ground on what, how, why, where, and who. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 169215. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, A. (1998). Meaningfulness in physical education: A description of high school students’ conceptions. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(3), 285306. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Curtner-Smith, M.D., Hastie, P.A., & Kinchin, G.D. (2008). Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education and Society, 13(1), 97117. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

  • Dyson, B. (2002). The implementation of cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22(1), 6985. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C.D. (1992). The influence of value orientations in curriculum decision making. Quest, 44(3), 317329. doi:

  • Ennis, C.D. (1994). Knowledge and beliefs underlying curricular expertise. Quest, 46(2), 164175. doi:

  • Ennis, C.D. (2017). Educating students for a lifetime of physical activity: Enhancing mindfulness, motivation, and meaning. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 88(3), 241250. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C.D., & Chen, A. (1995). Teachers’ value orientations in urban and rural school settings. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(1), 4150. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Enright, E., & O’Sullivan, M. (2010). ‘Can I do it in my pyjamas?’ Negotiating a physical education curriculum with teenage girls. European Physical Education Review, 16(3), 203222. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fletcher, T., Ní Chróinín, D., Gleddie, D., & Beni, S. (in press). The why, what, and how of meaningful physical education. In T. Fletcher, D. Ní Chróinín, D. Gleddie, & S. Beni (Eds.), Meaningful physical education: An approach to guide teaching and learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goodyear, V.A., & Casey, A. (2015). Innovation with change: Developing a community of practice to help teachers move beyond the ‘honeymoon’ of pedagogical renovation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(2), 186203. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Green, K. (2002). Physical education teachers in their figurations: A sociological analysis of everyday “philosophies.” Sport, Education and Society, 7(1), 6583. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278300. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harvey, S., Cushion, C., & Sammon, P. (2015). Dilemmas faced by pre-service teachers when learning about and implementing a game-centred approach. European Physical Education Review, 21(2), 238256. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hastie, P.A., & Casey, A. (2014). Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy: A guide for future investigations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33(3), 422431. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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), 103132. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Landi, D., Fitzpatrick, K., & McGlashan, H. (2016). Models based practices in physical education: A sociocritical reflection. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35(4), 400411. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lindgren, R., & Barker, D. (2019). Implementing the Movement-Oriented Practising Model (MPM) in physical education: Empirical findings focusing on student learning. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(5), 534547. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luguetti, C., & Oliver, K.L. (2020). “I became a teacher that respects the kids’ voices”: Challenges and facilitators pre-service teachers faced in learning an activist approach. Sport, Education and Society, 25(4), 423435. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mandigo, J., Holt, N., Anderson, A., & Sheppard, J. (2008). Children’s motivational experiences following autonomy-supportive games lessons. European Physical Education Review, 14(3), 407425. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moy, B., Renshaw, I., Davids, K., & Brymer, E. (2019). Preservice teachers implementing a nonlinear physical education pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(6), 565581. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O’Connor, J. (2019). Exploring a pedagogy for meaning-making in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 25(4), 10931109. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oliver, K.L., & Kirk, D. (2015). Girls, gender and physical education: An activist approach. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

  • Parker, M., Patton, K., Madden, M., & Sinclair, C. (2010). From committee to community: The development and maintenance of a community of practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(4), 337357. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Penuel, W.R., Phillips, R.S., & Harris, C.J. (2014). Analysing teachers’ curriculum implementation from integrity and actor-oriented perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(6), 751777. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stran, M., Sinelnikov, O., & Woodruff, E. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ experiences implementing a hybrid curriculum: Sport education and teaching games for understanding. European Physical Education Review, 18(3), 287308. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Williams, A., & Wainwright, N. (2016). A new pedagogical model for adventure in the curriculum: Part two–Outlining the model. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(6), 589602. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Vasily is with the KAUST School, Thuwal, Western Province, Saudi Arabia. Fletcher is with the Dept. of Kinesiology, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario, Canada. Gleddie is with the Dept. of Elementary Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Ní Chróinín is with the Dept. of Arts Education and Physical Education, Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

Fletcher (tfletcher@brocku.ca) is corresponding author.
  • Azzarito, L. (2019). ‘Look to the bottom’: Re-writing the body curriculum through storylines. Sport, Education and Society, 24(6), 638650. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barker, D.M., Aggerholm, K., Standal, O., & Larsson, H. (2018). Developing the practising model in physical education: An expository outline focusing on movement capability. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(2), 209221. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beni, S., Fletcher, T., & Ní Chróinín, D. (2017). Meaningful experiences in physical education and youth sport: A review of the literature. Quest, 69(3), 291312. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beni, S., Fletcher, T., & Ní Chróinín, D. (2019). Using features of meaningful experiences to guide primary physical education practice. European Physical Education Review, 25(3), 599615. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Casey, A., & Goodyear, V.A. (2015). Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature. Quest, 67(1), 5672. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Century, J., & Cassata, A. (2016). Implementation research: Finding common ground on what, how, why, where, and who. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 169215. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, A. (1998). Meaningfulness in physical education: A description of high school students’ conceptions. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(3), 285306. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Curtner-Smith, M.D., Hastie, P.A., & Kinchin, G.D. (2008). Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education and Society, 13(1), 97117. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

  • Dyson, B. (2002). The implementation of cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22(1), 6985. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C.D. (1992). The influence of value orientations in curriculum decision making. Quest, 44(3), 317329. doi:

  • Ennis, C.D. (1994). Knowledge and beliefs underlying curricular expertise. Quest, 46(2), 164175. doi:

  • Ennis, C.D. (2017). Educating students for a lifetime of physical activity: Enhancing mindfulness, motivation, and meaning. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 88(3), 241250. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C.D., & Chen, A. (1995). Teachers’ value orientations in urban and rural school settings. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(1), 4150. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Enright, E., & O’Sullivan, M. (2010). ‘Can I do it in my pyjamas?’ Negotiating a physical education curriculum with teenage girls. European Physical Education Review, 16(3), 203222. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fletcher, T., Ní Chróinín, D., Gleddie, D., & Beni, S. (in press). The why, what, and how of meaningful physical education. In T. Fletcher, D. Ní Chróinín, D. Gleddie, & S. Beni (Eds.), Meaningful physical education: An approach to guide teaching and learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goodyear, V.A., & Casey, A. (2015). Innovation with change: Developing a community of practice to help teachers move beyond the ‘honeymoon’ of pedagogical renovation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(2), 186203. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Green, K. (2002). Physical education teachers in their figurations: A sociological analysis of everyday “philosophies.” Sport, Education and Society, 7(1), 6583. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278300. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harvey, S., Cushion, C., & Sammon, P. (2015). Dilemmas faced by pre-service teachers when learning about and implementing a game-centred approach. European Physical Education Review, 21(2), 238256. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hastie, P.A., & Casey, A. (2014). Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy: A guide for future investigations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33(3), 422431. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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), 103132. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Landi, D., Fitzpatrick, K., & McGlashan, H. (2016). Models based practices in physical education: A sociocritical reflection. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35(4), 400411. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lindgren, R., & Barker, D. (2019). Implementing the Movement-Oriented Practising Model (MPM) in physical education: Empirical findings focusing on student learning. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(5), 534547. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luguetti, C., & Oliver, K.L. (2020). “I became a teacher that respects the kids’ voices”: Challenges and facilitators pre-service teachers faced in learning an activist approach. Sport, Education and Society, 25(4), 423435. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mandigo, J., Holt, N., Anderson, A., & Sheppard, J. (2008). Children’s motivational experiences following autonomy-supportive games lessons. European Physical Education Review, 14(3), 407425. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moy, B., Renshaw, I., Davids, K., & Brymer, E. (2019). Preservice teachers implementing a nonlinear physical education pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(6), 565581. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O’Connor, J. (2019). Exploring a pedagogy for meaning-making in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 25(4), 10931109. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oliver, K.L., & Kirk, D. (2015). Girls, gender and physical education: An activist approach. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

  • Parker, M., Patton, K., Madden, M., & Sinclair, C. (2010). From committee to community: The development and maintenance of a community of practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(4), 337357. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Penuel, W.R., Phillips, R.S., & Harris, C.J. (2014). Analysing teachers’ curriculum implementation from integrity and actor-oriented perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(6), 751777. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stran, M., Sinelnikov, O., & Woodruff, E. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ experiences implementing a hybrid curriculum: Sport education and teaching games for understanding. European Physical Education Review, 18(3), 287308. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Williams, A., & Wainwright, N. (2016). A new pedagogical model for adventure in the curriculum: Part two–Outlining the model. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(6), 589602. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 489 489 25
PDF Downloads 100 100 9