professional ëdevelopmentí and professional ëlearningí: … · 2018. 11. 2. · professional...

Professional ‘development’ and professional‘learning’: bridging the gap for experiencedphysical education teachers

� Kathleen M. Armour and Martin Yelling LoughboroughUniversity, UK

AbstractThis article analyses the career-long continuing professional development (CPD) of 85

experienced physical education (PE) teachers in England. Data were collected using

semi-structured interviews (20 teachers) and open-ended profile questionnaires (a

further 65 teachers) to find out what forms of professional development these

teachers had undertaken in their careers, what they thought of their experiences and

any recommendations they would make for changes to either the nature or quality of

CPD provision. The research was undertaken in a climate of growing government

interest in teachers’ professional development as a means of raising educational stan-

dards, and promises of increased funding to encourage more and better CPD.

However, very little is known about the nature and quality of existing CPD in PE, or

about PE teachers’ views on their professional learning requirements. The findings of

this study suggest that PE teachers’ CPD experiences lack coherence and relevance.

It is also suggested that there may be something of a gap between teachers’ ambitious

aspirations for pupils in PE and the professional development available to help them

achieve those aspirations. It is argued, therefore, that professional development should

be restructured and refocused to ensure that PE teachers’ career-long learning needs

are met.

Key-words: continuing professional development • learning • physical education • teachers

Background

We are committed to an expanding teaching force. But we need to support them,and support the children in their classes, in new and better ways . . . we need totake more seriously the demands on teachers to be learners, through ongoingprofessional development. (Minister for School Standards in England andWales, David Miliband, 2002: 4, 6)

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL EDUCATION REVIEW [DOI: 10.1177/1356336X04040622]Volume10(1):71–93:040622 EPER

Copyright © 2004 North West Counties Physical Education Association and SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi)www.sagepublications.com

05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 71

www.sagepublications.com

Campbell (2002) points out that continuing professional development (CPD) forteachers is ‘the latest target for government policy’ in England and Wales, claimingthere has been ‘gradual recognition over the last ten years or so of the importance ofCPD, as initiative after initiative has been launched in schools and teachers have triedto meet the challenges of rapid change’ (p. 2). Moreover, Campbell argues, there is anincreased emphasis upon accountability in education in the UK, and a growing expec-tation that schools will become ‘learning communities’ to support and enhance thedevelopment of both teachers and pupils in line with government expectations. Thereis a similar trend in the US,1 leading Brandt (2003) to provide a checklist againstwhich teachers can rate their schools as ‘learning organisations’ including the require-ment for schools to have ‘supportive organisational cultures’ to facilitate collaborationand openness. However, Sparks (2002: 6.2) claims that, in the US at least, this isunlikely to happen because most schools ‘remain hierarchical organisations, notcommunities’, while Fullan (cited in Sparks, 2002: 5.1) points out that:

If most schools and districts are not good learning organisations (or goodprofessional learning communities if you like) this means they are not goodemployers. They are especially not good employers for teachers who want to makea difference.

Stokes (2001: 142) is even more blunt, arguing that in most schools ‘professionalculture of inquiry remains less a reality than a phantasmagoric ideal’.

In one sense, the plea for schools to become more akin to professional learningcommunities could be viewed as a strategy that simply shifts the burden of govern-ments’ school standards agendas to individual teachers and schools, thus limiting thefunding implications of expensive national CPD policies and entitlements. Govern-ments around the world are recognizing that quality teaching makes a difference topupil learning, that teachers can improve their practice through professional learningand, therefore, that high-quality professional learning for teachers is a central factorin determining the quality of teaching (for example, in the UK see Department forEducation and Employment, 2001; in the USA, US Department of Education, 2000;and in Australia, McRae et al., 2001). Yet, while there is some recognition that morefunding for CPD will be required, there is very little agreement about how best toallocate those funds, or what forms the CPD should take. Sparks (2002: 9.1) arguesthat there needs to be greater awareness that traditional forms of CPD may be ineffec-tive and may be described as the ‘batch processing’ of teachers who are ‘talked at’ inthe name of ‘exposing’ them to new ideas. He, along with numerous other researchersin the UK, the US and Australia, points out that these traditional approaches areunlikely to be effective in raising the standards of teachers’ or pupils’ learning (Garetet al., 2001; General Teaching Council, 2002; Lieberman, 1995; Loughran andGunstone, 1997; McRae et al., 2001; Pritchard and Marshall, 2002). Instead, suchprofessional development is more likely to result in ‘fragmented and incoherentteacher learning that lacks intellectual rigour, fails to build on existing knowledge

72 E U RO P E A N P H YS I C A L E D U C AT I O N R E V I E W 1 0 ( 1 )

05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 72

and skills, and does little to support teachers in the day-to-day challenges ofimproving student learning’ (Sparks, 2002: 9.1). What is required, therefore, is somefresh thinking on CPD if it is to deliver all that it promises – or that is promised inits name. The government minister for school standards in England and Wales hasclaimed that ‘the way people are motivated and managed, developed and deployed,is crucial to schools’ success’ (Miliband, 2002: 1). This article, therefore, examinesprofessional development as it is traditionally practised in physical education (PE),and also looks at suggestions for new forms of provision.

There is very little published research evidence available on the professionaldevelopment experiences of PE teachers in England or elsewhere. However, it can bestated with some confidence that there are a range of different CPD providers, includ-ing governing bodies of sport, local authorities, private consultants, charitable bodies(such as the Youth Sport Trust2), examination boards and government-linked depart-ments and quangos. Most of these provide their training in short, off-site, ‘one-shot’training events (Armour and Yelling, 2002). There are also some case studies avail-able of individual or small numbers of PE teachers’ lives and careers (e.g. Armour andJones, 1998; Dowling Naess, 1996; Schempp, 1993) and professional developmentforms an aspect of those studies. However, much of the evidence is presented as partof wider discussions about PE teachers’ lives and careers, and simply highlights thedifficulties these teachers have faced in accessing the type and amount of professionaldevelopment they, ideally, would like (Fejgin and Hanegby, 1999). The purpose ofthis article, therefore, is to place professional learning at the heart of the study, andto focus on experienced PE teachers’ PE–CPD profiles. In the following sections, theresearch is described in detail, and then four key issues from the data are identified,illustrated and discussed.

Research design and data analysis

The data reported here are from the first phase of a two-year project, funded by theEconomic and Social Research Council3 and based at Loughborough University inEngland. The project uses interviews, profile questionnaires and detailed case studiesto analyse the CPD experiences of PE teachers. It is seeking to understand the issuesthat PE teachers face in their careers when attempting to access and engage in existingCPD opportunities, what governs the ‘effectiveness’ of PE–CPD, and what factorsdetermine whether it has an impact upon a teacher’s practice and can enhance pupils’learning in PE. The three research methods used are sequential and interlinked, withinterviews informing the design of the profile questionnaires, and teachers selected asdetailed case studies from the information on profile questionnaires. In the first phaseof the project reported in this article, the data are drawn from the first interviews and,centrally, the profile questionnaires. The focus is upon the patterns of experienced PEteachers’ CPD histories, the nature, quality and relevance of their experiences, andthe problems and issues linked to CPD as they understand them.

A R M O U R & Y E L L I N G : P RO F E S S I O N A L ‘ D E V E L O P M E N T ’ A N D ‘ L E A R N I N G ’ 73

05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 73

Interviews

In the preparatory phase for this project, one of the authors undertook in-depth semi-structured interviews with 20 experienced PE teachers in 12 schools in England(Armour, 2001). The interviews lasted between one and two hours, generating 34hours of interview data. In each interview, teachers were engaged in a wide-rangingand open discussion about the various CPD experiences they could recall and about‘effectiveness’ from their point of view. The interview transcripts were analysed bothas individual case studies and also collectively, looking at patterns of experience andrecurring themes (for example, the difficulties associated with cost and supply cover).It is interesting (but perhaps not surprising) to note that, although the teachers haddifferent lengths of service (from 5 to 35 years) and had undertaken their initialtraining in completely different time periods, the interviews raised a comparativelysmall range of issues. In summary, it was found that PE–CPD was found to besomewhat limited in its challenge; routine ‘information-giving’ events (for example,those provided by examination boards) were not viewed as challenging CPD; goodone-day sports update courses could have a lasting impact upon practice where thepresenter was good and the ‘course’ involved active learning; the teachers rarely – ifever – read research in PE; each teacher was different in terms of the routes intoteaching and subsequent career paths; and there was little discernible learning coher-ence or progression in the teachers’ CPD histories (Armour, 2001; Armour andYelling, in press).

Profile questionnaires

The findings from the interviews were used to inform the design of an open-endedprofile questionnaire. Although it was recognized that open-ended questionnairescan be difficult and time-consuming to complete (Gilham, 2000), it was felt thatthe advantage of allowing teachers the time and space to consider their careers andto comment on their deliberations outweighed the benefits of a shorter, more easilycompleted but less personal research instrument. The interviews had identified someclear similarities in PE teachers’ CPD histories, but it was felt that more evidencewas needed about teachers’ profiles. Moreover, the interviews signalled a need tounderstand more about the ways in which teachers’ philosophies about and aspir-ations for PE were linked to their CPD profiles. Another issue to explore further wasthe notion of CPD ‘effectiveness’ – and the authors were keen to offer teachers theopportunity to define this in their own terms. The decision was taken, therefore, toaccept that profile questionnaire returns would be difficult to secure and that thedata would be messy to analyse, but to pursue the potential richness, detail and indi-viduality of data using this approach. It was also accepted at the outset that theseteachers could not be regarded as representative of the whole PE profession inEngland. On the other hand, it soon became clear that, as was the case in the inter-views, even though these teachers were at different stages in their careers, and had


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 74

different career experiences from initial training and beyond, there were someremarkable similarities in their profiles. Thus, although they cannot be regarded asrepresentative (Williams, 2002), it is probably accurate to view their experiences asillustrative and informative – a view that is supported further when the nature andrange of the key PE–CPD providers are taken into account. In short, teachers canonly access what is available and much of this falls into a relatively limited range ofcategories and providers.

The goal was to collect 80–100 completed profiles in order to illustrate some-thing of the range of CPD profiles within PE. A covering letter outlining the rationaleand purpose of the research, three copies of the questionnaire and accompanying pre-paid return envelopes were sent to the heads of department (HoD) of PE in 56 second-ary schools in, or around, the Midlands of England. These schools represented across-section of type, location and secondary age range (11–18) and the majority werein partnership with a university in the context of initial teacher training (ITT). TheHoDs were asked to complete the questionnaire themselves if they had five or moreyears experience, and to distribute the additional copies to members of their depart-ment with the requisite level of experience. Respondents could either elect to remainanonymous, or complete their personal details and indicate a desire to be keptinformed about the research as it progressed and/or to participate in future stages ofthe project. Sixty-five experienced PE teachers (37 men and 28 women) completedand returned their profiles. They had between 6 and 29 years experience of teachingPE, and included teachers with many different roles in PE (e.g. advanced skillsteachers, heads of department, directors of sport and teachers responsible for particu-lar aspects of the PE curriculum). Although the number of returns was lower thanthe original target, the range of teachers responding fulfilled one of the key aims ofthe project: namely, to capture the views of experienced teachers of PE who had variedroles within their schools and within PE.

In the profiles, teachers were asked to list all the professional development theycould recall since initial training, identify what had been effective/ineffective andexplain why, outline any CPD plans for the near future, offer advice to PE–CPDpolicy-makers and identify the outcome from PE that they considered to be mostimportant in their school. As was the case with the interviews, the profiles wereanalysed both individually and collectively. At an individual level, the focus was uponidentifying links between the questions – for example, between the CPD activitiesattended and the declared key-learning outcome of PE programmes for pupils. At thecollective level, teachers’ answers to each of the questions were placed together undera series of key headings linked to specific questions, for example, ‘PE teachers’ viewson effective CPD’. The process involved categorizing all of the teachers’ commentsinto the key issues or themes arising, checking ambiguous statements betweenresearchers and in the context of the whole questionnaire, and then simply countingthe frequency of mentions. In the sections that follow, some key aspects of the profilesare highlighted. In each case, the general issue or theme is identified, illustrative dataare presented and an analytical comment follows.


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 75

Issue (i): the ‘point’ of PE – key learningoutcomes for pupils from PE programmes

The first issue to be discussed was, in fact, the last question on the profile question-naire. Taken collectively, these teachers reported three main goals for pupils’ learningthat they regarded as key outcomes of their PE programmes:

• health, fitness and lifelong activity,• competence, knowledge and understanding in/of sports, and• elements of personal, social and emotional education.

Of these three, the most commonly cited learning outcome related to health, fitnessand lifelong activity, mentioned by two-thirds of teachers (47 mentions). Specificallythese teachers considered that pupils’ experiences of PE should be enjoyable, shouldhelp to inform appropriate ‘lifestyles’ and promote good ‘health’, and that PE shouldinstil a desire to be physically active that would endure beyond school and into adult-hood. For example, one teacher said PE is about ‘promoting the value of exercise inpupils’ lifestyles’. Another teacher commented, ‘the process of being physicallyeducated equips the individual with the skills, qualities and desire to maintain a phys-ically active lifestyle, within and beyond school years’. The second learning outcomecited was in the area of acquiring competence in performing physical skills and activi-ties and developing pupils’ knowledge and understanding of a variety of sports (19mentions). As one teacher said, ‘[PE is about] providing pupils with an experience ofthe enjoyment of sport and trying to reach the best standards possible’; anothersuggested that PE provides pupils with an ‘understanding of activities so they knowhow to play the game, know the rules and be knowledgeable spectators’. The thirdlearning outcome can be located in the domain of personal, social and moral education(26 mentions). Thus, teachers wanted pupils to enjoy their experiences and have fun,to develop personal and social skills and positive attitudes, to improve self-esteem andconfidence in their own performances, and to learn about team-work, leadership andfair play. For example, one teacher said ‘PE is about raising self-esteem and confidencein taking part’; another said PE should teach pupils ‘to promote values and respectfor fellow competitors’, and a third thought that PE should teach pupils to be ‘self-confident and have the ability to express themselves’.

Comment

The prevalence of responses in the health/physical activity domain might partiallyreflect the prominent media concern about low levels of physical activity in youngpeople and the notion of the ‘couch potato kid’ that research suggests presents a signifi-cant health threat to the community (Biddle et al., 1998; Daley, 2002; Sport Englandand General Household Survey, 2001). However, it is difficult to trace the ways in whichteachers’ stated learning priorities for pupils are translated into practice, although thereis some evidence to suggest that practice is poor in the health/physical activity aspects


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 76

of the curriculum in the UK (Cale et al., 2002; Harris, 1997, 2000). What is of particu-lar interest for this article, however, is the way in which two of the three key learningoutcomes identified for PE fail to feature in professional development undertaken bythese teachers. This issue is illustrated and discussed in the next section.

Issue (ii): the nature of PE–CPD – what doteachers learn?

Teachers were asked to list all the CPD activities that they could remember under-taking since initial training, identifying both the duration and location of eachactivity. Taken collectively, their responses fell into eight broad categories:

• Sport-specific update courses (226 mentions),• Curriculum planning/development/assessment (153 mentions),• Departmental and pupil-management courses (91 mentions),• First aid and safety (37 mentions),• Outreach and wider school issues (38 mentions),• ICT training (25 mentions),• Conference attendance (25 mentions),• Academic and personal (24 mentions).

At an individual teacher level, responses to this question revealed that respondents hadbroadly similar CPD profiles in two key respects: first, there was little evidence of eitherprogressive or coherent professional learning except, perhaps, in staged coachingcourses. Second, as was the case with the interviewed teachers, most of the CPDidentified was undertaken as a ‘course’ that took place away from the teacher’s ownschool and lasted for one day. Courses that lasted for more than one day were typicallyundertaken at weekends and over a number of weeks to qualify teachers as ‘coaches’ ina particular sport, often of personal interest to them. Indeed, sport-specific updatecourses were by far the most commonly reported activity, with every teacher includ-ing this form of experience on their profile. These were usually run by nationalgoverning bodies, coaching organizations (e.g. ‘Coaching for Teachers’,4

http://www.sportscoachuk.org/index.htm) or the local education authority PE curricu-lum adviser. Examples of this type of CPD included Rugby Football Union Prelimi-nary Coach, Youth Sport Trust ‘TOPS’ programmes, British Trampolining AssociationLevel 1 Coach and Hockey Umpiring awards. It is also important to note that thisform of sport-specific CPD was probably understated in the profile questionnaires. Forexample two teachers added the following comments to their responses:

If I were to write all the courses I have done, I would be here all week. I havedone as many as possible over the years, generally of a sporting nature.

Due to the many years of teaching PE (32) probably too numerous to list! Basicqualifications in all the major sports, and courses on how to make you a betterteacher.


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm 7

CPD was also undertaken in the broad area of curriculum planning/developmentand assessment. These activities were mostly delivered off-site and, in the case ofassessment, were usually delivered by examination boards. Examples of such coursesinclude: ‘Delivering GCSE theory’, ‘A level PE Skill Acquisition’, ‘A/AS/2 level PESummer Schools’, and ‘Practical Assessment for A level PE’. Some teachers were alsoinvolved in GCSE and A level examination assessment moderation in clusters ofneighbouring schools. In addition, there were some specific curriculum planningand development CPD activities mentioned, such as developing departmental hand-books, implementing the NCPE, planning and developing successful PE curriculaand, in four cases, making an application for Specialist Sports College5 status.Departmental and pupil management courses also featured on many profiles and,here again, they mainly comprised one-day, off-site courses that featured topicsassociated with individual or department development and progression (forexample, ‘Aspiring Head of Department’, ‘Skills of a Head of Department’, ‘Howto Run a Successful PE Department’) and matters concerned with managing pupils(for example, ‘Assertive Discipline Courses’) and raising pupil achievement andparticipation in PE (for example, NIKE Girls’ Project workshops, and ‘ImprovingBoys’ Attainment in PE’). Other CPD activities included ‘Information andCommunication Technology (ICT) training’. Examples include courses centred onteachers’ own learning of generic ICT skills (for example, New Opportunities FundTraining) and others more specific to the application of ICT in PE, for example, theuse of interactive whiteboards and audio-visual equipment. Another CPD activitycited by some teachers was attending PE conferences. These included the annualSpecialist Sports Colleges Conference, conferences of national professional subjectassociations (for example, Physical Education Association, British Association ofAdvisors and Lecturers in PE) and conferences organized by their local educationauthority.

CPD activities associated with ‘wider school issues’ also featured in the PEteachers’ profiles. They were identified as half-day or full-day school-based ‘in-service’days undertaken when pupils were not in school. During these whole-school activi-ties, teachers learnt about topics identified by the school such as ‘citizenship’,‘dyslexia’, ‘gifted and talented pupils’, ‘drug awareness’ and ‘ensuring a qualityoutreach programme’ and they were expected to apply this learning to their ownsubject context. In addition to these, first-aid qualifications and safety training coursessuch as ‘Health and Safety at Work’, ‘Risk Assessment in PE’ and ‘Training Aware-ness for Adults Other than Teachers in PE’ were undertaken by some teachers. A smallnumber of teachers (6) reported that they had taken or were currently pursuing‘academic and professional’ courses, such as higher degrees. However, only two ofthese teachers reported conducting research in PE; others were examining broadereducational issues such as ‘Emotional intelligence’ and ‘Educational management andleadership’. Finally, and as expected given the nature of the respondent group, manyof the teachers acted as school-based subject mentors for ITT and so were able to adduniversity-based training days to their CPD profiles. More interesting, however, is


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 78

the number who did not define this as a CPD activity, even though it is likely thatthey were involved in it.

Comment

As was noted in the previous section, these teachers identified three key learningoutcomes of their PE programmes for pupils, yet predominantly they appear to beundertaking professional development in only one of them: knowledge and under-standing in/of sports. The other two, health, fitness and lifelong activity, and aspectsof personal, social and emotional education, are conspicuous by their absence from theteachers’ CPD profiles. This leads to a key question for the profession: where and howare teachers developing their professional knowledge in promoting lifelong learningabout physical activity for health, or developing areas such as pupils’ self-esteem andconcepts of ‘fair play’? The evidence from this study seems to point to a gap betweenwhat PE teachers want/need to know, and what is available. Alternatively, this absencecould simply reflect a prevailing belief that matters of health and personal/socialeducation are ‘caught’ by pupils as an integral part of their participation in wider PEcurriculum activities. Yet, given the centrality of these learning outcomes as expressedby these teachers, and the wider evidence suggesting that, for example, young peopleare not engaging in sufficient physical activity, questions about this assumption couldusefully be posed.

In their 2001 survey report, Sport England identified a decline in the number ofpeople participating in sport in the UK. For Trevor Brooking (then chair of SportEngland) the findings represented ‘a worrying trend that has major implicationsfor the health of our nation’. He stressed that, to address this decline, the govern-ment should place sport much higher on the nation’s agenda (www.sportengland.org/press_releases, 15 February 2002). Similarly, the Central Council ofPhysical Recreation (CCPR) has also issued a call for the government to ‘invest inschool sport and tackle obesity’ (www.ccpr.org.uk/media/content/obesity, 28November 2001). Specifically, the CCPR contends that the declining participation inexercise and the growing epidemic of ‘couch kids’ represents a potential ‘time bomb’for the National Health Service and it highlights the importance of ‘joined up govern-ment’ for sport (www.ccpr.org.uk/media/content.alms, 14 February 2002). Thesestatements are illustrative of a growing public interest in links between lack ofphysical activity and its impact upon the health of young people. Yet, at the sametime, the PE curriculum (as expressed in the National Curriculum PhysicalEducation, NCPE [DfEE and QCA, 19996]) appears to promote a sport/performancefocus on learning in schools (see Penney and Evans, 1997, 1999). Thus, althoughhealth/physical activity appears as part of the NCPE – ‘It promotes positive attitudestowards active and healthy lifestyles . . . pupils discover their aptitudes, abilities andpreferences and make choices about how to get involved in lifelong physical activity’(DfEE and QCA, 1999: 15) – it is not central to the structure of that curriculum. Thesame argument could be made about pupils’ social/moral education. The importance


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 79

of the structure of the National Curriculum in shaping what teachers can learn inCPD should not be underestimated. Campbell (2002: 6) contends that ‘much ofteachers’ professional development activities in the recent past, since the introductionof the National Curriculum have been driven by the needs of government initiatives,policy and a somewhat punitive inspection regime’.

The intention in NCPE is that the core strands form the basis of each of the morespecific content areas of the curriculum: ‘they are read and used together as they areinter-related and increasingly dependant upon each other’ (Casbon, 1999: 7). Thus,teachers are expected to adopt an integrated approach to their teaching that addressesaspects of ‘fitness and health’ in the context of units of work associated with a specificactivity area – such as games, or dance (Penney and Yelling, 2001). Yet this approachrequires teachers to have a detailed (and constantly developing) knowledge and under-standing of the physical activity/health domain as they relate to very specific NCPEcontexts and requirements. Moreover, there is a danger that, without it, health andphysical activity learning outcomes will become ‘lost’ amid the more concrete andpressing areas of sports activity within the curriculum that are traditionally supportedby professional development. For Harris and Penney (2000), therefore, while theidentification of ‘fitness and health’ as a strand of learning in the NCPE is encourag-ing, the ways in which it will be developed in practice remain uncertain. Similarcomments have been made about pupils’ learning in sociomoral domains(Theodoulides and Armour, 2001) and both examples raise questions about theconcept of ‘effectiveness’ in PE–CPD – essentially, how do teachers learn best?

Issue (iii): effective (and ineffective) PE–CPD

For the teachers in this study, CPD was ‘effective’ in six different ways.

Practical (37 mentions)Teachers liked to experience CPD that was ‘hands on’ and involved them practicallyin the activity. As one teacher with 20 years experience commented:

The best PE ones usually involve some practical work. You need to interact withnew ideas and information, not just be told it, or told to ‘discuss’ it. PE teachersnotoriously (especially men, sorry) do not enjoy ‘talk and chalk’, so the moreactive/interactive it is the more successful.

Another teacher with 23 years experience said, ‘I would find it very useful to go on acourse where I was taught what I am going to teach. Much can be learnt from booksbut, there is nothing like being taught yourself.’

Relevant and applicable (44 mentions)For example, CPD linked to the National Curriculum was helpful because that iswhat teachers have to deliver. Effective CPD also had to be relevant to individualschool settings and the different contexts in which teachers’ day-to-day work takesplace. As one teacher commented: ‘courses are effective when they are relevant to what


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 80

you do everyday, make teaching easier, and have ease of transfer to school and curricu-lum’. Another teacher remarked that ‘courses related to the activities I have to teachare what motivates me and hopefully then motivates my staff and pupils’. Moreover,effective CPD activities had to have relevance to the issues and dilemmas that teachersfaced in the ‘real world’ of teaching; as one teacher pointed out, ‘some courses leavethe realities of using ideas with pupils in the “perfect world”, rather than in the realone!’. Another teacher pointed out: ‘there’s no point discussing new equipment andthe fact that we haven’t got it’.

Able to provide ‘ideas’ and ‘practices’ (55 mentions)These teachers liked to come away from a CPD activity feeling that they had beenprovided with support material, new information, solutions to problems and freshideas for delivering subject content. Essentially, these ideas must be ‘workable’ and‘ready to use’, with key resources and materials distributed at the event: ‘good CPDis where you can take examples of good practice back [into school] and use them inyour teaching’. At the same time, although the teachers wanted new ideas, they werereluctant to have to revisit what they considered to be ‘old concepts’. Central to thiswas the need to avoid time-wasting; a teacher with 28 years experience commented:‘Not re-inventing the wheel! If it ain’t broke, don’t break it to mend it!’

Delivered by a good presenter (29 mentions)The presentation and delivery skills of the CPD provider were important to theseteachers. They remembered good CPD when it was delivered by an experienced andknowledgeable course leader with recent, relevant experience and an understandingof the current demands of teaching PE, i.e. ‘delivered by an inspector who knew herstuff, cares about children and PE and strives to raise its status’. The CPD leadershould also be someone who is enthusiastic, dynamic, well organized, could bringhumour to the activity to make it fun and who practised what he or she preached;one teacher commented, ‘The worst is having some old bloke who hasn’t taught inyears talk to you about what to do when you are just thinking, “I would love to leaveyou in a class today with some of our rough kids” ’ .

Challenging and thought provoking (17 mentions)There was some support for the notion that CPD was effective when it challengedprevailing ideologies and existing teaching methods and encouraged time for criticalreflection on current practices. For example, one teacher liked CPD that was ‘Thoughtprovoking and challenged traditional views. Something that gives you an alternativeinterpretation of something’; while another remarked that effective CPD led to a real-ization that ‘it hits home that you are able to make a difference’.

Able to offer time for reflection and collaboration (24 mentions)Effective PE–CPD also allowed time for reflection out of the school environment andinvolved sharing experiences, ideas and collaborating with other teachers. Theexchange of knowledge and experience, and time for opportunities to share ideas and


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 81

practices with fellow professionals, both featured strongly. One teacher with 10 yearsexperience said that effective CPD involves ‘chatting to other teachers and pickingtheir brains’, while another teacher liked to have ‘opportunity for discussion with like-minded people’. This is the sort of activity that teachers wanted more of: ‘we needmore opportunities to talk and share ideas’ and ‘schools should be more prepared toshare good practice within local areas’.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, teachers’ responses about ineffective CPD provided amirror image of effective CPD. Thus, these teachers were disappointed when CPDactivities failed to meet their expectations and the stated objectives/outcomes of theactivity were dominated by ‘theory’ without a focus on practical application andinvolvement, were delivered badly by individuals lacking specialist subject know-ledge and/or experience, where they offered limited (or no) ‘new’ ideas and resources,were largely irrelevant to individual school contexts and ‘real life’ physical education,where the geographical location of the activity was unsuitable (these teacherspreferred local courses) and where there were insufficient opportunities to share ideaswith colleagues.

Comment

These PE teachers were not unusual in their views. International research supportsthe notion that effective CPD has some or all of the following characteristics:

• The content of professional development focuses on what students are to learnand how to address the different problems students may have in learning thatmaterial.

• Professional development should be driven by analyses of the differences between(a) goals and standards for student learning and (b) student performance.

• Professional development should involve teachers in the identification of whatthey need to learn and, when possible, in the development of the learning oppor-tunity and/or the process to be used.

• Professional development should be primarily school based and integral to schooloperations.

• Professional development should provide learning opportunities that relate toindividual needs but are, for the most part, organized around collaborativeproblem solving.

• Professional development should be continuous and ongoing, involving follow-up and support for further learning, including support from sources external tothe school that can provide necessary resources and outside perspectives.

• Professional development should incorporate evaluation of multiple sources ofinformation on outcomes for students and processes that are involved in imple-menting the lessons learned through professional development.

• Professional development should provide opportunities to engage in developinga theoretical understanding of the knowledge and skills to be learned.


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 82

• Professional development should be integrated with a comprehensive changeprocess that addresses impediments to and facilitators of student learning(Hawley and Valli, 2000: 1–4).

These criteria are similar to those identified in a number of other studies (Corcoran,1995; Garet et al., 2001; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1996; NPEAT, 1998; NSDC, 2001;Sparks, 2002; Terzian, 2000). Despite this appearance of consensus, Guskey (2003)has pointed out that there are also key differences between the different studies. Inhis review of 13 studies exploring ‘effective CPD’, Guskey highlights that ‘whilstsome overlap exists in the characteristics identified, they are not identical’ (p. 1).What Guskey does note, however, is the importance of the promotion of collegialityand collaborative exchange: ‘educators at all levels value opportunities to worktogether, reflect on their practices, exchange ideas, and share strategies and expertise’(p. 2). Similar findings were reported by Keating (2001) in a study of Englishteachers; they defined successful CPD as an activity that allocated time for thoughts,ideas and doubts to be shared in a positive and supportive environment. Linked tothis is Stigler’s claim (cited in Willis, 2002) that teachers should have greater oppor-tunities to participate in collaborative CPD, pointing out that:

The focus on collaboration is a shift from making teaching completely private torealizing how much you can learn by letting your teaching be public and talkingabout it with your colleagues. It’s scary, but the value is instantly apparent toteachers who do it. (p. 7)

Furthermore, in the UK, in their report on Continuing Professional Development forTeachers in Schools the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED, 2002) showedthat although attendance at ‘courses’ was the main vehicle for CPD in most schools,there was

. . . evidence of a growing awareness of the value of other forms of CPD. Theseincluded, in particular, sharing the expertise of teachers in the same school, sharingknowledge and skills with teachers in other schools, and using consultants toprovide in-school programmes of support to tackle a specific need. (p. 3)

Yet, as Sparks (2002) points out, only a small portion of what is known about effec-tive CPD is regularly practised in schools and, unsurprisingly perhaps, there was littleevidence of these types of CPD experiences in the profiles of PE teachers in this study.Sparks (2002: 3.8) argues that ‘professional learning can occur in many ways that areoften not thought of as professional development’ and that

. . . while workshops and courses are the most familiar forms of professionaldevelopment, they are not often the most appropriate to achieve certainobjectives. Many types of activities that cause teachers to collaborate in seriousand sustained ways and to reflect on their work and its effect on student learningare important but typically overlooked. (2002: 9.5)


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 83

So, as Stigler (cited in Willis, 2002: 6) points out, effective CPD is an ‘ongoing-partof a teacher’s workweek, not something that’s tacked on’ or, as Falk (2001) argues, weneed to view professional learning as the job of teaching, rather than as an optionaladjunct to it. However, as the newly established Professional Development Board forPE (see Whitehead, 2002) has found, most existing PE–CPD appears to be cast inthe traditional mould of one-day, off-site courses, although there are also localizedinstances of different provision being made available in PE, particularly in the caseof schools that are – or are linked to – specialist sports colleges. For example, one ofthe case-study teachers involved in phase two of our research (ongoing7) has recentlybeen successful in an application for specialist sports college status and considers thatthis will improve access to and provision of professional development for PE staffwithin his own school and also within the neighbouring ‘family’ of schools. In starkcontrast, however, another case-study teacher highlighted the problem of ‘not beinga specialist sports college’. She commented: ‘some courses refer to PE in the idealworld, e.g. a hockey course on astroturf, great – but back at school we’ve got longgrass and a waterlogged pitch (i.e. not a specialist sports college)’. With regard to what‘counts’ as CPD, a key focus of the ongoing case-study phase of this research projectis to find out more about the dynamics of day-to-day, school-based professionallearning that might be occurring without being recognized by teachers as‘professional development’. As Campbell (2002: 12) points out, there is much poten-tial in exploring new forms of collaborative and school-based CPD that can enableteachers to ‘share the fruits of their labours – not in recipes and packages but in reportsof creativity, passion and joy in teaching’.

Issue (iv): advice to policy-makers

Based on their PE–CPD experiences, these teachers had some clear advice for policy-makers about current and future PE–CPD provision. Most offered one or two keypoints for them which, collectively, resulted in five specific and closely linked areasof concern:

• Course funding (21 mentions),• Cost and quality of supply cover (17 mentions),• Time and teacher workload (16 mentions),• Location/type of activity (29 mentions),• Entitlement (14 mentions).

The financial cost of undertaking off-site ‘courses’ was a major concern and theseteachers felt that many courses were too expensive. One teacher suggested thatproviders of CPD should ‘keep the cost to a minimum to enable more staff to attendcourses’. Another commented that: ‘Finance must be made available to providequality CPD activities in line with teachers highlighting areas for development fromperformance management targets. “Can’t go on a course because there is no money”should never happen.’


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 84

Coupled with the high cost of many courses was the issue of teacher supply cover.Both the ‘hidden’ cost of cover associated with being able to attend the course, andthe difficulty of finding high-quality cover, resulted in teachers often being unableand/or reluctant to leave their classes to attend CPD activities. One teacher statedthat ‘the cost of supply teachers means that schools cannot fund people to go out ofschool often enough . . . also the availability of suitably qualified [supply] staff is rare’.Another teacher commented, ‘[we] need more supply teachers to cover teachers inschool, this is preventing lots of teachers receiving CPD’. Covering lessons was notonly an issue when external supply teachers were ‘bought’ into school, but also whenthe school operated an ‘internal’ system of covering lessons in the event of staffabsence. In this situation, other teachers delivered absent colleagues’ timetabledlessons in their ‘free periods’. The absent teacher was subsequently expected to ‘repay’these upon return to school; leading one teacher to remark: ‘ensure that course attend-ance is encouraged, and not made hard by cover lessons having to be repaid’.

Another issue was time, and undertaking courses in teachers’ personal time wasnot a popular choice for these teachers; rather they felt that more opportunities forCPD should be provided within the school day. One teacher felt that ‘taking teachersoutside of the school day is difficult as it is expecting them to give their own time’.Another teacher commented,

Due to my long working day I have little spare time . . . as PE teachers have ahuge time commitment to extra-curricular activities, there should be more timemade available in the school day (for all teachers) to attend CPD courses andcascade information.

Closely associated with the issues of time and workload was the issue of location.Teachers wanted to see more ‘localized’ courses to save travelling time: two teachersreported, ‘the location is often too far away, [you] spend most time travelling’ and‘run courses within easy travelling distance of your school, (i.e. 30 mile radius)’.Moreover, teachers didn’t want to ‘waste’ valuable time taken either from the schoolday, or from their own time, thus it was imperative that attendance at CPD wasproductive and useful, that courses met their stated outcomes and that they finishedon time. Underpinning all these issues of funding, supply cover and time, there wasa strong notion of ‘entitlement’ to high-quality CPD for all teachers. One teachercommented ‘opportunities for CPD should be readily available and awareness shouldbe raised to allow all staff to access quality CPD’, and a further teacher recommendedthat ‘CPD must be built into school time’. Another key feature of this was that theentitlement should be in place regardless of the type of school. As one teachersuggested ‘schools should make CPD an entitlement and not dependant upon indi-vidual schools, and cover arrangements’.

Comment

As in previous sections, it is clear that these issues are not unique to PE teachers. Forexample, OFSTED (2002: 24) noted problems with funding and finance for CPD in


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 85

all subjects, reporting that ‘in a significant proportion of the schools, money tosupport professional development was often spread thinly across a number ofteachers’. Where teachers were able to attend CPD, they were often unable to develop,share and exploit any new learning back at school due to ‘competing demands andpressures on their time’ (p. 25). Moreover, finding good-quality supply cover was alsohighlighted by OFSTED as an area of concern: ‘a minority of the schools regularlycalled on a small number of well regarded supply teachers to cover teachers’ lessons. . . in a good proportion of the other schools, supply cover was more difficult to find’(p. 10). Furthermore, the report identifies that difficulties in securing adequate supplycover for teachers to attend external CPD activities demanded that teachers pursuestaff development after school. For the majority, this was viewed as undesirable: ‘mostof the teachers felt that time should be available for them to undertake CPD duringthe school day’ (p. 14). In this respect, OFSTED recommend that ‘sufficient time foreffective preparation, follow-up and dissemination needs to be included as part of thebudget for professional development’ (p. 25).

It is also clear that reconciling conflicting requirements will not be easy iftraditional models of CPD are pursued; for example, it seems difficult to envisageproviding teachers with more time away from classes without, at the same time,disrupting pupils’ learning. What seems to be needed is a move to a different modelof CPD, more along the lines of what Garet et al. (2001) describe as ‘reform’ typeactivities. Thus, whereas ‘traditional’ forms of CPD tend to take place at specifictimes, off-site, with minimal follow-up or support to enable teachers to integratenew learning with practice, and so are often ineffective, ‘reform’ types of CPD typi-cally take place within the school day, involve collective participation of teachersfrom the same school or group of schools, and are integrated into practice in the formof study groups, mentoring and coaching. Garet et al. argue that these activities areeasier to sustain over time and are likely to result in better connections between newlearning and existing practice. This is a view echoed in numerous quarters (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Evans, 2002; Lieberman et al., 2003) and it seems clear that abroader understanding of CPD is required if a more effective range of learningexperiences is to be made available to PE teachers. This is closely linked to the notionof CPD entitlement, a concept that becomes a reality only when time, access andfunding are in place to support professional learning. The General Teaching Council(2000) suggests that teachers should have an entitlement to consistent and relevantCPD and that this should feature strongly in any strategy for teacher developmentand learning. The council contends that such entitlement should ‘enable all teachersto enhance their professional knowledge and pedagogic practice in order to, raisestandards of achievement for all pupils, manage change and pursue their ownpersonal and professional development’ (p. 1). A good illustration of this is thepractical implication of operationalizing the concept of collaborative professionallearning. If collaborative, school-based learning is to take place, contexts and struc-tures in which sustained collaboration can take place need to be created in schools(Newmann, 1994; Stigler, cited in Willis, 2002). However, this would require some


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 86

major shifts in school policy and practices. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin(1995: 2) argue that:

. . . new initiatives cannot by themselves promote meaningful or long termchange in teachers’ practice if they are embedded in a policy structure that is atodds with the visions of student and teacher learning reforms seek to bring alive.

They suggest instead that demand for new forms of CPD signals a need for schoolorganizational structures to be redesigned to create more time for teachers to under-take CPD as a part of their normal responsibilities and that ‘this requires rethinkingschedules, staffing patterns, and grouping patterns to create blocks of time forteachers to work and learn together’ (p. 6).

Conclusion

Although the government in the UK (DfEE, 2001; DfES, 2003) has signalledincreased funding to ensure that all teachers will have access to high-quality CPD,Elmore (2002 reminds us

that spending more money on existing professional development activities, asmost are presently designed, is unlikely to have any significant effect on either theknowledge and skill of educators or on the performance of students. (p. 6)

This is a salutary thought for PE–CPD providers. As teachers become more account-able, so we can expect CPD providers to be held increasingly accountable for thelearning outcomes of their provision and its impact upon raising educational stan-dards. The findings from this research point to a need to rethink the nature and typeof provision of CPD for PE teachers to match teachers’ priorities for pupil learningin the subject and to cater more broadly for teachers’ learning needs. OFSTED (2002:11) suggests that, in teaching generally, ‘the narrow perceptions that professionaldevelopment always involves off-site activity, such as attendance at a course hostedby the LEA, is gradually being replaced by a wider and more comprehensive view ofCPD’. Such a broadening of the understandings and provision of professional develop-ment for PE teachers would be a timely and welcome addition to the PE–CPD land-scape. Indeed, elsewhere we have argued for the development of professional learningcommunities within PE departments to begin to lay the foundations for effective CPDfor PE teachers (Armour and Yelling, 2003, in press). Stein et al. (1999) note that theneed for new forms of CPD and rising accountability for CPD providers will requiremajor changes in thinking and practice for many providers and that they may needsome guidance on how to achieve such change. One of the first steps in this processmust be to listen to the views of experienced PE teachers, and to attempt to gain aclear understanding of the lived reality of their day-to-day practice and the oppor-tunities it offers for sustained and progressive professional learning. Indeed, thenotion of professional ‘development’, with its suggestion of teacher passivity, couldbecome redundant. Instead, the focus should be upon professional ‘learning’, with all


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 87

that the term implies. At the very least, it might persuade us to apply some of whatwe know about effective pupil learning to the context of teachers’ professional learning.

Notes

1 Although the education systems of these nations are different in structure, the researchliterature suggests that, at a conceptual, practical and theoretical level, issues facingteachers within these structures are remarkably similar.

2 The Youth Sport Trust (YST) is a registered charity established in 1994 by Sir John Beck-with. The YST aims to build a brighter future for young people through sport and qualityPE.

3 The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC, Project number R000239437) isfunding a two-year project, running from December 2001 to December 2003, exploring‘Continuing Professional Development: Provision for Physical Education Teachers’. Theaim of the project is to draw upon data from interviews, questionnaires and case studieswith experienced PE teachers to address two related questions. First, what are the issuesthat PE teachers have faced in their careers when trying to access and engage in existingCPD opportunities? Second, when CPD is undertaken, what factors determine whetherit has an impact upon teachers’ practice and can enhance pupils’ learning in PE? Thesupport of the ESRC is greatly appreciated.

4 Sportscoach UK (formerly the National Coaching Foundation) provides numerous sports-specific coaching courses that are intended to provide for the professional developmentneeds of PE teachers – e.g. Secondary Teacher Award in Badminton.

5 A specialist sports college is a maintained secondary school in England which receivesadditional funding from the Department for Education and Skills to raise standards in PEand sport within its own school, within a local family of schools and in the wider com-munity. See http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pess/contentDrill.cfm?sectionId=68

6 In the curriculum structure, four ‘core strands of learning’ are identified at each key stage.The four core strands of learning identified are: ‘Acquiring and developing skills; Select-ing and applying skills, tactics and compositional ideas; Evaluating and improving;Knowledge and understanding of fitness and health’ (DfEE and QCA, 1999: 6).

7 Phase 2 of the research involves working closely with 10 case-study teachers over thecourse of one academic year. Using interviews, personal diaries and participant obser-vation, the research is attempting to understand more about where and how PE teachersengage in professional learning.

References

Armour, K.M. (2001) ‘Connective Pedagogies: Continuing Professional Development forPhysical Education Teachers’, paper presented at the British Educational Research Associ-ation Annual Conference, Leeds, 15–17 Sept.

Armour, K.M. and Jones, R.L. (1998) Physical Education Teachers’ Lives and Careers. London:Falmer Press.

Armour, K.M and Yelling, M.R. (2002) ‘ “ Talk and Chalk” or Learning from “Doing”:Continuing Professional Development for Physical Education Teachers’, British Journal ofTeaching Physical Education 33(4): 40–2.

Armour, K.M. and Yelling, M. (2003) ‘Physical Education Departments as Learning Organis-ations: The Foundations for Effective Professional Development’, paper presented at theBritish Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University,Edinburgh, 11–13 Sept.


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 88

Armour, K.M and Yelling, M. (in press) ‘Continuing Professional Development for PhysicalEducation Teachers: Towards Effective Provision’, Sport, Education and Society.

Biddle, S., Cavill, N. and Sallis, J. (1998) Young People and Health-Enhancing Physical Activity:Evidence and Implications. London: Health Education Authority.

Brandt, R. (2003) ‘Is This School a Learning Organisation? Ten Ways to Tell’, Journal of StaffDevelopment 24(1): 1–8. http://www.nsdc.org/library/jsd/brandt241.html, accessed 3 April2003.

Cale, L., Harris, J. and Leggett, G. (2002) ‘Making a Difference? Lessons Learned from aHealth-Related Exercise Resource’, Bulletin of Physical Education 38(3): 145–61.

Campbell, A. (2002) ‘Research and Professional Development’, paper presented at the BritishEducational Research Association Annual Conference, Exeter University, 12–14 Sept.

Casbon, C. (1999) ‘National Curriculum Review: Key Points in the New Order’, British Journalof Physical Education 30(1): 4–6.

Corcoran, T.C. (1995) Transforming Professional Development for Teachers: A Guide of State Policy-makers. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.

Daley, A.J. (2002) ‘School Based Physical Activity in the United Kingdom: Can it CreatePhysically Active Adults?’, Quest 54: 21–33.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998) ‘Teacher Learning that Supports Student Learning’, EducationalLeadership 55(5): 6–12.

Darling-Hammond, L. and McLaughlin, M.W. (1995) ‘Policies that Support ProfessionalDevelopment in an Era of Reform’, Phi Delta Kappan 76(8): 597–604.

Department for Education and Employment (2001) Learning and Teaching: A Strategy forProfessional Development. Nottingham: DfEE Publications.

Department for Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority(1999) Physical Education: The National Curriculum for England, Key Stages 1–4. London:DfEE/QCA.

Department for Education and Skills (2003) Learning through PE and Sport: A Guide to thePhysical Education, School Sport and Club Links Strategy. Nottingham: DfES Publicationswww.dfes.gov.uk/pess

Dowling Naess, F.J. (1996) ‘Life Events and Curriculum Change: The Life History of aNorwegian Educator’, European Physical Education Review 2(1): 41–53.

Elmore, R. (2002) Bridging the Gap between Standards and Achievement. Washington, DC: AlbertShanker Institute.

Evans, L. (2002) ‘What is Teacher Development?’, Oxford Review of Education 28(1): 123–37.Falk, B. (2001) ‘Professional Learning through Assessment’, in A. Lieberman and L. Miller

(eds) Teachers Caught in the Action: Professional Development that Matters, pp. 118–40. NewYork: Teachers College.

Fejgin, N. and Hanegby, (1999) ‘School Based In-Service Training of PE Teachers’, EuropeanJournal of Physical Education 4(1): 4–16.

Fullan, M. (2001) The New Meaning of Educational Change, 3rd edn. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Garet, S.M., Porter, C.A., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F. and Suk Yoon, K. (2001) ‘What MakesProfessional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers’,American Educational Research Journal 38(4): 915–45.

General Teaching Council for England (2000) Continuing Professional Development Advice toGovernment: December 2000. http://www.gtce.org.uk/gtcinfo/cpdpolicy.asp, accessed 6 June2003.

General Teaching Council for England (2002) Summary of the CPD Consultation Sessions from theGTC Regional Roadshows. http://www.gtce.org.uk/gtcinfo/regionalcpd.asp, accessed 6June 2003.

Gilham, B. (2000) Developing a Questionnaire. London: Continuum.


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 89

Guskey, T. (2003) ‘An Analysis of Lists of the Characteristics of Effective Professional Develop-ment’, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association AnnualMeeting, Chicago, 21–5 April.

Harris, J. (1997) ‘A Health Focus in Physical Education’, in L. Almond (ed.) Physical Educationin Schools, 2nd edn, pp. 104–21. London: Kogan Page.

Harris, J. (2000) Health Related Exercise in the National Curriculum. Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics.

Harris, J. and Penney, D. (2000) ‘Gender Issues in Health-Related Exercise’, European PhysicalEducation Review 6(3): 249–70.

Hawley, W.D. and Valli, L. (2000) ‘Learner-Centered Professional Development’, Phi DeltaKappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research 27 (Aug.), http://www.pdkintl.org/edres/resbul27.htm, accessed 6 June 2003.

Keating, I. (2001) ‘The Efficacy of CPD: Its Impact upon Classroom Practice’, ProfessionalDevelopment Today 4(2): 73–8.

Lieberman, A., Wood, D., Whitford, B., Yendol-Silva, D. and Lytle, S.L. (2003) ‘CultivatingProfessional Learning Communities: What Happens to Districts, Schools, Principles,Teachers and Children?’, paper presented at the American Educational Research Associ-ation Annual Meeting, Chicago, 21–5 April.

Lieberman, L. (1995) ‘Practices that Support Teacher Development’, Phi Delta Kappan 76(8):591–6.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. and Hewson, P. (1996) ‘Principles of Effective ProfessionalDevelopment for Mathematics and Science Education: A Synthesis of Standards’, NISEBrief 1(1): 1–6.

Loughran, J. and Gunstone, R. (1997) ‘Professional Development in Residence: DevelopingReflection on Science Teaching and Learning’, Journal of Education for Teaching 23(2):159–78.

McRae, D., Ainsworth, G., Groves, R., Rowland, M. and Zbar, V. (2001) PD 2000 Australia:A National Mapping of School Teacher Professional Development. Canberra: CommonwealthDepartment of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Miliband, D. (2002) ‘Teachers and Teaching: Investment and Reform’, speech by DavidMiliband MP, Minister of State for School Standards at the Annual Meeting of the TeacherTraining Agency, Birmingham, 18 Nov.

National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching (1998) ‘ImprovingProfessional Development: Eight Research-Based Principles’, http://www.npeat.org,accessed 1 Feb. 2003.

National Staff Development Council (2001) Standards for Staff Development. Oxford, OH:National Staff Development Council, http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm, accessed9 Dec. 2002.

Newmann, F.M. (1994) School-Wide Professional Community: Issues in Restructuring Schools, IssueReport, 6 (spring), pp. 1–2. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring ofSchools, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison,http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archives/completed/cors/Issues_in_Restructuring_Schools/

Office for Standards in Education (2002) Continuing Professional Development for Teachers inSchools. London: OFSTED Publications, Ref. HMI 410.

Penney, D. and Evans, J. (1997) ‘Naming the Game: Discourse and Domination in PhysicalEducation and Sport in England and Wales’, European Physical Education Review 3(1): 21–32.

Penney, D. and Evans, J. (1999) Politics, Policy and Practice in Physical Education. London: E andFN Spon.

Penney, D. and Yelling, M. (2001) ‘Implementing the Revised National Curriculum forPhysical Education: Juggling Interests and Achieving What Outcomes?’, Journal of SportPedagogy 7(2): 1–24.


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 90

Pritchard, R.J. and Marshall, J.C. (2002) ‘Professional Development in “Healthy” vs“Unhealthy” Districts: Top Ten Characteristics Based on Research’, School Leadership andManagement 22(2): 113–41.

Schempp, P.G. (1993) ‘Constructing Professional Knowledge: A Case Study of an ExperiencedHigh School Teacher’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 13: 2–23.

Sparks, D. (2002) Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principals. Oxford,OH: National Staff Development Council, available at www.nsdc.org/sparksbook.html,accessed 5 Oct. 2002.

Sport England and General Household Survey (2001) Participation in Sport: Past Trends andFuture Prospect. London: Sport England.

Stein, M., Smith, M. and Silver, E. (1999) ‘The Development of Professional Developers:Learning to Assist Teachers in New Settings in New Ways’, Harvard Educational Review69(3): 237–69.

Stokes, L. (2001) ‘Lessons from an Inquiring School: Forms of Inquiry and Conditions forTeacher Learning’, in A. Lieberman and L. Miller (eds) Teachers Caught in the Action:Professional Development that Matters, pp. 141–58. New York: Teachers College.

Terzian, M. (2000) Design Principles for Effective Professional Development: A Research Synthesis.Newton, MA: Education Development Center.

Theodoulides, A. and Armour, K.M. (2001) ‘Personal, Social and Moral Development throughTeam Games: Some Critical Questions’, European Physical Education Review 7(1): 5–23.

US Department of Education (2000) Does Professional Development Change Teaching Practice?Results from a Three-Year Study. Washington, DC: US Department of Education,www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/esed/report/doc, accessed 9 June 2003.

Whitehead, M. (2002) ‘Professional Development Board (PE)’, British Journal of TeachingPhysical Education 33(1): 24.

Williams, M. (2002) ‘Generalization in Interpretive Research’, in T. May (ed.) QualitativeResearch in Action, pp. 125–43. London: Sage.

Willis, S. (2002) ‘Creating a Knowledge Base for Teaching: A Conversation with James Stigler’,Educational Leadership 59(6): 6–11.

Résumé

Développement et apprentissage professionnels: réduire lefossé pour des professeurs d’éducation physique expérimentés

L’article analyse le développement professional continu (DPC) au cours de la carrière chez

85 professeurs d’éducation physique en Angleterre. Les données furent recueillies par inter-

views structurées (20 professeurs) et un questionnaire ouvert (65 autres professeurs) pour

mettre en évidence les formes de développement professionnel que ces enseignants ont

suivies pendant leur carrière, ce qu’ils pensent de leurs expériences, et les recommandations

qu’ils pourraient faire pour changer la nature ou la qualité du DPC. La recherche fut menée

dans un climat d’intérêt gouvernemental croissant pour le développement professionnel

comme moyen d’augmenter la qualité de l’éducation et avec les promesses de plus de

moyens financiers à fin d’encourager et d’améliorer le DPC. Cependant, on connaît très peu

de la nature et la qualité du DPC existant en éducation physique ou des vues des enseignants

sur les exigences de leur apprentissage professionnel. Les résultats de cette suggèrent que

les expériences de DPC des professeurs d’éducation physique manquent de cohérence et

de signification. L’auteur suggère également qu’il puisse y avoir un fossé entre les aspirations


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 91

ambitieuses pour les enfants et le développement professionnel accessible contribuant à

réaliser ces aspirations. Dès lors, il considère que le développement professionnel devrait

être restructuré et recentré pour s’assurer que les besoins d’apprentissage en cours de

carrière de professeur d’éducation physique seraient atteints.

Zusammenfassung

Professionelle ‘Entwicklung’ und professionelles ‘Lernen’ zurÜberbrückung der Lücke von erfahrenen Sportlehrern

Dieser Artikel analysiert die lebenslange kontinuierliche professionelle Entwicklung (CPD),

wie sie von 85 erfahrenen Sportlehrern aus England erlebt wurde. Die Daten wurden durch

halbstrukturierte Interviews (20 Lehrer) und durch Profil-Fragebögen mit offenem Ende

(weitere 65 Lehrer) erhoben, um herauszufinden, welche Form der professionellen Entwick-

lung diese Lehrer durchlaufen hatten in ihrer Berufstätigkeit, was sie über ihre Erfahrungen

dachten und welche Empfehlungen sie hätten zur Veränderung der Art oder der Qualität

der kontinuierlichen professionellen Entwicklung. Diese Untersuchung fand in einem Klima

des wachsenden Regierungsinteresses an der professionellen Entwicklung der Lehrer, als

einem Instrument zur Anhebung der Bildungsstandards, statt und unter dem Versprechen

besserer finanzieller Bedingungen zur Ermunterung für mehr und bessere CPD. Jedoch weiß

man sehr wenig über die Art und Weise und die Qualität der bisherigen CPD im Sport-

unterricht oder über die Ansprüche der Sportlehrer an ihr professionelles Lernen. Die Ergeb-

nisse dieser Studie weisen auf einen Mangel an Kohärenz und Relevanz in der Erfahrung mit

CPD bei Sportlehrern hin. Es gibt außerdem Hinweise, dass es so etwas wie eine Lücke gibt

zwischen den ambitionierten Erartungen an die Schüler im Sportunterricht und der verfüg-

baren Hilfe zur professionellen Entwicklung zur Erfüllung dieses Anspruchs. Aus diesem

Grunde schließen wir, dass die professionelle Entwicklung umstrukturiert werden sollte, um

sicherzustellen, dass die Bedürfnisse der Sportlehrer nach lebenslangem Lernen erfüllt

werden.

Resumen

Desarrollo profesional y aprendizaje profesional: salvandodistancias para profesores de educación física experimentados

Este artículo analiza las experiencias en el desarrollo continuo profesional (CPD) de las

carreras de 85 profesores de educación física (PE) experimentados en Inglaterra. Los datos

fueron obtenidos utilizando entrevistas semiestructuradas (20 profesores) y cuestionarios (65

profesores), para conocer la forma en que se había acometido el desarrollado profesional

en sus carreras, lo que pensaban de sus experiencias y las recomendaciones que plantearían

para los cambios tanto en cuanto a la naturaleza como a la calidad de la provisión de CPD.

La investigación se llevó a cabo en un clima de creciente interés gubernamental por el desar-

rollo profesional de los profesores como medio de elevar los niveles educativos y las


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 92

promesas de ayudas incrementadas para estimular un mayor y mejor CPD. Sin embargo, muy

poco es conocido acerca de la naturaleza y de la calidad del CPD existente en PE, o de los

puntos de vista de los profesores de educación física sobre sus necesidades en cuanto apren-

dizaje profesional. Los hallazgos de este estudio sugieren que las experiencias del CPD de

los profesores de educación física carecen de coherencia y relevancia. Se sugiere también

que podría existir alguna forma de vacío entre las aspiraciones de profesores ambiciosos por

los alumnos de PE y el desarrollo profesional disponible para ayudarles a conseguir esas

aspiraciones. Por tanto, se sostiene la idea de que el desarrollo profesional debe ser reestruc-

turado y reorientado para asegurar que las necesidades de aprendizaje en las carreras de los

profesores de PE sean cubiertas.

Kathleen M. Armour is a senior lecturer in the School of Sport and Exercise Sciencesat Loughborough University, UK. Her research interests are located within pedagogy, andcentre on teachers’ lives and careers and the impact of teachers’ learning upon pupils’learning. She is director of an ESRC-funded project entitled ‘Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment: Provision for Physical Education Teachers’ and is also involved in the evalu-ation of a number of major PE and school sport initiatives.

Martin Yelling is a research associate in the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences atLoughborough University, UK. His research interests focus upon continuing professionaldevelopment in PE and physical activity, health, policy and practice in the NCPE.

Address: School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, Ashby Road,Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK. [email:[email protected], [email protected]]


05 040622 (to/d) 23/1/04 1:02 pm Page 93

professional ëdevelopmentí and professional ëlearningí: … · 2018. 11. 2. · professional...

Documents