Physical Education and Sport paper

Physical Education and Sport: Congruent projects or inhabitants of opposing paradigms? Chris Carpenter Canterbury Christ Church University This is a paper based on an idea I have had for a long time. It is very much ‘work in progress’. I am happy for it to be cited and more importantly would love to have any thoughts feedback in any form. [email protected] 1. Introduction Over the years much has been written about the aims of PE and how this is related to sport (Murdoch 1989; Kay 2005; Bailey et.al 2009; Armour 2011). In this short paper I will argue that sport and physical education inhabit different paradigms and therefore there are fundamental and potentially irreducible differences between the two. Developing this idea Tinning (2010) draws a distinction between discourses of ‘performance’ and discourses of ‘participation’. In order to clarify the terms I will take the position that physical activity can be seen as an all embracing term for the range of physical activities that form the content of PE whereas 'sport' is taken to represent a particular set of codified games and is essentially competitive. Of course I am not suggesting that the two are discrete. For example the adult form of Netball has particular rules and conventions but it is quite possible for teachers to reshape the game so that it is accessible for children. This can be achieved by playing three a side; removing any restrictions on where players are allowed to go on the court and allowing anyone to shoot. That is not to say that the two cannot co-exist in a compatible manner but I will recommend that it is important that PE students and PE teachers have a sophisticated appreciation of the relationship between the two and are willing and able to participate in the debate. 2. Paradigms A paradigm is best described as a pattern and also connotes the idea of a mental picture a pattern of thought, or even a way of seeing the world. In a more formal context Kuhn (1996) used the term to mean the model that scientists hold about a particular area of knowledge. The term paradigm can also be defined as "a typical example or pattern of something".  Kuhn (1996) defined a scientific paradigm as: "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners.” Paradigm can also be seen as a kind of organising principle which comprises a set of beliefs about knowledge in a particular milieu. For example in a natural science paradigm Natural science is a branch of science which deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology. there is an assumption that the ‘truth’ of research takes the form of ‘truth as correspondence’. Truth as correspondence assumes that claims for knowledge are only true if there is a corresponding proposition. E.g. the claim that class sizes have risen by 7% means that to find the ‘truth’ of this we must find a means to check this with ‘facts’ and this can be done with collection of numerical data. An example in sport might be the idea that there are two key physical characteristics in successful professional tour cycling which are that the riders’ body weight should be low and their levels of haematocrit high. In research in this paradigm, typically the researcher combines the collection of data from a perceived external world and records it in a way that faithfully reflects the data. Conclusions are then inferred from the data. 3.Characteristics of the sporting paradigm It seems too obvious to say that sport is competitive. That to say, there have to be winners and losers. On a large scale it can be seen that the severe logic of the knock out format will mean that in the singles draw at Wimbledon over the course of the tournament there will be 127 losers and just one winner. In fact a key idea underpinning sport is that winning and losing are essential dimensions. Indeed the two cannot exist without each other. For there to be winners there have to be losers. What this does not acknowledge is that competition is a heterogeneous phenomenon and can take different forms. It is likely that people’s perceptions of competition are likely to be very varied and situated. There will be differences between people and also the likely hood that a person might be happy to compete in badminton but not in swimming. Also, that it might be that a person might be happy to compete against one person but not another. In justifying team sports it is often proposed that playing games is intrinsically good as it teaches people to win and lose, and in Kipling’s terms, ‘treat those two imposters just the same’. However, it may able be that for many people they learn that losing is unpleasant and that rather than seeking out opportunities to complete they become increasingly adept at choosing battles they are fairly sure they can win, or more likely, avoiding them altogether (Sparkes 1990). There is another important point to be made here. As an adult when I enter a squash league, play a rated chess game on the internet or play league netball, I know that there is a chance I will lose. Indeed it may be that the risk of losing is part of the excitement and one reason I am encouraged to enter and motivates me to play harder. However, either way I have made the choice to complete. In school PE the agency over whether to compete or not is often not an option and so in effect children are entered in many races they might not have entered if they were given the choice. This can be the case literally in PE but also in examinations where despite the criteria referenced assessment in there is a very norm referenced undercurrent where the enacting of the process means that children’s ‘performances’ are being compared with each other and so this can be seen as a form of quasi competition. On a macro scale school performance tables can be seen in a similar way. In the end if education is in a marketplace schools, parents and children are entered in a competition they might have preferred not to have entered. This leads to two more points. First, that it might be seen that an important part of education is that you are exposed to things that you were not even aware of. Competing in games might be just that for some children. Secondly, there is the idea that in the UK most PE teachers come to be teaching after demonstrating a commitment and competence in playing games (Green 2003). Therefore it may be hard for many of them to empathise with children who find this uncomfortable. However, we should not see children’s propensities to competition as fixed. It might be that through being taught I come to love to compete or of course the reverse might be the case. 4. Characteristics of the educational paradigm It seems to me that education has to be essentially an inclusive activity. We cannot ever sustain the idea that it is a kind of institutionalised ‘sifting’ mechanism (Illeris 1999). In education all children have the right to learn and so it is not ok to have a system where for some to succeed others have to fail. Education has to aim for 100% participation and of course it is incumbent on P.E. teachers to make sure that the ‘spoils’ of education are open to all. That is not to say that all children will end up equally competent. That would be a denial of the human condition. However, we can’t have a system where in academic learning; however we choose to define that, for some to succeed other have to fail. The acquisition of the knowledge itself is the thing not the harvesting of the cultural capital represented by grades. There is also the idea that ‘knowledge’ is unlimited and that the value of knowing how to ‘fix’ a defender in an invasion game does not grow dimmer if more people appreciate it. Am not suggesting that competing does not have educational value although I think that clear thinking is required as it is possible to conflate ‘learning to compete’ and ‘competing to learn’ which are not necessarily the same. Learning to compete is about playing to the rules, showing tactical acumen, and developing strategy. Learning through competition can be seen in a much more heterogeneous manner. In this we need to bear in mind that PE provides the possibility for children to develop a sense of who they are and where they fit in with other children thought competition (Laker 2000) and it also can provide opportunities to overcome adversity. 6. Conclusions So what can PE teachers do? I have not made any attempt to reconcile sport and PE as I am not sure it is possible. What I feel is that PE teachers need to be able to recognise the points made in this paper and be willing and able to participate in the debate. It may well be that a resolution can be found in the development of particular pedagogies which will form the focus of a follow up paper to this one. I will conclude with a summary of what I see as the key ideas. I would urge PE teachers not to accept the rhetoric around the merits of playing competitive sport without reflection. The idea that playing sport teaches you how to win and lose may have some credence for some but in the main I believe it teaches that losing is not very nice and I feel there needs to be deeper thinking about this. I feel we need to allow some children the chance to play competitive sports but not necessarily in a competitive manner. That is to say I can hit tennis balls and enjoy the experience without necessarily playing a game. This might give some children the chance to enjoy the experience and lead to them co-operating in authentic ways. I found that if you gave children a choice then sometimes when they felt more capable, then they were keen to compete. When there is competition try and ensure that the sides are fair so that each child, or team has the chance to win some of the time. That teachers might try and focus feedback on how the game was played rather than acknowledging those who have won. I feel that PE teachers need to be able to draw a clear distinction between ‘learning to compete’ and ‘learning through competition’. Lastly I believe that sport and Education occupy different paradigms but that the two can co-exist is evident as they have done so for many years. However, I feel that it is crucial that PE teaches are willing and able to enter the debate. I don’t see they need to hold a particular position, although many will undoubtedly do so. Let the discussions begin! Bibliography Armour, K. (2011) What is Sport Pedagogy and why study it. In Armour, K. (Ed) Pedagogy in physical education and youth sport. Abingdon, Pearson Education. 11-24. Bailey, R,. Armour, K. Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I., and Sandford, R. (2009) The Educational Benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: an academic review. Research Papers in Education. 24 (1); 1-27. Green, K. (2003) Physical Education Teachers on Physical Education. Chester, Chester Academic Press. Illeris, K. (1999) How we Learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. London, Routledge. Kay, W. (2005) A rose by another name, but physical education and sport are not the same. Bulletin of Physical Education. 41 (1), 15-22. Kuhn (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Laker, A. (2000) Beyond the Boundaries of Physical Education: Educating young people for citizenship and social responsibility. London, Routledge Falmer. Murdoch, E. (1989) Physical Education and Sport; The Interface. In Almond (Ed) Physical Education in Schools. London, Kogan Page. 63- 71. Sparkes, A. (1990) Curriculum change and physical education: towards a micro political understanding. London, Falmer Press. Tinning, R. (2010) Pedagogy and Human Movement: Theory, practice and research. London, Routledge.