Education, Faculty of
Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Kanavos, George
McGinley, Stephen
This paper explores enacting change in a Physical Education (PE) department and the successful implementation of curriculum and pedagogical innovations (CPIs). The focus examines how to initiate effective pedagogical change using curriculum and pedagogical innovations such as: Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU); Sport Education (Sport Ed.); Physical Literacy (PL); Personal and Social Responsibility (PSR); Movement Education (ME); and, Inventing Games (IG). The educational significance includes assistance with the successful implementation of PE innovations for the 21st Century. The cultural transformation cultivates an environment that will embrace innovations. This paper attempts to answer what are the experiences of secondary PE teachers enacting curricular and pedagogical change in a secondary PE department? Nine thematic sections are explored; these include: knowing, learning and teaching; TGfU, physical literacy and physical education; pedagogical change in physical education; physical education culture and curriculum innovation; technology as a change agent; physical education department cultural change; phenomenology as methodology; and movement. A safe and interactive environment created the cultural change that cultivated the positive effects. Collaborative teacher inquiry was the methodology used in this investigation of the experiences of teachers. Physical Literacy was the influence that brought the teacher participants on board and motivated the participants as they strongly believed in the lifelong benefits. The setting for enacting change was in a secondary PE department. George and Steve are coresearchers, along with five other teacher participants. We have found that Steve’s role as department head, and George’s role as a researcher who is not on staff, demonstrate that change requires educational leadership from within, and professional support from outside the department. Data was collected through blogs, field notes, temperature checks, and questionnaires. Our study has provided us with an understanding of how teachers can successfully implement CPIs in a secondary PE department. The findings have been categorized into five major themes: curricular and pedagogical innovations; cultural change; leadership and support; relationships and collaboration, and barriers to implementing change. This paper aims to provide a starting point for future research, debate, and reflection on encouraging cultural changes that make PE departments relevant in the 21st century.
ENACTING CHANGE IN A SECONDARY PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT by George Kanavos B.A. History, The University of British Columbia, 1990 B. Ed., Deakin University, Australia, 1996 Stephen McGinley B. H. K., The University of British Columbia, 2005 B.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 2006 A GRADUATING PROJECT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Physical Education) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) June 2014 © George Kanavos and Stephen McGinley, 2014 ii Abstract This paper explores enacting change in a Physical Education (PE) department and the successful implementation of curriculum and pedagogical innovations (CPIs). The focus examines how to initiate effective pedagogical change using curriculum and pedagogical innovations such as: Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU); Sport Education (Sport Ed.); Physical Literacy (PL); Personal and Social Responsibility (PSR); Movement Education (ME); and, Inventing Games (IG). The educational significance includes assistance with the successful implementation of PE innovations for the 21st Century. The cultural transformation cultivates an environment that will embrace innovations. This paper attempts to answer what are the experiences of secondary PE teachers enacting curricular and pedagogical change in a secondary PE department? Nine thematic sections are explored; these include: knowing, learning and teaching; TGfU, physical literacy and physical education; pedagogical change in physical education; physical education culture and curriculum innovation; technology as a change agent; physical education department cultural change; phenomenology as methodology; and movement. A safe and interactive environment created the cultural change that cultivated the positive effects. Collaborative teacher inquiry was the methodology used in this investigation of the experiences of teachers. Physical Literacy was the influence that brought the teacher participants on board and motivated the participants as they strongly believed in the lifelong benefits. The setting for enacting change was in a secondary PE department. George and Steve are co-researchers, along with five other teacher participants. We have found that Steve’s role as department head, and George’s role as a researcher who is not on staff, demonstrate that change requires educational leadership from within, and professional support from outside the department. Data was collected through blogs, field notes, temperature checks, and iii questionnaires. Our study has provided us with an understanding of how teachers can successfully implement CPIs in a secondary PE department. The findings have been categorized into five major themes: curricular and pedagogical innovations; cultural change; leadership and support; relationships and collaboration, and barriers to implementing change. This paper aims to provide a starting point for future research, debate, and reflection on encouraging cultural changes that make PE departments relevant in the 21st century. iv Preface We conducted our research, “Enacting Change in a Secondary Physical Education Department”, through the University of British Columbia, which satisfied partial requirements for completion of our Master of Education degree in Curriculum and Pedagogy. The research study took place in an Independent School in the Greater Vancouver area. The University of British Columbia’s Behavioral Research Ethics Board granted approval for the study and issued a certificate number of H13-01980. Prior to the study, we applied in writing, and were granted in writing, permission by the Independent School’s principal and the school’s governing School Board. Steve McGinley and George Kanavos operated as the researchers, co-participants and co-investigators. We were guided by the principal investigator, Dr. Joy Butler. Steve and George, as co-investigators, closely collaborated in planning, creating, conducting, and writing the research study. Our research question for the study was “What are the experiences of secondary school teachers as they implement curricular and pedagogical innovations?” v Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ..................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents .....................................................................................................................v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................x List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xi Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... xii Dedication ............................................................................................................................. xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................1 1.1 Personal Anecdote ....................................................................................................1 1.2 Introduction to the Problem and Purpose ..................................................................1 1.3 Educational Significance...........................................................................................2 1.4 Goals of the Study .....................................................................................................3 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................5 2.1 Knowing, Learning and Teaching .............................................................................5 Connecting Curriculum and Pedagogy ................................................................7 2.1.1 How to Transform a Physical Education Department to Help Students Know 2.1.2Differently, Rather than Merely Know More ......................................................8 Knowing as Being ................................................................................................8 2.1.3 Knowing and Teacher “Withitness” ..................................................................10 2.1.4 Knowing is Fractal .............................................................................................10 2.1.5 Knowing is Decentralized ..................................................................................11 2.1.62.2 Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) ..........................................................13 2.3 Physical Literacy and Physical Education ..............................................................15 2.4 Pedagogical Change in Physical Education ............................................................18 Factors Required for Teacher Change ...............................................................19 2.4.1 Mentoring ...........................................................................................................20 2.4.2 The Need for Teacher Resources .......................................................................21 2.4.32.5 Physical Education Culture and Curriculum Innovation ........................................22 2.6 Technology as a Change Agent ..............................................................................25 Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations as Technology ...................................25 2.6.1 Technology as Transformative in Physical Education ......................................26 2.6.2 Technology in Physical Education Class ...........................................................27 2.6.3 Technology as Part of the Cultural Change .......................................................28 2.6.42.7 Physical Education Department Cultural Change ...................................................30 2.8 Phenomenology as Methodology ............................................................................33 Educators Impact on Students ............................................................................33 2.8.1 vi 2.9 Movement and CPIs ................................................................................................35 2.10 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................36 Chapter 3: Research Design and Methods ......................................................................37 3.1 Collaborative Teacher Inquiry (CTI) ......................................................................37 3.2 Theoretical Framework ...........................................................................................37 3.3 Methods ...................................................................................................................38 Setting ................................................................................................................38 3.3.1 Co-Researchers and Participants .......................................................................39 3.3.2 Participants .........................................................................................................40 3.3.3 Steve ..........................................................................................................41 3.3.3.1 George .......................................................................................................41 3.3.3.2 Julie ...........................................................................................................42 3.3.3.3 Irene ..........................................................................................................42 3.3.3.4 Oscar .........................................................................................................42 3.3.3.5 Charlie .......................................................................................................43 3.3.3.6 Eric ............................................................................................................43 3.3.3.73.4 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................43 3.5 Data Collection/ Gathering .....................................................................................44 Data Collection ..................................................................................................44 3.5.1 Teacher Blogs ...........................................................................................44 3.5.1.1 Field Notes - Department Meetings ..........................................................45 3.5.1.2 Questionnaires and Temperature Checks..................................................45 3.5.1.3 Field Notes - Observation of the Teacher Participants .............................46 3.5.1.4 Journal Notes ............................................................................................46 3.5.1.5 Exit Interviews/Questionnaires .................................................................46 3.5.1.63.6 CTI Implementation Plan of CPIs ...........................................................................46 Phase One - Creating the Environment ..............................................................49 3.6.1 Stage One – Planning ................................................................................49 3.6.1.1 Stage Two - Implementation .....................................................................50 3.6.1.2 Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation ..................................................51 3.6.1.3 Phase Two - Building the Foundation ...............................................................51 3.6.2 Stage One - Planning ................................................................................51 3.6.2.1 Stage Two - Implementation .....................................................................52 3.6.2.2 Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation ..................................................53 3.6.2.3 Phase Three - Lesson Plan Development and Implementation with Support ....53 3.6.3 Stage One - Planning ................................................................................53 3.6.3.1 Stage Two - Implementation .....................................................................53 3.6.3.2 Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation ..................................................54 3.6.3.3 Phase Four -PE Release Time Workshop ..........................................................54 3.6.4 Stage One - Planning ................................................................................54 3.6.4.1 Stage Two - Implementation .....................................................................54 3.6.4.2 Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation ..................................................55 3.6.4.3 Phase Five -Unit Plan Development and Implementation with Support ...........56 3.6.5 Stage One - Planning ................................................................................56 3.6.5.1 Stage Two - Implementation .....................................................................56 3.6.5.2 vii Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation ..................................................56 3.6.5.3 Phase Six - Developing a Collective PE Department Philosophy and Mission 3.6.6Statement ...........................................................................................................57 Stage One - Plan........................................................................................57 3.6.6.1 Stage Two - Implementation .....................................................................57 3.6.6.2 Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation ..................................................58 3.6.6.33.7 Data analysis ...........................................................................................................58 Processing the Data ............................................................................................58 3.7.1 Editing .......................................................................................................58 3.7.1.1 Coding .......................................................................................................58 3.7.1.2 Generalizability ..................................................................................................59 3.7.2 Validity ..............................................................................................................59 3.7.3 Triangulation ......................................................................................................60 3.7.4Chapter 4: Individual Teacher Journeys Through the Collaborative Teacher Inquiry (CTI) ....................................................................................................................................61 4.1 Part One: Overview and Definitions of the Three Stages of a Teacher’s Journey through Change ................................................................................................................61 Stage One - Beginning/Attempting ....................................................................61 4.1.1 Stage Two - Emerging/Learning ........................................................................62 4.1.2 Stage Three - Transforming ...............................................................................63 4.1.34.2 Summary of Findings into participants ...................................................................64 Teacher One: Eric ..............................................................................................64 4.2.1 Stage One - Beginning/Attempting ...........................................................64 4.2.1.1 Stage Two - Emerging/Learning ...............................................................65 4.2.1.2 Stage Three - Transforming ......................................................................66 4.2.1.3 Discussion of Eric’s Data ..........................................................................68 4.2.1.4 Teacher Two: Irene ............................................................................................70 4.2.2 Stage One - Beginning/Attempting ...........................................................70 4.2.2.1 Stage Two - Emerging/Learning ...............................................................70 4.2.2.2 Stage Three - Transforming ......................................................................71 4.2.2.3 Discussion on Irene’s Findings .................................................................74 4.2.2.4 Teacher Three: Julie ...........................................................................................75 4.2.3 Stage One - Beginning/Attempting ...........................................................75 4.2.3.1 Stages Two & Three .................................................................................76 4.2.3.2 Discussion of Julie’s Findings ..................................................................76 4.2.3.3 Teacher Four: Oscar ...........................................................................................77 4.2.4 Stage One - Beginning/Attempting ...........................................................77 4.2.4.1 Stage Two - Emerging/Learning ...............................................................78 4.2.4.2 Stage Three - Transforming ......................................................................79 4.2.4.3 Discussion of Oscar’s Findings ................................................................82 4.2.4.4 Teacher Five: Charlie .........................................................................................83 4.2.5 Stage One - Beginning/Attempting ...........................................................83 4.2.5.1 Stage Two - Emerging/Learning ...............................................................84 4.2.5.2 Stage Three - Transforming ......................................................................85 4.2.5.3 Discussion of Charlie’s Findings ..............................................................89 4.2.5.4 viii Teacher Six: Steve .............................................................................................89 4.2.6 Stage One - Beginning/Attempting ...........................................................90 4.2.6.1 Stage Two - Emerging/Learning ...............................................................90 4.2.6.2 Stage Three - Transforming ......................................................................91 4.2.6.3 Discussion of Steve’s Findings .................................................................93 4.2.6.4Chapter 5: Results and Discussion of the Five Major Research Themes .....................94 5.1 Theme One: Collaboration and Relationships ........................................................95 5.2 Theme Two: Leadership and Support .....................................................................98 Leadership ..........................................................................................................99 5.2.1 Feedback ..........................................................................................................100 5.2.2 Resources .........................................................................................................100 5.2.3 Support .............................................................................................................100 5.2.4 PE Workshop ...................................................................................................101 5.2.55.3 Theme Three: Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations (CPIs) ............................102 Sport Ed. Model ...............................................................................................103 5.3.15.4 Theme Four: Cultural Change .............................................................................104 General Referral to Cultural Change ...............................................................106 5.4.1 Interdependency of Themes to Create Cultural Change ..................................107 5.4.25.5 Theme Five: Barriers to Enacting Change in a PE Department ..........................108 General Referral to Implementing Change ......................................................109 5.5.1 Space ................................................................................................................109 5.5.2 CPI Challenges ................................................................................................110 5.5.3 Time .................................................................................................................110 5.5.45.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................111 Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................112 6.1 Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations ...............................................................112 6.2 Cultural Change ....................................................................................................113 6.3 Leadership and Support ........................................................................................114 6.4 Relationships and Collaboration ...........................................................................114 6.5 Barriers to Implementing Change .........................................................................115 6.6 Physical Literacy ...................................................................................................115 6.7 Significance and Contributions .............................................................................116 6.8 Strengths to our Research .....................................................................................116 6.9 Limitations to our Research ..................................................................................117 6.10 Possible Future Research Directions/Recommendations ......................................118 6.11 Conclusion ............................................................................................................120 References .............................................................................................................................123 Appendices ............................................................................................................................128 Appendix A: Teacher Questionnaire/Blog .....................................................................128 Appendix B: Questionnaires and Temperature Checks .................................................129 ix Appendix D: Exit Interview Questions ..........................................................................150 Appendix E: PE Workshop Agenda and Minutes ..........................................................151 Appendix F: Developing a Philosophy of Physical Education ......................................153 Appendix G: Responses to Exit Interviews ...................................................................154 Appendix H: Responses to Temperature Check ............................................................159 Appendix J: Game School Growth Plan (Physical Education) ......................................194 x List of Tables Table 3.1 Teacher Description .......................................................................................... 41 Table 3.2 CTI Implementation of CPIs ............................................................................. 48 Table 3.3 PE Department Comparison of the Past and the Ideal ....................................... 50 Table 4 Stage Indicators of CPI Change ....................................................................... 121 xi List of Figures Figure 1 Major Research Themes ....................................................................................... 94 Figure 2 Summary of Major Research Themes .................................................................. 95 Figure 3 Collaboration and Relationship Data Summary .................................................. 95 Figure 4 Leadership and Support Data Summary ............................................................... 98 Figure 5 Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations Data Summary ................................... 102 Figure 6 Cultural Change Data Summary ......................................................................... 105 Figure 7 Barriers to Enacting Change and Implementing CPIs ........................................ 109 xii Acknowledgements We would like to offer our sincere gratitude to all the influential people that have aided us in our journey through the TGU2 cohort and in the production of our final thesis paper. We would like to sincerely thank Dr. Joy Butler for the unceasing support, charisma, knowledge and passion that she has shared with us over the years in the study of Physical Education. This foundation will live with us for a very long time. We would like to thank the teachers in the physical education department at Games School for your insights and professionalism as we journeyed though pedagogical and curricular change. Keep spreading the good word about physical literacy amongst future colleagues and your students to sustain for a lifetime. We would also like to thank our colleagues in the TGU2 cohort for their insights and their collegiality, which have made the past two years an enjoyable and transformative experience for all. We thank, as well, the following professors for their guidance and support throughout our journey: Dr. Jamie Mandigo; Dr. Alexander de Cosson; Dr. Tim Hopper; Dr. Kathy Sanford; Dr. Nancy Francis; Dr. Jeanne Kentel; Dr. Steve Mitchell: Dr. Brent Davis; and Dr. Joanna Shepard. xiii Dedication George I give thanks to my family of girls for inspiring me, especially my wife Shauna and daughter Braelyn Kanavos. I am also thankful to the rest of my family, both here and beyond, for making it possible and putting it all into perspective. Steve I would like to thank my lovely wife, Natalie, and my two beautiful daughters, Ava and Emily McGinley, for all their constant love, dedication and support throughout this journey. I can’t begin to mention all the sacrifices you have made to support me through this process. I would also like to thank my parents, siblings, and extended family for the extra push and encouraging words to get me to the end. We will forever live strong and forge ahead as a family. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Personal Anecdote In the early stages of conceptualizing our research we walked onto the soccer pitch at one of our potential research schools. We noticed a soccer academy class in session. We were interested in the class as the instructor was a full-time employed teacher at the school and a fully qualified soccer coach. What we noticed was that his method of instruction was from a bygone era that reminded us of a military boot camp as opposed to a higher class of learning in soccer. We noticed the students were afraid to ask questions when he had them sitting on the pitch explaining the drill he wanted performed. The students were sitting for over ten minutes just listening; they appeared disengaged and agitated. At a certain point, some of the students were zoning out and getting cold as they were not moving. In fact, any effort for a student to get up and move around was interpreted as a sign of disrespect by the teacher. As a result, when the drill was run, it was a small disaster. The drill was complicated and the students were cold and in a completely different head space as their attention spans had long since been spent. The teacher was angry at one point with two of the students who were not performing to his exact instructions. He called them names in anger and actually kicked a soccer ball with some considerable pace in their direction. They cowered in response and looked humiliated. We looked at each other and at that moment any doubt of the importance and validity of our research instantly vanished. We knew that if good people taught in such a pedagogically unsound manner we had a duty to help develop a way to more sound pedagogical practices that would cultivate learning for both the teacher and learners. 1.2 Introduction to the Problem and Purpose Much of the past and current research surrounding enacting change and the successful implementation of curriculum and pedagogical innovations (CPIs) identifies that there are a number of barriers to overcome in the process (Hetherington and Underwood, 2010). Specialist PE teachers, such as Underwood and Hetherington, have examined the experiences of Vancouver PE teachers surrounding the unsuccessful implementation of curricular and pedagogical change. With this in mind, the focus of this study will be to examine how to initiate effective pedagogical 2 change using curriculum innovations such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), Sport Education (Sport Ed.), and Physical Literacy (PL). The most common barriers identified by researchers regarding successful curricular implementation are: that teachers feel pressured to teach for skills (Butler, 2005; Gubacs-Collins, 2007; Oslin & Mitchell, 2006) and the lack of confidence teachers have in TGfU, Sport Ed., and other pedagogical innovation models. The teachers’ lack of knowledge in the current curriculum innovation contributes to the lack of confidence the teachers have in the models. Other identified barriers include: the varying abilities of the students; the time it takes to change to and implement a new curriculum approach; a reluctance to teach using one model; and the sheer amount of time required to plan new lessons. Furthermore, the lack of support from peer teachers, the department head and administration within the school add further obstacles. The fact that change is difficult and the anxiety surrounding the inclusion of these curriculum and pedagogical innovations in teacher candidate practicums ultimately resulted in a return to what would best please the supervising teacher. These perceived barriers and their implications led to our research question: What are the experiences of secondary school teachers as they implement curricular and pedagogical innovations? 1.3 Educational Significance Researchers have made a number of recommendations to help overcome these barriers to change in physical education. One recommendation is that teachers need a better understanding and knowledge of the curriculum and pedagogical innovations models. The suggestion is that 3 curriculum and pedagogical innovations must be included in teacher education preparation programs in order for teacher candidates to be exposed to innovation theory and practice in their practicum schools, and that they then be further exposed to such innovations in professional development program days (Díaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, & Castejón, 2010). Teachers also need to identify whether the curricular and pedagogical changes are necessary for professional development and if they believe in the worth of curriculum. If there is no belief in the value of the curriculum, then there is no incentive to align their beliefs with best practices. Furthermore, they need to be supported in their efforts through collaborative investigation, and backing from colleagues with expertise in curricular and pedagogical innovations. Teachers will increasingly be empowered to make their own decisions and discernments around best practices as their confidence grows. This self-confidence will enable them to choose to pursue the CPIs over prior practice. 1.4 Goals of the Study The goals of our study were to: 1) address some of our own questions surrounding the successful curricular and pedagogical change in PE, 2) to successfully implement CPIs, and 3) to enact changes in a PE department. Based on our goals, we identified the following five major themes: curricular and pedagogical innovations; cultural change; leadership and support; relationships and collaboration, and barriers to enacting change in a PE department through the successful implementation of CPIs as encountered by our colleagues. Using these themes, we provided 4 indicators of change (see Appendix A) that each teacher displayed when they were moving through implementing curricular and pedagogical change in a PE department. This allowed us to identify what is required for change to occur in a secondary PE department and how to overcome barriers to change. We believe that these themes and indicators are the key to successful change in a PE department. Our study also has implications for the entire PE profession in that it identifies reasons why change is difficult to implement in PE. By collaboratively implementing CPIs with the PE department and its six PE specialist teachers, this study has given us insights into successful implementation of CPIs and overall PE department change. These insights have led to recommendations for the successful implementation of CPIs via a step-by-step process of stages and phases for teachers to reference and follow, collectively and collaboratively, as a PE department. Such suggestions will aid teachers professionally and encourage students to take ownership of their learning and to be more engaged in the PE classroom. The implications of our project will help with the adjustment of successful PE implementation for the 21st century and for PE teachers to align good practice with clearly identified philosophy and goals for PE. 5 Chapter 2: Literature Review In our literature review, we have found many significant authors whose contributions have aided and supported us in our central research question: What are the experiences of secondary teachers enacting pedagogical change within a Physical Education Department? We have discovered and explored many themes that are consistent with our research and in many cases overlap with one another. These are noted in the reviewed literature. We have organized our literature review into nine thematic sections; 1) knowing, learning and teaching; 2) teaching games for understanding; 3) physical literacy and physical education; 4) pedagogical change in physical education; 5) physical education, culture and curriculum innovation; 6) technology as change agent; 7) cultural change; 8) phenomenology as methodology and 9) movement and CPIs. We have found that through our experiences as educators and as graduate students, these themes have weaved throughout our research and act interdependently. We feel that connecting these themes helps to create an environment that nurtures curricular and pedagogical innovations. 2.1 Knowing, Learning and Teaching We begin our literature review with a review of Dr. Brent Davis’ research and teaching. As the roles of educator and learner become more blurred and intertwined, both teachers and students are discovering the process of education is a far more valuable learning progression than the teacher-centered and content-driven force of many schools. Davis’s lessons on transformation are highly relevant to both our research focus on curricular and pedagogical innovations and the individual teacher participants in our research project. Davis’s (2008) work on knowing, learning and teaching begins with the simple description of long-term memory. 6 “’Episodic’ (event-based, autobiographical, and narratively structured) and ‘semantic’ (fact-based, rote, and often lacking an integrated structure)” (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2008, p. 15) is a very influential way to begin to understand how students bring meaning to what they learn in school. Davis's (2008) discussion of "re-symbolizing" was very powerful and his point hit home. By processing information through our filters, our experiences, our culture and our contexts, we form meaning that is unique for us and helps us to understand. It is a skill that is incredibly important and often underdeveloped as it is more common for students to regurgitate what we have told them. Evelyn Glennie (2003) helped us define our practices when she spoke of needing to take more time to ‘interpret’ people and not strictly ‘translate’ them. She articulates an incredibly important and humanizing element that we have sought in our own instructional practices for many years, helping us bring meaning our own “episodic” experiences. Her words hit home as we seek to understand the context of each and every one of our students in this particular space, at this particular time and through the filters of our unique backgrounds. We both feel a duty to continue to develop professionally and in turn to help our students do the same. Zander’s 2008 TED Talk sums up this duty succinctly. It is our obligation to “awaken possibilities in other people” (Zander, 2008, para. 20).To bring out emerging promise in our students, we cannot simply rebrand old styles and old curriculum without a lasting commitment to cultural change. Formulas do not work; if they did, we would be using them with 100% scientific success. It is more an art than a science and we reach students through establishing strong and genuine relationships with them. Negroponte uses a precise, vibrant 7 parallel of learning when he speaks of children learning to talk and walk through discovery. The process of education is not about “addition, it’s about transformation” (Davis, 2008). Connecting Curriculum and Pedagogy 2.1.1As reflective and innovative physical educators, we have challenged ourselves to reflect on our daily practice and, as Dr. Brent Davis points out in his series of lectures, "teaching is a moving form...the expectations, the curriculum and the students are different" (Davis, 2010). We have reflected on how curriculum and pedagogy are connected prior to and throughout our research. We want to ensure the “what” and “how” in teaching physical education (PE) is accurate to meet the needs of all students. Educators encompass a wide variety of teaching backgrounds and experiences and bring these dynamic experiences to our profession. As educators "it is our professional obligation to continue to transform throughout our career" (Davis, 2010); being stagnant should not be an option. Our reflections on our own practices, along with the practices of colleagues in our PE department, have driven us to take a critical look at our school’s PE curriculum and think deeper about ‘what’ we are teaching and ‘how’ we deliver instruction to meet the developmental and changing needs of our students. By understanding the current needs and changing learning focus of our students today, we can better align a PE department to work collaboratively as a decentralized network to deliver a curriculum that is purposeful and engaging. We can then better develop the whole student, who will be ‘physically literate’ (Mandigo, 2009) for a lifetime. When we engage in this alignment and transformation of our students, we support them in their journey of learning and knowing, and hopefully encourage them to "know differently, rather than merely know more" (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2008, p. 8). 8 How to Transform a Physical Education Department to Help Students Know 2.1.2Differently, Rather than Merely Know More Our passion to provide our students with the most current, engaging and evolved curriculum has driven our research project. Our goal is not to fill our students’ heads with more knowledge but rather to enact curricular and pedagogical change so that students are transformed to know differently, rather than merely know more. This project will investigate the experiences of secondary PE teachers enacting pedagogical change within an entire PE department. Throughout our research we have been conscious of how the roles of learner, teacher and researcher play a pivotal role in understanding how ‘knowing’ is not only positioning ourselves in a variety of viewpoints within education, but also positioning our understandings within and outside the classroom. Knowing as Being 2.1.3The first major theme that resonated with us is Dr. Davis’s idea of “knowing.” Wade Davis’s TED talks (2008) and Brent Davis have proposed a common theme that "learning is being." Wade Davis notes that some civilizations that lasted for more than twenty thousand years have been lost as we have focused our energy on the present and future. Furthermore, as Wade Davis mentions in his TED talk (2008) to Madeline Grumet, “a person who knows, is a person who is engaged with the world.” This connection between knowing and engagement is relevant to our research and to our student’s growth within and beyond the school. The question is, knowing what? What do we know? As teachers, it is important for us to show our students that knowing is being a part of the world we live in. Robert Kegan's (1982) life stages also connect 9 well with knowing. Knowing is being and understanding; it is our professional obligation as educators to continue to transform throughout our careers by learning and working in interdependence with our students and colleagues. In our study, teachers entered into a perpetual state of transformation – questioning their practices and probing for more effective methods of guiding students to acquire knowledge, to grapple with information and make it their own. This is consistent with Butler’s statement that “…identifying the lens through which our physical educators view their work in terms of values orientations and teaching perspectives is critical if teachers are to be reflexive and to consider curriculum as praxis. Such understanding provides us with direction and justification for our actions” (Butler, 2006, p. 256). Knowing is dynamic, fluid and spirals based on our experiences and awareness. What one “knows” in one year will not remain the same in subsequent years. Through our department’s participation in the CPIs, and through our related observations and discussions, it is obvious that this change is the most dramatic our teacher participants have experienced to date in their careers. By making connections from our prior knowledge and experiences of PE with our current situations, we increase our knowledge of our students. How we engage and promote knowing within PE relies on a collaborative effort within the department. The collaboration enacts and engages in student-centered activities that allow our students to explore movement and ‘know’ how the benefits last a lifetime. The collaborative teacher inquiry method in our research will allow us to see how a PE department collaborates, engages, inquires and understands other points of view that are directly related to Davis’s “knowing as being.” 10 Knowing and Teacher “Withitness” 2.1.4Understanding what our students know, and building on this knowledge, is crucial in providing an educationally sound PE curriculum that promotes lifelong physical literacy in our students. To know something, or to have knowledge, is a process that is constantly evolving and changing as new information is being presented. It is not acceptable to know and direct students to the information; students must acquire the ‘withitness” (Brent Davis, 2010) to engage in the curriculum and content. PE is not about controlling and managing, but about engaging with content and discovering personal knowledge by grappling and filtering information through a personal lens. Good teachers, according to Brent Davis, must be curious and also have a degree of “withitness.” Essentially, good teachers are molded by their past experience but are never satisfied with the monotony of repetitive, boring content. A curious teacher looks for new ways of teaching and motivating students. Quality teachers are able to build a connection between curriculum content and students while also giving students a sense of choice in their learning. When students feel the material is relevant, they are genuinely interested in their learning and increased motivation and engagement is the result. A PE department that offers the crucial element of choice in multiple types of PE classes, especially at the senior levels, is a department that fully understands that knowing is being. Our teacher participants have linked the relative nature of the material to their students, and consequently the above-mentioned positive results have been recorded in our field notes. Knowing is Fractal 2.1.5The second major theme presented by Brent Davis builds on the understanding that knowing is being and connects to the idea of understanding that knowledge is a fractal tree rather 11 than a straight line. Education is shifting from educating for competency to educating for creativity. With the changes in curriculum, and our dynamic student body, our PE department has moved towards educating for creativity during our research. In this process, it is important to ask the department members what kind of “knowing” are we educating for, and how do we change what we have always taught to reflect significant changes in our student demographics, and to educate for creativity? Our discussions with physical educators from different schools echo our experiences in our own PE classes – “the students learning and needs of today are dramatically different than the students of five to six years ago” (Davis, 2010). So, what are we educating our students to be good at in our PE classes? Teaching our students in our PE classes to be presently engaged and thinking creatively is the key that connects the major themes of “knowing is being” and educating for creativity. Furthermore, to dismiss the idea that schools kill creativity, we must identify this myth and move forward by using curricular innovations such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), inventing games, and Sport Education. These have been successful instructional models to engage and nurture the creative student within our PE department. Knowing is Decentralized 2.1.6The third theme that resonated with us from Brent Davis is on ‘knowing’ and the idea that “knowing is decentralized” (Davis, 2010). A decentralized network of physical educators is “not about command and control, but about connecting and collaborating. It is about being collectively smarter” (Davis, 2010) with each other to enact change in our approaches to the delivery and content we convey in our PE classes. We found that Davis’s comments have helped us in our research, as PE teachers are traditionally known for being teacher-centered and 12 controlling in their lessons. This naturally connects the idea that a decentralized system provides an environment where all the members in the department feel their contributions matter. It is also about being collectively smarter as a network of PE professionals and changing how we think about teaching. It is moving away from the department head and teacher as director, to the department head and teacher as the guide who facilitates learning and leadership among colleagues and students. Davis mentions that “there is no simplest part” and that we need to find a geometry that does not break down education. Learning itself seems to be this geometry. There is no time when one has learned everything there is to learn, and there is no time when one cannot begin to learn. This lifelong learning and participation in lifelong physical activity is what we have promoted in our research. Physical educators should be teaching students to be physically literate (Mandigo, 2009), educating individuals to make healthy choices for a lifetime and teaching them that physical activity is not just a school subject but rather a way of life (Mandigo, 2009). We must continue to build a practice that progresses learning in our students, our parents and ourselves. As a result of exploring ‘knowing’ as a concept we have integrated the following goals into our research: 1. A PE department that will operate as a decentralized network that has opportunities for expression and engagement; 2. A support network for creating and sharing creations; 3. Teachers mentoring teachers within the PE department; 4. Teacher participants believing that their contributions matter for the greater good of the entire department; 13 5. PE department members feeling socially connected with one another. 2.2 Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) An understanding of the history and journey of the implementation of TGfU is significant to our study as we need to identify the barriers that have stalled and hindered the successful implementation of TGfU into the PE classroom. This TGfU review aided us in enacting change in our PE department, shaping our collaborative teacher inquiry process and overcoming the same barriers that are evident in the implementation of TGfU as in other curricular and pedagogical innovations. The Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) approach was developed in the early 1980s at Loughborough University in Leicestershire, United Kingdom by David Bunker and Rod Thorpe. TGfU is an approach that directs students toward understanding strategies about why a skill is performed before they learn how to perform it. In other words, TGfU emphasizes a deeper understanding of tactics before teaching movement techniques (Araújo et al., 2007). Thorpe states that, "the basic philosophy of TGfU is that a person can play games with limited techniques and, even with limited techniques be very competitive" (Araújo et al., 2007). This approach to teaching PE shifts from a more traditional skill-based style toward having players think of tactics during game play. The release of the TGfU approach at the post-secondary level has garnered a great deal of attention internationally. There are also several local scholars and educators who are interested in how this new model of teaching can be successfully taught and implemented in schools across British Columbia (Mandigo, Butler, & Hopper, 2007). Practitioners working with the TGfU 14 model have found that students’ gameplay improves, as well as their overall enjoyment of and participation in physical education. Hopper states that “TGfU suggests a way of enabling learners to appreciate the joy of game playing that leads to a desire to learn techniques to improve game performance” (Hopper, 1998, p.4). Furthermore, "the primary purpose of teaching any game should be to improve students’ game performance and to improve their enjoyment and participation in games, which might lead to a healthier lifestyle" (Werner, Thorpe, & Bunker, 1996, p.30). TGfU is a games-based pedagogical model aimed at generating a greater understanding of all aspects of games while increasing physical activity levels, engagement, motivation and enjoyment in physical education lessons. It is also evident that the hope for a more widespread adoption of TGfU has not materialized due to lack of resources and how PE programs are comprised. Joy Butler argues, the “TGfU movement is experiencing what we hope is the period before its peak. Once the approach becomes a common part of teachers’ repertoires, it will have served its purpose: to improve the teaching and learning of games” (Butler & Griffin, 2010, p. 4)). PE teachers intending to try out TGfU may lack access to equipment, have large class size compositions, lack regular facilities, and may be restricted by schedules and time constraints. Teachers who are passionate about adopting and implementing the TGfU approach may also struggle with lack of support from colleagues, department heads and/or administrators. This makes it challenging for PE teachers who are trying to create and sustain the TGfU approach at their schools. Our experience and knowledge of TGfU strongly informs our belief that curriculum and pedagogical innovations are possible. Sustainable change is possible through innovations such as TGfU because it is an inherently flexible approach that can be adapted to 15 different environments. The flexibility of TGfU aided our research in enacting and sustaining change as a department and implementing other curriculum innovations. 2.3 Physical Literacy and Physical Education Physical literacy plays a huge role in the development of the “whole child” and inspiring lifelong physical activity. The implementation of physical literacy through all the CPIs is key in our research into the development of the “whole child” – meaning it is not just about the understanding and practice of physical activity, it also includes a child’s knowledge and understanding of why physical activity is important, its resulting benefits, and the development of attitudes and habits leading to the practice of these skills on a regular basis (PHE Canada, 2014). Furthermore, as stated on the PHE Canada website, physical education is a school curricular subject that supports the development of the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary for participating in active, healthy living. Physical education programs are an integral component of the total school experience for students. Thus the promotion of physical literacy is and should be a priority for all physical educators to ensure that students are physically active and have the foundation that they need to be physically active and make healthy active choices. It is vital that everyone (including teachers, parents, and administration) with a responsibility to ensure the optimal development of children demonstrate their role in fostering physical literacy development for students now and into the future (PHE Canada, 2014). On January 18th, 2002, the United Nations (2002) General Assembly (2002) passed resolution 56/116: United Nations Literacy Decade: Education for All. The foundation of this resolution was based upon the collective conviction that: literacy is crucial to the acquisition, by every child, youth and adult, of essential life skills that enable them to address the challenges 16 they can face in life, and represents an essential step in basic education, which is an indispensable means for effective participation in the societies and economies of the twenty-first century (Mandigo, Francis, Lodewyk, and Lopez, 2009). Physical literacy serves as an important foundation for many sport (e.g. LTAD) and education (e.g., provincial PE curriculum) policies in Canada. The definitions of physical literacy have evolved over the years. Margaret Whitehead (2007) has been credited as being one of the leading education experts in physical literacy and has continued the evolution of the term. Whitehead’s most recent definition of physical literacy is “the motivation, confidence, physical competence, understanding and knowledge to maintain physical activity at an individually appropriate level, throughout life” (Whitehead, 2007, p. 287). The other working definition that complements Whitehead’s definition is discussed by Mandigo, Francis, Lodewyk, & Lopez and states that “individuals who are physically literate move with competence in a wide variety of physical activities that benefit the development of the whole person” (Mandigo et al., 2009, p. 287). The Mandigo et al. definition is one that resonates with educators and coaches as they have a huge impact in the education of the whole child (i.e., physical, cognitive, and affective domains) and facilitating physical literacy and competence in their PE classes and sport programs. We achieved a common ground in our research through the introduction and implementation of physical literacy, and this became our spring-board into other CPIs. This has opened up our PE department teachers to implementing quality PE programs, linked to provincial curricular outcomes designed to foster students in developing physical literacy and demonstrating it in all aspects of life. By doing so, …the students of today not only are better prepared to lead healthy active lives, but they are better prepared to do so in a way that assist others, are respectful of 17 the environment, and which are creative in ways that have the potential to generate new and innovative ideas. (Mandigo et al., 2009 p. 30) We are not seeking changes in PE for the sake of change. The CPIs that we implemented were enacted to contribute to the goal of physical literacy in our students. Mandigo and his team’s research clearly reveals the benefits of physical literacy for individuals and the community at large. We believe our research has contributed to reaching this goal. Physical Literacy identifies a human capability that affords us the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, respond effectively and communicate by using the embodied human dimension, within a wide range of situations and contexts. Physical Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society (Whitehead, 2013). Schools, and in particular the subject of PE within schools, are ideally positioned to foster students’ development of physical literacy given its mandate to provide equal and equitable access to the development of the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to become physically literate (Mandigo et al., 2009, p. 27). As well, it is very important that the development of physical literacy within PE mutually supports the development of physical literacy within sport. As a result of this connection “the development of physically literate individuals is a priority that both education and the sport system share” (Mandigo et al., 2009, p. 27). Physically literate individuals continually develop the motivation and ability to understand, communicate, apply, and analyze different forms of movement. They are able to demonstrate a variety of movements confidently, competently, creatively and strategically across a wide range of health-related physical activities. These abilities enable individuals to make 18 healthy, active choices throughout their lives that are both beneficial to and respectful of themselves and others. Furthermore, as physical educators and “in an era where literacy programs have become a priority for provincial Ministries of Education, it is vital for our profession to be a strong advocates in helping to foster strong literacy skills for students today and into the future” (Mandigo et al., 2009, p. 27). 2.4 Pedagogical Change in Physical Education Identification and understanding of the experiences of physical education teachers in the implementation of curriculum and pedagogical innovations such as TGfU, Physical Literacy and Sport Education, and the many barriers faced when implementing these models, is important for the successful implementation and long-term sustainability of these curriculum innovations. There are many publications surrounding the experiences of teachers in the implementation of the TGfU model, including Butler (2008), Mandigo (2000), and Randall (2008). Harvey et al. (2010) acknowledges that changing coaching practice can be challenging as veteran coaches stick to safe and tested traditional methods. Many of these same publications have also identified barriers that teachers face in implementing the TGfU approach from Butler (2005, & 2008) to Randall (2008). Despite the potential that TGfU holds for regenerating physical education teaching, it has yet to make a significant impact. Indeed, it has met considerable resistance in schools (Butler, 1996; Light and Tan 2004; & Tan and Tan, 2001). Understanding the prevailing pedagogy in physical education, and the significance of this literature review, aids us in understanding what needs to be done to enact change and what the ideal conditions are to enact and sustain it. Teacher change is difficult; it requires an investment of time, a reason for change, the support of administrative leaders, a vision, and collegial 19 networking. The teachers that are enacting pedagogical change need an understanding and a clear grasp of what is required to enact and sustain pedagogical change. With a specific focus on changing to the TGfU model, Butler (2005), Randall (2008) and Kirk (2012) have all offered key suggestions and recommendations for physical educators to enact change and for the proper implementation of the TGfU model. We have used the above-mentioned suggestions and recommendations prior to and throughout our research to enact successful and sustainable change in PE. Factors Required for Teacher Change 2.4.1Much of the research that has been conducted has been on the factors that influence teacher change. Below we have outlined the important elements required for teachers to successfully add new PE curriculum innovations to their practice. Significant essentials include: core beliefs, on-going support, awareness, mentoring, and resources. Each of these elements can act as a double-edged sword in that they either enhance or act as a barrier to teacher change. We have used all of these essential elements in our study to introduce and implement curricular innovations. Shifting one’s beliefs and values is a very important barrier or enhancer when it comes to enacting change. Unfortunately, PE teachers are not expected to reflect on their beliefs and understanding of teaching and learning, nor are they provided sufficient time and resources to do so (Patton & Griffin, 2008a). As a result, the challenge for teachers is to question their current teaching practices and to find ways in which the values, purposes, and outcomes of a contemporary curriculum can be incorporated into their teaching practices. (Brooker & Clennett, 2006). 20 Butler, Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin (2008) indicate that the vast majority of physical educators continue to “use only a didactic, teacher-centered and technique based approach in teaching games” (Butler et al., 2008, p. 7). As a result, numerous students indicated that their experiences in PE were negative, thus fuelling the common perception that there is little educational value in PE (Light, 2003). Furthermore, the traditional approach to PE can cause many children to feel disinterested and to withdraw from the subject (Lu & De Lisio, 2009). As a result, many teachers have developed awareness that the traditional approach being used today is not meeting the needs of students, and are now beginning to reflect on their teaching practices. For example, in Card’s study (2008), teachers reported a realization that the traditional approach was in fact not working for each of the teacher innovators and that a growing number of students in their classes were losing interest and no longer attending class with the same passion for PE. We found that this initial awareness that came from reflecting on our own practices as physical educators is paramount in many ways for successful implementation and sustained change in physical education. Mentoring 2.4.2During a teacher’s professional career, the numbers of opportunities to engage in effective mentoring are few and far between. We found that our first experience in effective mentoring was during our Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) program and student-practicum. This is a great time for student teachers to be introduced to new practical teaching techniques and to receive feedback on their teaching practice. This professional dialogue between student teacher and experienced teacher is a powerful professional development tool and shouldn’t only occur during one’s practicum. Other schools may have a teacher-mentoring 21 program in place, but it is generally introduced to new teachers and never followed through beyond the first year. We believe that professional dialogue and mentoring needs to exist amongst teachers throughout their careers. To achieve more valuable teacher development, physical educators need to advocate for the release time, funding and resources to allow for peer support, mentoring, feedback and constructive criticism amongst colleagues. Furthermore, teachers need to establish professional learning communities (PLCs) within our schools and opportunities to discuss and study curriculum innovations such as TGfU, Sport Education, Personal and Social Responsibility and other progressive methods. We established PLCs during our research through monthly PE department meetings to celebrate the successes and tackle the barriers of the teacher participants’ experiences of implementing curricular and pedagogical innovations in their classrooms. Furthermore, teachers were encouraged to work collaboratively together and share their teaching knowledge, resources and facilities to promote a professional learning community. The Need for Teacher Resources 2.4.3Teachers need new and current resources, ideas, lesson plans, Game Performance Assessment Inventories, projects, and tests in order to successfully implement curriculum innovations into their current teaching practice in ways that are easily accessible and simple to understand. Hopper quotes Almond’s 1987 paper when he stated that teachers “want to be told what to do, how to do it, and they ask for recipe-based guidelines” (Hopper, 1997, p. 172). Physical Educators are in need of new and current information that is recipe-based and easy to follow. Not all teachers have the luxury of time to review research, so they need to be encouraged to collaborate, mentor each other, share resources, attend professional development 22 workshops and in-services, and other resource collecting opportunities to enable them to successfully implement curriculum innovations. Without these resources, the gap between curriculum innovations and putting them into practice will remain. However, teachers still need to “buy” into the “why” one approach is more valuable than another. Many teachers do this intuitively – it just feels right. Throughout our research we provided the PE department with a diverse choice of resources in print and electronic form. These were also made available in a newly created and accessible PE resource library in the PE office and online via a shared PE department hard drive. Professional PE articles on current issues and trends were distributed at each department meeting and followed up with discussions at later meetings. By providing the department with resources related to curricular and pedagogical innovations, we were supporting our efforts to enact change and bridge the gap between theory and practice. 2.5 Physical Education Culture and Curriculum Innovation Change is difficult for people. Even when things are not going well, teachers often employ the same techniques and hope for different results. Einstein articulated this mentality as such: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Due to the fact that people are complex creatures, any structural changes that take place without a genuine cultural change will eventually be overrun by the old prevailing culture. Change must be grassroots and organic. “Structural change that is not supported by cultural change will eventually be overwhelmed by the culture, for it is in the culture that any organization finds meaning and stability” (Schlechty, 2001, p. 52). 23 Dr. Anthony Muhammad presented to an educator’s conference (Canada Place Conference Center, February 14, 2014) that we attended and continues this idea by identifying the “transformational leader.” These teachers lead themselves and peers to better behavior rather than simply recognizing and complaining about current behavior. The characteristics that leaders need to transform behavior are numerous. As educators we need to cultivate a genuine, steadfast and untiring belief in students’ ability. This creates an infectious energy that passes on to other educators, parents and students in evident and concealed ways. By creating a process and culture that sincerely believes in the potential of all the stakeholders, especially the students, the structural changes are solidified due to the cultural changes. Muhammad (2014) recognizes that changes come at a cost. There must be a legitimate willingness to lead and there will be opposition accompanied by frustration at times. The first step, as in our case, was to bring everyone on board and align the philosophies. By doing so, a clear vision of expectations and actions are tentatively drawn out. However, doing so does not guarantee frustrations will not arise. As the leaders in the cultural shift, managing these frustrations is important. They will happen. No change happens without them and passive aggressive behaviour is inevitable. As Department Head, Stephen introduced the idea of “temperature checks” as a way to lay a foundation of cooperation, collaboration and support. We were mindful that the cultural health of the department was being created, entrenched and institutionalized. Our shared purpose began to develop the culture of the school, with the individual teachers as educators. By exploring our philosophy in PE, we revisited our reasons for being educators; and by answering these questions through a collaborative process we began to solidify the culture. 24 According to Muhammad (2014), to successfully hold people accountable as students and educators we must make explicit what it is we want them to be accountable for. This idea helped us in the process of developing a mission statement in the final stage of our research. We asked questions such as: Who are our students? Who are our educators? How can we improve their lives by having them in our classes? What obligations must we as educators fulfill to do this? The final mission statement must be focused and grounded in service – both philosophically and practically. The result is that we learn to be clear in our curriculum delivery, which aligns with our mission statement and our mutual goals and philosophies. Muhammad went on to discuss changing toxic cultures by confronting issues; hiring the right people for the right positions – although this is something that is not possible in a public system at this time even if most of the staff buy into the culture. Muhammad’s presentation reaffirmed a question we’ve had for quite some time. Are our schools and district more concerned about being effective, or being correct? Focusing on being correct is an easy trap to fall into, as ineffective educators may defer to the system and leaders in an effort to be correct, regardless of whether being correct aligns with effectiveness. Therefore, asking how effectively teachers, counsellors, administrators, district leaders and all the shareholders collaborate can go a long way to answering this question. Grassroots improvement at the school and district has to be more than lip service. Talking and agreeing on what is being said is not enough. An effort to change is an investment that educators must make. Accountability and support from all is paramount for success. 25 2.6 Technology as a Change Agent “Everything you can imagine is real.” (Pablo Picasso) We introduce our next theme of technology, especially modern electronic technology (e-technology) with this brilliant quote from Picasso. His statement conjures up the limitless potential of human progression. We also view this as an opportunity to introduce technology as an educational tool rather than a replacement for education. We introduce it as an opportunity to grow as educators. Often, as educators, we have viewed technology as a threat; we don’t allow our students, or ourselves, to become immersed in it and evolve. Our evolution is connected with all forms of technology and has been since the days of pre-history. Language and writing are amongst our most powerful technologies and have helped us evolve. Today, e-technology is changing us in similar fashion. A portion of George’s current position as an educator centers on supporting students, families, schools, teachers and anyone associated with educational technology. As a result, we have found that e-technology can be a wonderful and powerful tool that we can use to enhance student learning. However, we are adamant that technology should never be a replacement for teachers, but used with teachers and by teachers, for students. Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations as Technology 2.6.1The meaning of technology breaks down to an art, method, craft or system. In his lecture series, Brent Davis (2009) continues this thought with a discussion of ways to view technology. The most relevant of these is the theory that technology has “…everything to do with cultural practices. The values, rituals, heroes and symbols that arise out of one another, that comprise 26 what we imagine ourselves to be up to and who we are…” (Davis, 2009). He continues by defining it as a range of practices and possibilities that define a culture. So should we use technology as educators? Davis states emphatically that we should. In our experiences throughout our careers and in our research, we have found that physical educators do not use technology in the classroom. We are essentially ignoring the “cultural practices” and core aspects of “values, rituals, heroes, and symbols that arise out of one another”, that Davis refers to, and thus we ignore those aspects “that comprise what we imagine ourselves to be up to and who we are” (Davis, 2009). If we embrace technology in its many forms (e.g., curricular and pedagogical innovations, e-technology, etc.) then we are engaging with and for the 21st century learner. Our contemporary society is mistakenly viewed as more intelligent than the societies of the past. Our incredible advancements in intelligence are built on a foundation outside of us, not due to incredible leaps in ability within us (Davis, 2009). For this reason, it is imperative that educators embrace educational technology because humans and technology are merged into one and progression is inseparable. Technology as Transformative in Physical Education 2.6.2One of history’s most influential teachers, Plato, opposed teaching his students a technology; he did not want to teach his students to write. By today’s standards this seems unthinkable, but he resisted teaching his students to write as he thought it made their minds idle. Davis agrees that the mind can get lazy. “However, we gain something by being able to write….so the technology question isn’t about addition, it’s about transformation” (Davis, 2009). These arguments sound similar to modern quarrels of teachers when referring to e-technologies. 27 As writing freed the minds of the students in the past, e-technology is doing the same in the 21st century. The technology of language allows increasingly intricate approaches of thought by permitting us to concede, disregard, or even shut down certain cognitive duties; e-technology has continued this phenomenon. Technology has freed us from using all our resources to achieve simple tasks and allows us to plan ahead to achieve goals. We can use it to receive communication from the past; use it to send communication to the future; while using it synchronously, or asynchronously, in the present. E-technology is similar for our students and has started a new revolution in education. Students today have been transformed by technology; it is not a simple addition to their lives (Davis, 2009). Part of our research is to see if teacher participants are using forms of technology to assist with their own transformations. Technology in Physical Education Class 2.6.3We embody language, therefore we do not see it; but e-technology is something we see and teachers that are old enough see how it has changed our lives. They see how much concentration it takes just to understand and control its many applications; and how much effort is expended to attend to new and evolving technologies in order to help expand the horizons of our students. We do not ignore e-technology, nor do we submit to it; we interact with it for the benefit of our students. We successfully used e-technology during the Summer Institute classes of July 2013. During the Summer Institute we used several of the suggested e-technologies in our lessons and demonstrations. In the soccer unit we presented to Dr. Mitchell, we used lessons developed on the iPad and accessed some of Dr. Mitchell’s own lessons. We further developed it by integrating Nathan Horne’s (guest speaker) recommendations from the Physical Education 28 Learning Community’s (PEPLC) website. In the lesson, we brought iPads and used apps like CoachNote Soccer, Ubersense Coach, and Fixture Maker. We took an active role in the Summer Institute and subsequently in our research Game School to open new landscapes of opportunities and possibilities by embracing modern e-technologies. Educational technology is a wonderful, powerful and effective means of helping students learn, but will not replace the relationships between educators and students. As technology becomes more prevalent, it will become more invisible to our consciousness even though it permeates our existence – just as language did before it. We must be cognizant, however, of the danger of allowing our students’ potential to be compromised by focusing too strongly on the technology itself. Rather, we must concentrate on how the e-technology can work wonders with students and educators. In our research we wanted to investigate how e-technology supports teacher and student collaboration and change. Technology as Part of the Cultural Change 2.6.4Dr. Muhammad (2014) stated the culture must change in the schools. Cultural changes always take precedence to technological change. No technological change can make true change in schools; only cultural change can do that and only then can technological change be an effective and lasting positive factor. In our experiences as educators and throughout or research we have found that if technology is not supported then it does not become part of the physical education culture. However, this contrasts sharply with the fact that e-technology is part of the larger societal culture. As a result, PE has alienated itself from the mainstream culture and contributed to its own cultural irrelevance. 29 “Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1). Prensky identified a “singularity” of human history that has changed us forever. This change in the last few decades of the 20th century revolved around e-technology. Today’s students are “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001) and teachers would be classified as “digital immigrants.” It is not a very clear division. Children have grown up interacting with e-technology in a manner that has transformed them, and our schools are not designed to teach students in this manner. Students learn through innovation and creativity, which they often harness through e-technology. However e-technology was not the focus of our research to aid in the implementation of CPIs. Schools are required to train students for jobs that do not yet exist (Davis, 2010) and; “…to figure out how we educate our children so they have a sense of cultural identity…so we can pass on the cultural genes…” (Robinson, 2010, para. 1) Our planet is intensely altering and evolving in this everpresent technological revolution. Our curriculum still looks much the same as it did thirty years ago. In essence, we are training students to solve problems we already have the answers to. Our cohort has learned to develop students through discovery and creativity, which will serve them well in the future economy. The people skills and ingenuity developed will prepare students for these jobs. It will take all our creativity and interpersonal skills, in all subject areas, to develop strategies and relationships to meet the needs of our students. 30 Michael Fullan’s book, Stratosphere: Integrating Technology, Pedagogy, and Change Knowledge sums it up for teachers in the 21st Century. He argues that teaching and learning for all the stakeholders must embrace the incredibly rapid leaps of e-technology and that its influence must not be repelled. By embracing, relating and implementing modern technology in meaningful manners, our schools will evolve and change in positive ways. The cultural shift will embrace technology. The true change will be the culture that includes technology. This will lead to effective and lasting positive change. By implementing new curricular and pedagogical innovations in our research we have witnessed thus far that if the e-technology had been embraced then the curricular and pedagogical innovations would have been more culturally relevant to the PE department in terms of enabling the 21st century learner. 2.7 Physical Education Department Cultural Change Fullan’s research helps us formulate and create the grassroots and organic culture necessary for positive evolution in teaching and learning. His research in education goes beyond technology. In his research, Learning in a Culture of Change (2001), Fullan develops what is necessary for curriculum change to occur and aids us in our research inquiry. Our first step to implement change to positively serve the needs of learners is the recognition and acknowledgement that change is necessary. School teachers who make such acknowledgements show characteristics of leadership that lead to the cultural changes that allow curriculum evolution to take place. A department that discusses such topics creates an environment that nurtures educators to make such changes. For example, we began our research with a discussion of personal PE philosophy to determine a common ground from which to 31 initiate departmental change and implement new curricular and pedagogical innovations in our PE classes. Our department’s involvement in the changes included knowledge of alternatives. We decided it was very important that the department be aware of all their options for successful change. Fullan (2001) affirms that the knowledge of alternatives is a step that is necessary for successfully integrating new methods to successfully teach students. In reality, as Dr. Hopper in our EDCP 513 class stated several times, the curriculum, as stated by the Ministry of Education, remains the same. It is how the curriculum is delivered that has actually changed and knowing the options available helps teachers reach their students. Fullan (2001) also describes that teacher commitment to innovations will lead to lasting and successful change. Patterson and Czajkowski as far back as 1979 discussed the importance of implementing change – Implementation: Neglected Phase in Curriculum Change (1979). In our research, we committed to the changes and offered supports long after the introduction, progression and general acceptance of the changes. Continued support and collegial interaction in the department has been important for our study. We continued this support throughout, and in the middle of our study had Dr. Joanna Shepard come and give a full-day workshop to our team of educators. We learned from Dr. Shepard that the changes that are initiated and lasting will be in the best interest of everyone involved and will not negatively impact school culture. Our support will in turn cultivate a rich and supportive departmental culture. We have taken a leadership role in this development but realize, for the successful cultural changes to last, we must move beyond implementation. For cultural change to endure, the changes must become institutionalized and transcend the leaders of the change themselves. 32 The everyday language of the change must become a normal part of the educator’s vernacular (Muhammed, 2014). Hargreaves and Fink (2000) emphasize the importance of recognizing that resources and support must also be kept up to sustain cultural changes. These changes must be allowed to continue to evolve and flourish in an environment that is supported with adequate resources. Otherwise, it would be like driving a new car but never maintaining it. Eventually, without an oil change, the brand new engine will seize and the vehicle’s engine will be ruined beyond repair. By investing in, and developing our educators for the long term, the investment in cultural change is viable. Changes that are cultural continue and evolve long after the generation of teachers that implemented them are no longer part of the system. As we have both been department heads and continue to take on the role of teacher leaders, we are increasingly concerned with the district offices insisting that the changes be recorded statistically. For example, how has a particular department progressed in implementing assessment for learning strategies in the department over the course of a school year? This involves putting strict scientific numbers on change so that leaders in downtown offices can easily peruse and ultimately deliver evidence to superiors that changes are taking place. Hargreaves and Fink (2000) recognize that such strict adherence to scientific protocols suffocates vigorous, resourceful and imaginative variety in schools. Vigorous cultural progression in schools thrives in fractal environments rich in complexity. Converting changes in schools to numbers in a report and ticking boxes on a checklist does not reflect the kind of environment necessary to change the culture into one that recognizes educational reform must have the improvement of deep student learning as its central priority (Hargreaves & Fink, 2000). 33 Likewise, Zhu et al., (2011) support the findings of Hargreaves and Fink and warn that unless the central role of the learners is a priority, change will be unsuccessful. Throughout our research we shared and discussed our findings in department meetings and recorded them in our department minutes. School administration was invited and encouraged to attend department meetings and supported and attended an entire PE department release workshop on implementing curricular and pedagogical innovations. Furthermore, Steve, as the department head, spoke at the department head meetings, provided monthly reports and updates to the administration and the education committee on the current status and all the change that was occurring during the course of our research. 2.8 Phenomenology as Methodology “The greatest good you can do for another is not to share your riches but to reveal to him his own.” Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister Sharing your blessings is indeed a noble thing, but enlightening others to the treasures they can share is the greatest wealth one can bestow. This philosophy, which Disraeli so perfectly captures, has guided us in our careers. Educators Impact on Students 2.8.1As educators we have influence over far more young lives in one year than most adults ever do in their entire lives. The late, and very great, UCLA basketball coach John Wooden was also a high school teacher in his career. In his TED video he speaks of the days when he was an English teacher in the 1930s and how that experience shaped his life and formulated his definition of success. Coach Wooden’s definition of success: 34 “Peace of mind attained only through self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to do the best of which you’re capable. I believe that’s true. If you make the effort to do the best of which you’re capable to try and improve the situation that exists for you. I think that’s success.” (Wooden, 2001, para. 5) We feel that the teachers involved in our study will be much more invested in the study and successfully implement change if they invest in the relationship aspect of the innovations with their students. Furthermore, the process of working with colleagues and building stronger relationships with them in making these Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations (CPI) changes within the department can help build an overall environment that fosters successful change. A phenomenological influence on the CPIs can be of immeasurable benefit in helping a youngster achieve a healthy, balanced and happy life by helping the student reach physical literacy. Due to the student-centered nature of the CPIs we have introduced, relationship building is a core priority in implementing these curriculum and pedagogical innovations in the PE lessons. Van Manen has developed and expressed phenomenology without compromising the importance of pedagogy. He “continues his interest in the pedagogy of care, especially its moral character – never losing sight of the lived experience …” (Van Manen, 2000). The human aspect is paramount to the success of the child. The subjective understanding and personal involvement of the teacher participants implementing CPIs at the school our study took place, Game School (GS), has given them a deeper perception and unique experience of physical education. The result is more meaningful for them and in turn for the students. The curriculum and pedagogical innovations we have introduced incorporate these important relationship-building ideas as they truly help students connect, contribute and belong. 35 By achieving these goals of relationship building, the CPIs have a better chance of success. CPIs can also assist in building relationships with the other teachers in the department. Focusing on common PE department goals within the school growth plan and building relationships among members of the department through collaborative change can ultimately make the innovations more successful. Healthy discourse and positive relationships between all the stakeholders in education and sport will lead to success when implementing CPIs. 2.9 Movement and CPIs We have felt very fortunate and privileged during our TGfU process to have worked with some world leaders in curriculum innovation. During the 2013 summer institute, Joanne Shepard and Nancy Francis helped reintroduce us to the movement domains and give meaning to them. So much so that we took to Nancy Francis’ writings and paid special attention to a chapter in Robinson and Randall’s book, Physical Education in Canadian Schools, Movement Domains, (Chapter 12) that was written by Lu, Francis, & Lodewyk (2014). We started to develop the idea for our research of “Change in PE” as a result of meeting professors such as Dr. Nancy Francis in the Summer Institute at UBC. She is a wonderful example of the positive influence an instructor has on students. In this case, we were the students. The teaching innovations (along with Joanna Sheppard’s invaluable contributions) had us engaged and invested in a dance unit. Dance is a unit we both thought we would never be invested in. We felt that we grew as educators and students and this helped us see that our research choice of “Change in PE” was possible through CPIs. 36 Curriculum innovation and constructivist instructional practices that implement these movement undertakings must take into account what is developmentally suitable for the students in the class. Francis and Sheppard did so for our cohort and we knew that the relationships we built with the teacher participants in our study (and in turn, the relationships that accompany the CPIs for the students) would be a crucial factor to explore. Such changes in physical education programs have goals of developing movement ability and enriching lifestyles, fitness and health through proficient movement abilities in relation to a student’s physical environment and those in it. It is important that emotional intelligence is developed in the students and the authors make reference to the affective and socio-emotional realms being employed by students through skilled and involved instructors. This was part of our focus at the study school. 2.10 Conclusion In conclusion, our literature review covered many themes and ideas that resonated with our understanding of, and informed our approach to, our research. It has been a journey through a comprehensive set of ideas that has influenced and undoubtedly transformed our thinking and our process of inquiry into implementing curricular and pedagogical innovations. 37 Chapter 3: Research Design and Methods 3.1 Collaborative Teacher Inquiry (CTI) Collaborative Teacher Inquiry (CTI) is the methodology that was used to investigate the experiences of teachers implementing curricular and pedagogical change in a physical education department. This process is also known as Action Research (AR) with the participants engaged to plan, implement action, observe, and reflect on enacting change in the PE department. Through CTI, our research aims to help teachers integrate new knowledge and understanding of student learning, curriculum and pedagogical classroom instruction into their existing knowledge of professional practice. For those engaged in inquiry, the process can serve to expand and refine their personal knowledge base about what it means to be a teacher (Earl, in press, p. 2). Inquiry constructs understanding of the “classroom encounter” – where instruction, curriculum and student actions intersect (Moore, 2004). Another perspective developed by Tamara Nelson and David Slavit, delineates a cyclical framework that encourages an ongoing dialogue about classroom practices and student achievement (Nelson & Slavit, 2008). We adopted this cyclical perspective for our research and concentrated on its three main stages: focus and planning; implementation; and reflecting and evaluating. This cycle involved several stages of collaboration, which aided in a wide variety of support networks amongst participants and from the department head and the administration team. 3.2 Theoretical Framework Some social constructivism theorists of influence include Jerome Bruner (1960), William G. Perry (1981) and David H. Jonassen (2012). They are amongst the rich theorists that provided to social constructivism. It is scientifically rooted focusing on human development and 38 recognizes that individuals make sense of their surroundings through their experiences and interpretations of such experiences. The focus on education in this context is in the collaborative nature of the learning landscape. Of further importance is the emphasis on the social and cultural circumstances. This helps shift the focus to a student centered learning environment and away from a more traditional transmission method with the teacher as the focus. By moving the focus from teacher centered transmission to a student centered learning environment (sensitive to variables in its cultural and social environment), the learning becomes a process where the learners are integrated in an understanding, intelligent and well-informed community. The learning environment nurtures the collaborative nature of education which takes into account all the variables of its setting and its individual learners. This includes their unique cultural experiences, their individual viewpoints, and their interactions with the setting they are in and the people they are in it with. Language is a powerful force that helps define the social nature of a setting. As such, a learning environment is a collaborative process and as one creates rich learning. Students are encouraged to continuously consider how the learning environment and its activities are helping them learn. 3.3 Methods Setting 3.3.1Research was conducted within a physical education department at a secondary school in British Columbia, Canada. In order to maintain confidentiality in the study, the pseudonym Game School (GS) will be used. Currently, GS has approximately 600 students enrolled in grades eight to twelve, including special needs students with physical, emotional and cognitive developmental disabilities. There is one principal, two vice principals, 37 full-time teachers, five 39 grade-level academic advisors, two contracted part-time counsellors, and seven support staff members. GS is organized in a linear timetable with a total of eight classes on a four-block rotation in a day-one and a day-two format. Classes are 70 minutes in length and on average students in grades eight to 10 take mandatory physical education two to three times per week. In addition, there are two PE 11 and two PE 12 courses offered at the school every year as elective courses. All PE classes at GS are co-ed. Approximately 40 students are registered for PE 11 and 40 students are registered for PE 12. PE classes are currently organized into 10 units, with each unit comprised of seven to eight classes. The facilities available for physical education at GS consist of one large gym, a weight room, a fitness room, a small-sized gravel field, and a large outdoor grass field. Two to three PE classes per block, with approximately 25-30 students in each class, share the above facilities at any given time, which results in problems when the weather is inclement and students ask to come inside. Co-Researchers and Participants 3.3.2The two main co-researchers and active participants in the study were Steve and George. Steve was head of the physical education department and an employee at GS in his eighth year of teaching. Steve was also very active in the athletics program and coaching at GS. He was the head coach of the senior boys’ basketball team, assistant coach of the senior golf team, and assistant coach of the ice hockey team. 40 George, while a non-employee of GS, participated in the study in his role as a critical friend. George was a district counsellor for four years at another district. Prior to this he was a counsellor for 12 years and a vice principal. George’s role at GS was unique in the sense that he was able to inform and provide valuable feedback to the Collaborative Teacher Inquiry (CTI) community. He was also able to provide a neutral element and bring fresh perspectives to the table. George’s role as a co-researcher also overlapped into consultant and counsellor, focusing on how the participants felt and acted during the study and offering insights into how students benefit from a constructivist perspective. Due to his years of counselling in the school environment, working with students and adults when they are exceptionally stressed, George was able to offer support to teachers during some trying times as teachers wrestled with the implementation of curricular and pedagogical innovations. The co-researchers, George and Steve, guided and led the participants through the CTI process, provided information on instructional strategies and feedback that helped to successfully introduce and implement new curriculum and pedagogical innovations at GS. Participants 3.3.3As part of a collaborative teacher inquiry, all teachers in the PE department at GS were given the opportunity to participate in the study. Table 3.1 outlines the secondary physical education department, which consisted of six physical education teachers, who vary in years of teaching experience from one year to over thirty years of teaching PE. Four of the department members have less than nine years of teaching experience and the other two have twelve plus years of experience. Four out of the six teachers within this department have had limited 41 experience with using curricular and pedagogical innovations in their teaching practice. The teaching styles within this department vary dramatically. Table 3.1 Teacher Descriptions Name Julie Irene Steve Oscar Charlie Eric George Gender F F M M M M M Age 60-65 50-55 30-35 30-35 35-40 25-30 45-50 Education Masters B. Ed. Grad Student (M. Ed) Grad Student (M. Ed.) M. Ed - Leadership B. Ed. Grad Student (M. Ed.) Years Teaching 30+ 20 8 6 8 0 17 Steve 3.3.3.1Steve was a co-researcher with George and was in his first year as the physical education department head at GS. He was in his eighth year of teaching and taught one class of PE 12 and three classes of PE 10 at GS. Steve has been exposed to, and is well-rehearsed in all the curricular and pedagogical innovations through teaching experience and the Teaching Games for Understanding 2 (TGfU2) cohort master’s program at UBC. George 3.3.3.2George was an experienced teacher with over 17 years of teaching experience and was a co-researcher with Steve in this study. George was working as a district counsellor at another school and had many years of experience in the PE classroom. George also had a number of years’ experience coaching rugby, soccer, track and field and basketball. He too had been 42 exposed to, and is well rehearsed in, curriculum and pedagogical innovations through the TGfU2 cohort master’s program at UBC. Julie 3.3.3.3Julie was the veteran experienced teacher in the Game School (GS) PE department and is also the vice principal of GS. Julie was an athletic director and physical education department head prior to her current position as vice-principal. Julie had little to no exposure to new PE curricular and pedagogical innovations prior to this study and she taught two blocks of PE 8 at GS throughout this study. Irene 3.3.3.4Irene was another experienced teacher, having spent 12 years teaching PE and eight years as the previous PE department head at GS. She also taught elementary school for a number of years. Irene had little to no exposure to new PE curricular and pedagogical innovations prior to this study. Irene taught one class of PE 12, one class of PE 11, two classes of PE 10 and a class of PE 9 during this study. Oscar 3.3.3.5Oscar had five years of teaching experience. He taught one block of PE 11, one block of PE 9, and one block of PE 8. Oscar was in his second year of a two-year coaching master’s at the University of Victoria. Oscar had little to no exposure to new PE curricular and pedagogical innovations prior to this study. Oscar also coached the senior girls’ basketball team and was the athletic director for the previous four years at GS. 43 Charlie 3.3.3.6Charlie had seven years of teaching experience and holds a Masters in Educational Leadership. Charlie taught three blocks of PE 8 and two blocks of PE 9. Charlie had little to no exposure to new PE curricular and pedagogical innovations prior to this study. Charlie coached volleyball and was the head coach of the wrestling program at GS. Eric 3.3.3.7Eric was a young first-year teacher who taught one block of PE 9 and was the athletic director of GS. Eric had recently been exposed to some of the curriculum and pedagogical innovations during his time in the teacher prep program at SFU in 2013. Eric coached volleyball, and the senior girls’ soccer teams at GS. 3.4 Ethical Considerations The research study was approved by UBC Research Ethic Behavioral Research Ethic Board, H13-01980, on September 19th, 2013. Upon approval by the UBC ethical board, the school district, and the school principal, each candidate was required to give written consent to participate in the study. Teacher participants who do not give signed consent to participate in the study were excluded from the study but were able to participate in all department activities as usual. Each teacher participant’s privacy was respected during all stages of the research. Teacher participants did not feel coerced to participate or to remain in the study and could have withdrawn from the study at any time. If teacher participants chose not to participate, they were able to attend regular departmental meetings, and we did not write down their contributions to those meetings for the study. Participants were not harmed in any way through their participation 44 in the study. At the conclusion of the research, the written consent forms were stored in a locked drawer in a locked office away from GS. Furthermore, all the electronic data was saved, backed up and stored on password protected computers and servers. 3.5 Data Collection/ Gathering The implementation of curriculum and pedagogical innovations at GS, such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) and Sport Education (Sport Ed.), focused solely on the teacher participants as co-researchers and they were our primary research subjects. This investigation focused on the teachers’ abilities, challenges, and change in teaching practice with the implementation of new curricular and pedagogical innovations. Data Collection 3.5.1Data were collected from our teacher participants as they enacted change in the GS PE department in the forms of (1) teacher blogs; (2) field notes from the physical education department meetings and the accompanying minutes; (3) questionnaires and temperature checks; (4) field notes from the observation of the teacher participants in their school environment; (5) George and Steve's personal and professional life experiences in the form of journal notes; and (6) final exit questionnaires given to each teacher participant to conclude the research. Teacher Blogs 3.5.1.1To create collaborative work conditions, the data was processed and analyzed using online teacher blogs and written responses (see Appendix B). This was due to the difficulty of meeting regularly to collect data due to conflicting and demanding schedules (e.g. teaching, coaching, etc.) Participants also periodically met formally and informally to discuss progress 45 during scheduled department meetings and day-to-day interaction. The online blog was password protected on the highly secured and confidential GS school network. Field Notes - Department Meetings 3.5.1.2Detailed field notes were taken and recorded from eight monthly physical education department meetings and the accompanying agenda and meeting minutes were all used for data. Field notes were also taken during the PE department workshop where the entire department engaged in a presentation by Dr. Joanna Shepard from the University of the Fraser Valley on the proper implementation of curricular and pedagogical innovations in the PE classroom. We kept a current file of all our field notes and added extra information as we encountered it throughout the research process. All the field notes were then typed up and used as an additional source of data for coding. Questionnaires and Temperature Checks 3.5.1.3Open-ended questionnaires and highly effective temperature check-in and check-out questionnaires were used throughout the research in department meetings and during formal discussions (see Appendix C). These were used to gather insights and knowledge on the participants’ progress and contributions to enacting change in their PE classrooms. The very nature of the collaborative teacher inquiry (CTI) was a collective desire to transform practice. This meant that all our participants were meeting formally and informally, engaged in dialogue, identifying challenges and celebrations throughout our entire study. As teacher-researchers, the participants had a vested interest in the CTI process and were able to enact change by successfully implementing curriculum and pedagogical innovations in their physical education classes. As a result, there was a transformation of the culture in the PE department indicating that 46 the data collection was in fact authentic and fruitful. Online teacher blogs with guided questions for the teacher participants to answer were also conducted, which led to focused responses and data collection. Field Notes - Observation of the Teacher Participants 3.5.1.4Field notes were taken by George and Steve during the observation of the teacher participants implementing curricular and pedagogical innovations in their school environment and PE classes at GS (see Appendix E). All the field notes were then typed up and used as an additional source of data for coding. Journal Notes 3.5.1.5George and Steve's personal and professional life experiences were recorded in the form of personal journal notes. These journal notes were typed up and used as an additional source of data for coding (Appendix E). Exit Interviews/Questionnaires 3.5.1.6Final exit interviews, in the form of open ended questionnaires, were conducted to gather any further insights into the teacher participants’ experiences of enacting curricular and pedagogical change (see Appendix F). The responses to these questionnaires were typed up and used as an additional source of data for coding. 3.6 CTI Implementation Plan of CPIs Overall, the teacher participants appeared very enthusiastic to be participating in implementing curriculum and pedagogical innovations as this fit very nicely with the mandated 47 changes in school practice that the school board was calling for. The entire CTI process and implementation of CPIs is outlined below in table 3.2. 48 Table 3.2 CTI Implementation Plan of CPIs Stages 1. Plan 2a. Implementation 2b. Action Plan 3.Reflect and evaluate Phase 1 - Creating the environment (September 2013) Creating the environment and establishing a common ground Interview with principal regarding CPIs Develop School growth plan PE dept. comparison of PE then and now Development of the PE dept. growth plan Teachers implement PE department growth plan throughout PE yearly plan, units, and lessons Steve and George met and reflected regularly Ideas were shared, developed and evolved Plan shared with the dept. and school admin. Temperature check questionnaire #1 Phase 2 - Building the foundation (October 2013) Introduction to curriculum and pedagogical innovations overview Teachers rank, reflect and discuss personal philosophy of physical education Temperature check questionnaire #1 Introduction of instructional models, PE CPIs (e.g., TGfU, Sport Ed., Inventing Games, PSR, PL, etc.) Teachers develop and implement a curricular and pedagogical innovation into lesson(s) and report back to dept. Teachers reflect and report findings back to department after implementing curricular and pedagogical innovations Temperature check questionnaire #2 Phase 3 - Lesson plan development and implementation (October 2013-November 2013) Lesson planning: Teachers, individually or in collaboration with other department members, plan their trial lessons with curricular and pedagogical innovations Teachers trial created lesson plan(s) with the support of all the participants Teachers implement individual and/or collaborative created lesson(s) Teachers reflect and report findings back to dept. after implementing curricular and pedagogical innovation lesson(s) Online blog contributions Temperature check questionnaire #2 Phase 4 - PE release time workshop (November 2013) PE release time workshop planning Conduct PE release time workshop 1 Temperature check #2 discussion Revisited school and PE dept. goals and growth plans Practical gym session with guest speaker Workshop debrief: Temperature check out #1 Teachers implement a new CPI in an upcoming unit Teachers are encouraged to collaborate with other PE dept. teachers or teachers sharing the same teaching block. Teachers reflect on whole unit implementation of curricular and pedagogical innovations and report back to dept. Temperature check questionnaire #3 Phase 5 - Unit plan development and implementation (Dec 2013-March 2014) Unit planning: Teachers individually or in collaboration plan unit plan incorporating CPIs Teachers trial unit plans with peers Teachers individually and/or collaboratively create unit plan Teachers reflect and report findings regarding unit plan experiences Temperature check questionnaire #3 Phase 6 - Develop a PE dept. philosophy, vision, and mission statement (April 2014) Plan developing a PE dept. philosophy and mission statement workshop Temperature check #3 discussion Review school and PE growth plan goals Teachers rank, reflect, and discuss personal philosophy of physical education Teachers collaboratively create a PE dept. philosophy New philosophy will direct the creation of a mission statement & Exit interview with teacher Teachers in the PE department continually implement individual and collaborative curricular and pedagogical innovations. PE dept. will be receptive to new curricular and pedagogical innovations in the future Teachers’ professional duty to constantly reflect and evaluate their own practice for the betterment of the students 49 Phase One - Creating the Environment 3.6.1 Stage One – Planning 3.6.1.1During phase one of our research we set out to create a nurturing and supportive environment in which to establish and explore common ground for our participants. We began stage one by interviewing the principal of GS regarding her input and opinions about the suggested curriculum and pedagogical innovations (CPIs) that we planned to introduce to the PE department and how to enact sustainable change in a PE department. Our research coincided with a school growth plan being implemented by the principal for the entire GS. The principal was very receptive to our Collaborative Teacher Inquiry (CTI) plan. The endorsement by the principal and the clear connections to the mandatory school growth plan ensured our CTI plan was welcomed by the PE department members. The changes called for by the school growth plan were compatible with the CTIs we proposed. Changes in the school philosophy were previously introduced to the teachers by the School Board; and Steve, as the new department head, essentially offered our services to research, introduce, nurture and cultivate these Board-recommended changes. We began with an earnest discussion within the department, comparing PE of the past and PE innovations of the present. All were very receptive to this process and we created a comparison chart to illustrate the difference in table 3.3 below. 50 Table 3.3 PE Department Comparison of the Past and the Ideal. PE Department Comparison of the Past and the Ideal PE Class/Teacher: What was PE like in the 1990s? What is PE like in 2013? (Ideal)  Good PE teachers were isolating components of fitness, progressing through skills (within units, and throughout entire years).  Assessment practices were different (0 was 0, late was late) students could adversely affect their own marks permanently.  No re-assessment opportunities (or few depending on teachers)  Warm-up  skills  game  More teacher-centered style of learning/class  Gameplay focused.  Fitness focused.  Student Centered  Students are brought into the circle (how decision are made, how marks are distributed)  Feedback is student-centered (ask a question, self-assessment, etc).  More emphasis placed on structuring of classes, structuring of learning  Centered on developing physical literacy, fitness and activity for life. Stage Two - Implementation 3.6.1.2The department action plan was set in motion in the second stage of “Implementation” during Phase One. The CPIs developed by the researchers were embraced by the department and department members contributed to healthy discussions about them. The development of the PE department growth plan included the input of all the department members. They had a stake in creating the growth plan, so they took action and responsibility for creating it. As a result, our teachers were invested in CTIs and took an interest in implementing PE department growth plans through PE yearly plans, units, and lessons. 51 Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation 3.6.1.3We (Steve and George) began meeting regularly to reflect and evaluate progress through discussion. These discussions were recorded. We also incorporated regular discussions with our supervisor, Dr. Butler for continued reflection and guidance. These discussions allowed us to delineate clear phases and stages in our research study. We were then able to assist the teachers to adapt and evolve the plan and also to observe the significant changes taking place in implementing curricular and pedagogical innovations. Phase Two - Building the Foundation 3.6.2Stage one set the stage so that we too would grow and progress with the development and evolution of our study. To implement the curricular and pedagogical innovations, the phases of our plan had to be flexible. Adaptation and evolution was critical for successful implementation of our plan. Stage One - Planning 3.6.2.1We began with an introduction to the curricular and pedagogical innovations in question. To help students achieve physical literacy in the PE department, we initially began with the goal of implementing TGfU above the other innovations. However, during the initial phase, as we opened up more and more of the other during department meetings, we found that teachers were drawn away from TGfU. The safe environments that we had created in Phase One and continued to foster, allowed for ideas to be shared. This further allowed the participants to evolve and develop their professional practices independently with support and guidance along the way from 52 the co-researchers and from colleagues in the PE department. This set the stage for the “implementation” of the plan in Phase Two. Stage Two - Implementation 3.6.2.2At the next department meeting, teachers were invited to rank a list of PE philosophy statements. This helped to articulate many of the individual feelings and thoughts of the participating teachers with regard to PE. As they discussed the ideas they felt safe to express themselves on philosophy and their thoughts on the introduced CPIs. As a result, we planned our first “temperature check” questionnaire (see Appendix D). This was, and continues to be, one of our best data gathering methods. The teacher participants were given a questionnaire where they responded to various questions privately. The results revealed to us the energy and intent of the department. We saw that the innovations would be taken seriously, but we still needed to put into practice the positive affirmations that were made publically to the department. We introduced and discussed Mike Metzler’s, “Instructional Models: Blueprints for Teaching Physical Education” (Metzler, 2005) and further developed discussions on CPIs (e.g., TGfU, Sport Education, Inventing Games, Personal and Social Responsibility, Physical Literacy, etc.). The rationale for this discussion was to give the teacher participants freedom to choose the CPIs that they felt best suited their philosophies and/or the CPIs with which they felt most comfortable. 53 As the implementation stage progressed, the action plan the teachers enacted saw them develop and implement a curricular and pedagogical innovation of their choice into lesson(s) and report back to the department. Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation 3.6.2.3The teachers reflected on and reported their findings and experiences back to the department at the next department meeting via verbal discussions and written temperature check questionnaires. Phase Three - Lesson Plan Development and Implementation with Support 3.6.3The third phase of the study focused on the development of CPIs through lesson planning. This was done individually or in pairs, as teachers chose, and with support on hand from Steve and George. Stage One - Planning 3.6.3.1Lesson planning: Teachers, individually or in collaboration with other department members, planned their trial lessons. Stage Two - Implementation 3.6.3.2 Teachers trialed their lesson plan(s) with continued support of the department members involved in the study. 54 Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation 3.6.3.3Teachers reflected and reported findings back to the department after implementing curricular and pedagogical innovation lesson(s). Revealing and rich discussions emerged from the findings. Teachers were encouraged to provide further data contributions through online blog contributions and a second temperature check questionnaire (see Appendix D). Phase Four -PE Release Time Workshop 3.6.4Phase Four centered on the PE workshop planned at the school for the entire department, with the support of the administration through approved release time to participate in the workshop and develop the CPIs. The purpose of the PE workshop was to give the teachers a hands-on practical session with the CPIs and a knowledgeable guest speaker. The teachers were also able to have a discussion about the CPIs in a debriefing session at the conclusion of the workshop with the guest speaker. This proved to be an excellent source of data. Stage One - Planning 3.6.4.1The planning stage focused on the workshop day. Steve secured PE release time from the administration so that the teachers would not have to invest coaching, preparation and marking time to receive the training for the CDIs. See appendix G for the PE workshop agenda and minutes. Stage Two - Implementation 3.6.4.2The day began with a temperature check of previous CPI implementations and expectations for the workshop. We followed this up by revisiting the school and PE department 55 goals and school growth plans to gently remind the teacher participants of the goals set out for the department by the School Board. Overview of the gym session by guest speaker Professor Joanna Sheppard from the University of Fraser Valley: Joanna gave an opening lesson on the Sport Ed. unit infused with TGfU and Personal and Social Responsibility (PSR) curriculum and pedagogical innovations. This was immediately followed by a practical gym session of the lesson conducted by one of the teacher participants and Professor Sheppard in a grade 8 PE class (28 students). The first lesson of the invasion games unit was basketball and used curricular and pedagogical innovations. The workshop debrief after we provided lunch focused on the practical session with an emphasis on reflection and feedback. We followed by redistributing the CPI information and resources. We intended to keep the support there to implement the CPIs, which would make lasting change possible. The action plan focused on the teacher participants implementing new CPIs in an upcoming unit for their classes. Teachers were encouraged to collaborate with other PE department teachers or teachers sharing the same teaching block. Temperature check questionnaire #3 (see Appendix D) was written by the teacher participants and handed in to Steve and George at the end of the workshop day. Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation 3.6.4.3Teacher participants reflected on whole unit implementation of curricular and pedagogical innovations as presented by Professor Sheppard and how the Sport Education 56 model, or CTI of their choice, can lead to effective change in their practices. We followed up by reporting back in group discussions and peer conversations. Phase Five -Unit Plan Development and Implementation with Support 3.6.5Phase Five focused on unit plan development and implementation with support from all the teacher participants. Stage One - Planning 3.6.5.1The intention was to have teacher participants, individually or in collaboration with other department members, set out their unit plan with CPIs. Stage Two - Implementation 3.6.5.2To implement this stage, the teacher participants tested their created unit plans by carrying them out with the support of all participants. The action plan was organized and planned by the participants and it helped that implementation was carried out with collegial cooperation. Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation 3.6.5.3After the units were planned and carried out by the teacher participants, they reflected and reported findings back to the department. The CPIs were then evaluated by the teacher participants in department discussions and followed by written responses in the temperature check #4 questionnaires. 57 Phase Six - Developing a Collective PE Department Philosophy and Mission 3.6.6Statement Phase Six of the study revealed the shared perceptions and interpretations of CPIs within the PE department. We revisited an old philosophy statement, reflected and madee any necessary changes, and began to develop a new collective PE department philosophy and mission statement that reflected current practices. Stage One - Plan 3.6.6.1The teacher participants start planning and developing a PE department philosophy and mission statement for the department. They may plan to develop a workshop on the PE philosophy and mission statement to present to other PE departments who are interested in enacting similar change. Stage Two - Implementation 3.6.6.2Implementation of this stage began with the teacher participants discussing the topic – essentially a verbal version of the temperature check. This is followed with a revision of the school growth plan and PE department goals. As in the initial phases, the teacher participants will once again rank, reflect, and discuss their personal philosophies of physical education. This will help to establish an atmosphere that will enable participants to collaboratively create a PE department philosophy. The collective PE philosophy will direct the creation of a mission statement for the PE department. We will conduct exit interviews during this final stage in a casual and open environment, away from the other teacher participants so that each participant can express him or herself without interruption and in a safe environment. The long run intent of 58 the action plan is for the teacher participants in the PE department to continually implement individual and collaborative CPIs. As a result, the PE department will be receptive to new curricular and pedagogical innovations in the future. Stage Three - Reflection and Evaluation 3.6.6.3It is the teacher participants’ professional duty to constantly reflect and evaluate their own practice for the betterment of the students. 3.7 Data analysis The procedure for the data analysis is as follows: Processing the Data 3.7.1 Editing 3.7.1.1All collected data were loaded into the qualitative text analysis program Qualyzer for analysis. Prior to coding, the entire data were read for overall sense and to identify key points and themes. Coding 3.7.1.2To begin, the data were read through several times to create temporary labels for distinct chunks of data to summarize patterns emerging in the study. Through this process we identified questions, continued our reflections, and categorized the actions, perspectives, and words of the teacher participants in the study through their raw research data. From there we moved to identifying patterns and relationships in the previously labeled chunks of data and establishing their connections to each other. We followed up by grouping these connections into organized 59 categories and analyzed the relationships for further classification. Finally, we identified and created four major themes from all our data. Generalizability 3.7.2The landscape of this research question is very precise to the research participants of the GS PE department. Given the subjective nature of the study, no exact replication would be possible due to the unique personalities and characteristics of the individuals involved. However, it would be possible to replicate the overall strategy and format of the study in another PE department due to the general similarities and training of educators in collective PE departments. Validity 3.7.3The precision of the research is acknowledged through several types of validity. The idea of validity we discuss focuses on the common accord that qualitative investigation must establish that the research is trustworthy and reliable. “...the choice of validity procedures is governed by two perspectives: the lens researchers choose to validate their studies and researchers’ paradigm assumptions” (Creswell &Miller, 2000, p. 124). Therefore, there are diverse kinds of validity, which depend upon the perceptions and interpretations (the lens) a researcher uses to establish the validity of an inquiry. By engaging the filters of the researcher, triangulation validates the study’s results and conclusions. Teachers in this study were provided with numerous opportunities to reflect, discuss and share their experiences of enacting change within the department at each phase and stage of the collaborative teacher inquiry. 60 Triangulation 3.7.4Triangulation is a validity practice where investigators seek the meaning of data from numerous and divergent sources of evidence in order to construct meanings in the form of themes and categories in a study (Creswell & Miller, 2000). It is a process of organizing and constructing meaning through the researchers’ eyes. The perceptions and interpretations are fashioned through the realities the researchers are experiencing. To illustrate this, we used a common practice employed by many researchers: “…to provide corroborating evidence collected through multiple methods….to locate major and minor themes” (Creswell & Miller, 2000, p.127). Our study triangulated data from blogs/questionnaires, temperature check-in questionnaires, temperature check-out questionnaires, journals, and field notes. From this data we were able to locate major and minor themes that emerged from our findings. For example, Charlie, Oscar, Irene, Steve, and Eric all identified that support was evident and contributed throughout the study in their exit interviews. Another example of triangulation focusses on Irene’s repeated reference to time being a factor for change early in her temperature check out questionnaire, her blog, and in her exit interview. Our final example of triangulation in our study was the Collaborative Teacher Inquiry (CTI), which was the methodology used to successfully implement Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations (CPIs) (see table 3.2 above). We triangulated data from the three stages of focusing and planning; implementation and reflecting; and evaluating. 61 Chapter 4: Individual Teacher Journeys Through the Collaborative Teacher Inquiry (CTI) We have divided this chapter into three succinct parts to present our research data. Part one defines change as 1) beginning/attempting, 2) emerging/learning, and 3) transforming, that each of the teachers had experienced as they implemented Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations (CPIs). Part two presents a summary of the findings of the six teacher participants from the beginning to the end of the study, followed by a discussion of their overall progression in enacting curricular and pedagogical change. Finally, part three will summarize the teachers as both individual participants and collectively as a physical education department. 4.1 Part One: Overview and Definitions of the Three Stages of a Teacher’s Journey through Change Each teacher’s experiences have been summarized using the following three stages of change: 1) beginning/attempting, 2) emerging/learning, and 3) transforming. These correspond to the collaborative teacher inquiry (CTI) three stages of (1) planning, (2) implementing/action plan, and (3) reflect/evaluate. Stage One - Beginning/Attempting 4.1.1We were able to summarize feedback from each of the six teachers at the beginning of the study through their responses to two data prompts, which included (1) Developing a PE philosophy handout (see Appendix H), and (2) Temperature Check #1 questionnaire (see Appendix D). We also include, as a third data resource, our field-notes (see Appendix E). 62 To begin, teacher participants ranked their current personal PE philosophy from one to ten and used it to aid in the development of a philosophy of physical education (see Appendix H). Teachers also completed a temperature check #1 questionnaire that outlined what was, and was not, working in their PE classes and/or PE department in terms of success; what instructional models they were, and were not, comfortable with; and a brief summary of the future of PE at Game School and in the Province. Furthermore, the temperature check asked if the changes that took place as result of the school growth plan felt forced or if they felt the changes would benefit students and the school environment. And, finally, they were asked if there was sufficient time provided by the school to implement the current changes. Stage Two - Emerging/Learning 4.1.2This stage describes the teachers at approximately the midpoint of the study, which coincided with the PE workshop department release time. All the findings in stage two were taken from: (1) temperature check-in #2 questionnaire handouts (see Appendix D), (2) the temperature check-out questionnaire (see Appendix D), and the co-researchers’ field notes (see Appendix E). To begin, findings were taken from the temperature check-in #2 questionnaire handout. Each teacher is described through his/her reflections of previous PE department meetings. Further reflections focused on the PE action plan from previous department meetings and on which of the instructional strategies that they attempted, transformed their teaching practices. The questionnaire also revealed insights into their current PE classes and/or units at that 63 particular time. Teachers are also described in terms of what they hoped to gain from the upcoming PE workshop. The second source of data at this stage came at the conclusion of the PE workshop; data were taken from a second temperature check-out questionnaire of the day. These data revealed descriptions of the teachers in terms of what they had learned from the workshop to support their understandings of the various instructional strategies; what still puzzled them; how they contributed to the success of the PE workshop; what they noticed about the other teachers’ contributions to the workshop; and what supports they needed from the department head for them to attempt, learn, and implement a new instructional strategy. Stage Three - Transforming 4.1.3This stage describes the six teachers as they were at or near the end of the study. Each teacher participant reached this stage at their own pace. Data were provided from: (1) the teacher online questionnaire/blog (see Appendix B), (2) the study exit interview/questionnaire (see Appendix F); and (3) the co-researchers’ field notes (see Appendix E). To begin, the online teacher’s questionnaire/blog provided teacher responses to the new instructional strategies applied to the whole PE unit. Teachers summarized their new instructional strategies and described what worked and what did not work. They also revealed their insights into the students’ reactions to the new strategy. From the data, each teacher's insights on the differences in the students’ performances, attitudes and general behaviors were revealed. What was their current comfort level with the instructional strategy now? Did this new strategy work? Why or why not? What were their concerns for implementing CPIs? What were 64 some challenges of implementing the strategy and how did they overcome these challenges? What was the success of the strategy? Did they collaborate with other members of the department during the implementation of the strategy? What resources would they like to be provided with to help them succeed with the instructional strategy? These were some of the examples of the questions on the blog and questionnaires. At the end of the study, teachers completed the exit interview/questionnaire handout (see Appendix F), which concluded the study with the teacher’s evaluation and reflection on their transforming in the areas of the PE classroom and the PE department. 4.2 Summary of Findings into participants Teacher One: Eric 4.2.1Eric was in his first year as a teacher and was the athletic director at Game School. Stage One - Beginning/Attempting 4.2.1.1Eric’s three top philosophy statements suggest a leaning in his PE teachings towards developing positive lifelong attitudes toward physical activity, maintaining or enhancing physical fitness, gaining self-esteem and self-worth. When asked what worked for him in his PE classes and the department, Eric discussed that giving his students the “freedom to explore” worked in the first few weeks of teaching PE as a new teacher (Eric: temperature check #1, October 18, 2013). He also mentioned that structured skill-based lessons were not working in his PE classroom instruction. Eric was comfortable with the instructional strategies of direct instruction, guided discovery, and cooperative learning. Eric did not share which instructional models he was not comfortable with. Eric felt the future of PE 65 at Game School and in the province was moving in the right direction and that it “does not get enough credit and respect in the educational field” (Eric: temperature check #1, October 18, 2013). Eric shared that he appreciated the benefits of the changes that had occurred within the department and did not feel forced to change. Eric concluded by stating that he felt there was sufficient time provided by the school to implement change and that it should be an ongoing process. Stage Two - Emerging/Learning 4.2.1.2The turning point for all our participants in the study was the day the principal of Games School authorized release time for our teacher contributors. Eric entered the day of our workshop with Dr. Joanna Sheppard from the University of Fraser Valley with the right intentions but still lacked confidence and was unsure of the approval he sought from others. The model he chose to explore was the Sport Education Model. Eric stated in his temperature check-in during our collaborative workshop day that he hoped to gain: “practical strategies,” “confidence and motivation to explore and attempt new instruction strategies and pedagogical change,” and the ability to anticipate “how his students might respond to such changes” (Eric: Temperature check in Collaborative Workshop Day, November 28, 2014). Eric’s honesty here is revealing as he declared that to support this collaborative learning workshop he agreed to bring: his enthusiasm, a new outlook and fresh ideas, and acceptance of change and progression. Eric’s emergence and learning after the workshop was demonstrated in the temperature check-out at the end of the day. As he was able to observe and follow the strategy being introduced, he felt that this supported his understandings around the instructional strategies 66 demonstrated at the workshop. However, he felt confused as to how to fit the new strategies into the timelines allocated for the units. He continued by confessing that his contribution to the day’s workshop was mostly observing (even though he was aware that some other department members had already attempted and experimented with other CPIs before the workshop, which gave them more insight into the day’s proceedings). The workshop helped bring Eric to the conclusion that to move forward, the support he needed to attempt, learn and transform the implementation of a new instructional strategy was “a supportive department that is willing to take risks and collaborate” (Eric: Temperature check #1, October 18, 2013)! Stage Three - Transforming 4.2.1.3Eric entered the study open to new ideas and new directions. Through our observations of Eric’s teaching, and his written and verbal responses recorded in our data, he clearly embraced the concept of introducing and using new curriculum and pedagogical innovations to his PE classes. However, there was, in the early stages, a reluctance to fully accept and integrate the CPIs freely. As he emerged in the previous stage, we observed Eric transforming into a teacher who embraced the CPIs. This was in sharp contrast to our previous observations of a young teacher who incorporated a direct command method. Eric stated in his temperature check #1 that direct instruction was one of his most comfortable instructional models and our observations confirmed this. He also stated that “guided discovery” and “co-operative” learning were amongst the instructional models he was most comfortable with. Repeated observations did not coincide with this declaration until after the collaborative PE workshop. This indicated that his beliefs and practices did not fully match until he was in a supported position to explore his beliefs in the CPIs he knew, and then ventured into the newly introduced CPIs with his partner, Irene. 67 From the key day of the collaborative PE workshop, Eric and Irene agree to work collaboratively with each other to implement the new models. The cognitive dissonance that handcuffed both teachers gave way to the new instructional strategies. The “sport-technique form of physical education has been spectacularly resistant to change” (Kirk, 2010, PE Futures, p.123), but the collaborative workshop was the leadership and support that was needed to cultivate a collaborative environment, which Eric and Irene took advantage of. As the cultural change developed, they agreed to collaborate on a Sport Education model for a complete tchoukball unit. Eric’s exit interview/questionnaire (see Appendix I) revealed a teacher who transformed his practice and supported the other teachers’ transformation in the process. He stated that he felt the PE department had changed and the instructional strategies had evolved over the school year. He responded that he was “certain” it had. Eric also noted the “positive discussion in meetings and outside of class.” He was also appreciative of the “clear focus” of the instructional strategies and identified the most important factors as there being a “plan in place” and a “vision” for the department. In conclusion, Eric recorded three prime factors that contributed to his changed teaching practice. First was his “exposure to new teaching approaches.” Second, Eric commented on the cultural shift of the department and noted the changed “atmosphere of department – engaged in process.” Third, all this was made possible through the collaboration that was now taking place with “support from teachers and the department head” (Eric: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2014). 68 Discussion of Eric’s Data 4.2.1.4Eric’s rate of change and his anxieties surrounding it revealed a young professional who struggled with the ambivalent feelings he had about the CPIs. Eric entered the study open to new ideas and new direction. Through our observations of Eric’s teaching, and his written and verbal responses recorded, he clearly embraced the concept of introducing and using new CPIs in his PE classes. However, there was, in the early stages, a reluctance to fully accept and integrate the CPIs freely. As a new PE teacher, Eric revealed in his temperature checks and exit interview that he experienced cognitive dissonance from the beginning of the study. He was interested in the CPIs and recognized their importance but was also concerned about culpability on the students’ part (Eric: Phase one questionnaire/blog, December 12, 2013). During the temperature check in on the collaborative workshop day, Eric responded to the question about what he hoped to gain form this PE workshop to assist him in the development and understanding of instructional strategies and pedagogical change. His responses included: “practical strategies,” “confidence and motivation to explore and attempt strategies and pedagogical change,” and “how our students might respond” (Eric: Temperature check in, November 28, 2013). He was constantly concerned with how the students might respond to the CPIs. This continued in the exit interview as he voiced the same concerns. He articulated his concern to Steve about keeping control of his classes during student-centered learning because he was a new teacher. He revealed that he was concerned about accountability and ownership on the students’ part during instructional innovations (Eric: Phase one questionnaire/blog, December 12, 2013). He continued by adding, “students seem to enjoy being self-directed when given a role to carry out for the unit and for the class” and “I feel some really do need the direct instruction of the teacher to be successful…” 69 (Eric: Phase one questionnaire/blog, December 12, 2013). Furthermore, his close relationship with some of the veteran staff members affirmed his focus on direct command and control of the class as reported in Steve’s field notes. Steve observed that some of the veteran teachers mentored and modelled such practice to Eric. However, Eric’s beliefs revealed he was open to CPIs and slowly he attempted new instructional strategies. Eric’s concerns about the potential backlash of students and the atmosphere of the department began to erode as the study progressed (Eric: Phase one questionnaire/blog, December 12, 2013). The PE workshop in November marked the most concrete change in his practice. He observed the demonstrations of the workshop and noted that some other department members had already attempted changes successfully (Eric: Temperature check out teacher collaborative workshop, November 28, 2013). The sudden and striking realization of the workshop was that he continued to need the support of the department head but that he also needed to collaborate with department members so that he could feel confident enough to risk leaving his comfort zone and implement the CPIs. His emergence as an innovative teacher began in earnest. Eric’s rates of change increased dramatically at this point. His collaboration with Irene increased his confidence and the two teachers fed off each other’s energy and successes. They combined their classes, which took pressure off the limited resources of the department at GS. This was a key indicator that the changes were amongst department members and not strictly an ordered top-to-bottom change from the district level or administration. This also demonstrated the organic and grassroots nature of the changes taking place at GS. 70 Teacher Two: Irene 4.2.2Irene’s experience and insights brought a knowledgeable former PE department head and seasoned teacher to the study. Stage One - Beginning/Attempting 4.2.2.1Irene’s three top philosophy statements suggest a leaning in her PE teachings towards developing positive lifelong attitudes toward physical activity, gaining self-esteem and self-worth, and acquiring desirable social skills. To begin, when asked about what worked for her in the PE class and the PE department, she identified the “participation rubric” and “fitness unit” as things she was comfortable with. She felt that the things that did not work for her were that she lacked a “skills rubric” and that “more progression in skill development from grades 8-12” was needed. The instructional models she felt most comfortable with were “direct teaching” and “peer teaching.” She shared that the instructional models she was not comfortable with were “any of the CPIs being introduced as I have not tried them yet.” Her response to the question regarding whether the changes felt forced or if they would benefit the students, was that “these changes are necessary with the nature of leisure in our society.” As a result, she felt that even though the school provided time to implement the changes, “more time to collaborate is always a good thing” (Irene: Temperature check #1, October 18, 2013). Stage Two - Emerging/Learning 4.2.2.2During the temperature check-in on the day of the release time PE workshop, she offered astute responses to the questionnaire. Although she missed the previous department meeting that discussed the department action plan, Irene still planned to use the Sport Ed. model with her 71 grade 12 PE class. What she hoped to gain from the PE workshop were new ideas that she could use with her first Sport Ed. class the following week. At the collaborative PE workshop she planned on asking good questions to clarify her understanding of the Sport Ed. Model. At the end of the PE workshop Irene completed a temperature check out of the collaborative learning PE workshop. What helped support her understanding of the Sport Ed. Model was that she saw students actively participate in the model and witnessed the logistics of how it worked. Irene mostly observed during the workshop as she tried to figure out how to use the CPIs in her own teaching. In her temperature check out at the collaborative workshop, she offered observations about the other department members’ contributions at the workshop. In the data she stated that the other department members answered questions about strategies that worked. Irene continued by stating that department members were “sharing things that worked” (Irene: Temperature check out collaborative workshop, November 28, 2013). She identified that to move forward and be supported in attempting, learning and transforming CPIs, she needed time in her work schedule to try the Sport Ed. Model (Irene: Temperature check out collaborative workshop, November 28, 2013). Stage Three - Transforming 4.2.2.3Although we handed out the Phase One Questionnaire/Blog in November before the Workshop, she did not hand it in until January 2014 – weeks after the workshop. Irene introduced a Sport Ed. model for her PE 10 basketball unit, which was a new instructional model for her. When asked if it was working she responded that it was a great class and that the students were very mature and organized. She stated the Sport Ed. model was great and that the 72 “students had lots of fun” and that the “students were able to make decisions/take on leadership roles” (Irene: Phase one questionnaire/blog, December 12, 2013). However, in her Sport Ed. model she found that some things did not work. She declared that “this was not long enough = needed more time to have a season long enough” and “needed more time for the championships” (Irene: Phase one questionnaire/blog, December 12, 2013). Her insights on how the students reacted, engaged and participated in the Sport Ed. model indicated that they were highly engaged in all lessons, that the practices were well organized and ran smoothly, and that the coaches and trainers were excellent. She recorded her perceptions as a teacher on the difference of the students’ performances, attitudes and general behaviors as having been “motivated to do well as they wanted to be competitive in the championships” (Irene: Phase one questionnaire/blog, December 12, 2013). She continued by sharing that the behavior problems were fewer and that the students were more active. Her comfort level with the new strategy was high as she shared with us that she really liked it and that she planned to do it again (Irene: Phase one questionnaire/blog, December 12, 2013). Irene declared that the implementation of the Sport Ed model worked for her because: the participation levels were great; there was excellent student/peer teaching; and all the students had roles and responsibilities that they followed. Irene was so happy with it that she shared she would use this model the whole year and planned to work in collaboration with another class on a new sport, which she ended up doing with Eric. Her motivation to do this was to enact change to make things better. 73 The implementation did not come without challenges for Irene. She found that she had to make sure the roles and responsibilities were clearly defined, which she achieved through verbal communication with her students and ensuring “that students are doing their jobs” (Irene: Phase one questionnaire/blog, December 12, 2013). To overcome these challenges she used mentor leadership and she checked in with the teams. By doing so, the unit was successful, which she determined was because the students had fun and were able to make decisions and take on leadership roles. To implement the instructional model she asked for advice on start-up strategies from her colleagues. She collaborated with her peers and asked them if there were any pitfalls. She was so comfortable with this that when asked if she needed any other resources to help her succeed with her instructional strategy she responded “none needed right now” (Irene: Phase one questionnaire/blog, December 12, 2013). From Irene’s exit interview/questionnaire (see Appendix J), the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in Irene’s teaching practice was the “availability of resources,” the PE workshop because she was able to “see it happen and it answers so many questions.” Irene stated that one factor that hindered change in her teaching was the lack of time to collaborate with department members outside of the department meetings, but that she was able to overcome this by collaborating with Eric during a shared PE block. The greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in the PE department according to Irene as a seasoned teacher were “resources provided for us, PE meetings were dedicated to change, and time to talk about things” as a department (Irene: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 74 2, 2014). Furthermore, she said that for change to be sustained at GS, there would need to be adjustments made to the timetable and the schedule of units for next year. Discussion on Irene’s Findings 4.2.2.4Irene’s journey into the CPI’s clearly demonstrated that seasoned and veteran teachers can complete the transformation of their teaching to new instructional models. The journey began with her continued focus on quantitative measurable results. This is a direct result of her years as a department head when senior management at district levels continually demanded that instructional models, assessment and units be clearly defined and measured empirically for the senior management teams to produce charts and tables that translate easily into reports. She did however show a willingness to change as “the changes are necessary with the nature of leisure in our society.” Irene’s routes of change clearly demonstrate that with the right intentions, the CPIs are possible. All our initial consultations and department meetings on the matter showed she was willing to change, but did not have the drive to begin. The factor that changed all that was the PE workshop in late November. Until that day, it was always the plan and intent to change, but the change never came. She entered the workshop eager to take from it concrete ideas to implementation and she did just that. The workshop was a day of observation for Irene, but her emergence had started in terms of tangible changes for her classes. Collaboration was very important to the teachers. It gave them the comfort level and confidence to attempt the CPIs. In the case of Irene and Eric it was paramount, and the collaboration catapulted their successful implementation of CPIs. The workshop transcended the 75 top-down collaboration and support that preceded the department in previous years. The linear collaboration with colleagues cultivated an environment that supported an organic and grassroots implementation of curricular and pedagogical innovations. Teacher Three: Julie 4.2.3Julie was a veteran teacher in the PE department and was concurrently a vice-principal at GS. Julie was not successful in implementing any CPIs into her teaching practice. Julie shared her personal philosophy statements verbally in temperature check #1 but did not participate in any subsequent questionnaires, the blog, or exit interview/questionnaire. Stage One - Beginning/Attempting 4.2.3.1Julie stated that she was happy with the way her PE classes were going and that it was all good. She was particularly concerned with all the interruptions that occurred within her PE classes and the entire PE department when other activities took over the PE facilities. Julie mentioned that she was comfortable with direct instruction, guided discovery, and cooperative learning instructional strategies but was not comfortable with the TGfU model (Julie: Temperature check #1, October 18, 2013). Julie’s thoughts of the future change coming to PE were that it is in fact “coming and that we need to be receptive to these changes as many did not accept the changes that occurred back in 1997 when the last modifications to the PE curriculum were made” (Julie: Temperature check #1, October 18, 2013). Julie concluded that the changes did not feel forced and that they would benefit the school and the students and that more time for the school to implement changes would be appreciated (Julie: Temperature check #1 and field notes, October 18, 2013). 76 Stages Two & Three 4.2.3.2Julie did not provide any data during either of the stages. Discussion of Julie’s Findings 4.2.3.3Julie’s unique role at Games School was that of a current vice-principal and a PE teacher. Julie’s leadership position at GS and her vocal support at the department meetings helped set the tone for innovative change that was supported by the principal and department head, Steve. However, as with the district, Julie’s support was not consistent and after some wonderful dialogue and the excellent support the administration showed in giving the department release time for the collaborative workshop, the leadership and participation ended with Julie. Julie is in the latter stages of her career and never made it to the attempting or implementation stage of implementing CPIs. The routes of change for Julie never materialized. Since she did not submit any of the questionnaires/blogs, we did not receive any data directly from Julie. All data were from our observations, which were extremely limited due to the fact Steve taught Social Studies in a different part of the building during the two blocks Julie taught PE. The limited field notes we collected demonstrated Julie did not attempt any of the CPIs and therefore there was little to no emerging and learning. Although Julie attended the collaborative workshop, she sat separately and was clearly disengaged from her peers during the entire process. Initially, she exhibited leadership at the start of the study with vocal support. As part of the administration team, she authorized release time for the department on the collaborative workshop day. However, these positive actions quickly faded. This was disappointing since there 77 was no further support from this school leader, neither was any collaboration provided. Julie is a very busy administrator who has been assigned two blocks of PE and the PE department. Both appear to be a nuisance and intrusion to her. She was officially part of the PE team but emotionally not present. This was clearly demonstrated in the study when at a department meeting where the philosophy statement was developed, Julie responded to a compliment about her philosophy statement contributions by stating that she was obliged to say certain things due to her position. This clearly indicated to us that our field notes on Julie’s lack of involvement with the curricular and pedagogical innovations were accurate. Teacher Four: Oscar 4.2.4Oscar’s transforming was at a rapid pace and continued to provide many insights and support throughout the study to all department members. Stage One - Beginning/Attempting 4.2.4.1Oscar’s three top philosophy statements suggest a leaning in his PE teachings towards developing positive lifelong attitudes toward physical activity, learning useful physical skills, and applying movement knowledge in varied situations. At the beginning of the study Oscar stated that teams and games based learning, small sided games, multisport (but in a continuous process template), and repeat drills were working for him in his PE classroom (Oscar: Temperature check #1, October 18, 2013). Oscar described that what did not work for him and what he was concerned about included being able to use full game situations, and that the length of current units were too long. The instructional models that Oscar was comfortable with were direct instruction, TGfU, and peer teaching. He identified that he was not comfortable with the Sport Education model but that he was eager to try it out (Oscar: 78 Temperature check #1, October 18, 2013). Oscar was insightful when he provided his thoughts on the future of PE at Game School and in the province. He stated that “that there needs to be more choice for students in PE in terms of courses and units offered,” and that “there needs to be more correlation between the knowledge of the games and the practicing of the skills in PE.” Oscar concluded by stating that he did not feel forced to change and that change in PE was a huge benefit to the students. However, he felt that there was not sufficient time provided by the school to implement change but was hopeful that more time would be made available (Oscar: Temperature check #1, October 18, 2013). Stage Two - Emerging/Learning 4.2.4.2 Oscar excelled at the attempting and learning stage by having implemented the Sport Ed. model in all three of his PE classes. Even before the workshop, he had already used this model in all three of his PE classes (PE 8 - Invasion Games: Soccer; PE 9 - Invasion Games: Soccer; and PE 11- Net Games: Volleyball) and mentioned that he had been successful when he distributed leadership to the students (Oscar: Questionnaire/blog, December 5, 2013). Oscar was the only teacher whose transforming practice was successfully emerging prior to the workshop. Oscar looked forward to taking away new ideas and models and seeing more student-centered instruction from the upcoming PE workshop. Oscar stated that he was going to bring feedback from his recent experiences with the Sport Ed. model from his PE classes to support the collaborative learning workshop. (Oscar: Temperature check in #2, November 28, 2013). At the conclusion of the PE workshop presented by Dr. Joanna Shepard from the University Of Fraser Valley, Oscar mentioned that he had now refined his understanding of the 79 Sport Education model and was “extremely” clear how to use this model in his PE classroom (Oscar: Temperature check out, November 28 2013). He also stated that he had “gained a little amount of information from the Personal and Social model and would like to use that in some of his upcoming lesson plans” (Oscar: Temperature check out, November 28 2013). Oscar played an active role in the PE workshop, took detailed minutes of the department meeting, and created a detailed lesson plan of the PE class demonstration. He also participated and was actively vocal in the department discussion. The contributions noticed by Oscar of the other PE department members were that they asked many detailed and interesting questions and that everyone also provided many contributions and thoughtful insights to the round table discussion that occurred directly after the PE class demonstration. To conclude, Oscar requested more time to develop and refine the mastering of the implementation of the Sport Ed. Model, infused with Teaching Games for Understanding and Personal and Social Responsibility model for future use in his PE classes as observed during the PE workshop. Stage Three - Transforming 4.2.4.3As mentioned above, Oscar was able to implement, attempt, refine and then master the Sport Ed. model in a number of his PE classes. He saw that students were “gravitating to their roles within the model and taking ownership of their group learning and personal learning” (Oscar: Questionnaire/blog, December 5, 2013). Oscar further cautioned that one pitfall to the Sport Ed. model was that some groups with poor leadership amongst the students led to those teams struggling and therefore requiring some extra assistance from him to move through the unit. Oscar’s insights into the students’ achievements, involvement and behaviors were: that they really enjoyed the unit; that they moved towards leading each other, and they 80 were very engaged in different components of PE. He also stated that there were less behavior problems as students were always engaged in smaller teams throughout the unit. Overall, Oscar stated that he felt very comfortable with the Sport Ed. model and would definitely use it in other classes and units. He felt that with this approach he saw positive results in: increased participation; skill development; motivation; social interaction, and fitness. He further commented that this was “a unique unit for students, they liked being part of something new” and that the students were “motivated to participate and identify with something larger than themselves: The Team” (Oscar: Questionnaire/blog, December 5, 2013)! Oscar stated that some challenges he faced while using the Sport Ed. model were: teaching the students the various new roles of being on a team; the learning curve for the him as a teacher mastering this particular innovation; and the selling of the current “changes” of using this model to the students. He overcame these challenges through patience, excitement and detailed pre-planning. Oscar stated that he collaborated with Steve, the department head, and other members of the department by sharing resources, ideas, websites, books, and other useful resources. To conclude, Oscar requested more planning time, collaboration with other teachers from other schools and permission to bring in more outside guest instructors that are experts in the field to sustain a lasting and positive change in PE at Game School (Oscar: Questionnaire/blog, December 5, 2013). The greatest factors that contributed to Oscar’s teaching practice as stated in his exit interview/questionnaire (see Appendix K) were: “information and resources provided by the department head at meetings;” “there was a clear connection between theory and practice of PE and the implementation of new instructional strategies;” “it wasn’t just lip service – resources were provided to support and enable change to happen;” and “we had the freedom to try it and it 81 was ok not to succeed the first time as we had time to discuss and reflect with other teachers and try something again” (Oscar: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2013). Oscar felt that he changed his instructional strategy this past year: “Yes, for sure, I used many different innovations and see that I use way less skill based drills in my class and use more games based drills…games based had more of a purpose than skill based and focused on decision making and leadership in a small sided game environment” (Oscar: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2013). Oscar’s reflection on the PE department as a whole was also very insightful. Oscar felt that the entire PE department did change: “yes, 100%,” and he stated that the greatest contributions to change occurring in the PE department were: “the new PE department head gave new life,” “acceptance of change by the administration and leadership group,” and “access to resources to support implementing new strategies” (Oscar: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2013). In contrast, Oscar stated the main factor that hindered change in the PE department was in fact the lack of “participation by some teachers the students were not the problem at all, they picked up and bought in to everything I implemented and taught them” (Oscar: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2013). Oscar concluded that that for enacting curricular and pedagogical change in PE, “it starts with cultural change for people to change. Cultural change will eat structural change for breakfast and there is a greater need and support from administration and department head to accept failure during the process of change.” (Oscar: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2013) 82 Discussion of Oscar’s Findings 4.2.4.4Oscar’s journey through the three stages of change was extremely rapid as he was the first teacher to achieve and complete each stage outlined for CPI change. Oscar began the study with some previous background knowledge in TGfU and also had an extensive background in coaching a sports team, so the Sport Ed. model was very tangible and easy to implement for him. Oscar was very open and comfortable with changing his curricular and pedagogical practices as he was very open and reflective and stated that “PE needs to change in our department” (Oscar: Exit blog/questionnaire, December 5, 2013). He supported and embraced the changes that came to the PE curriculum. Oscar was able to excel at the transforming (stage three) in a very short period of time through a variety of supports, resources, and collaboration. This rapid pace to stage three was a result of Oscar’s motivation to enact change in PE and align his teaching practices with his learning values, which was consistent with his personal PE philosophy. Supports came from the administration, department head, and his colleagues. All of these stakeholders were able to develop a supportive and constructive environment for successful change to occur in Oscar’s PE classroom. Resources provided included: print and web based material, unit and lesson plans, and new sports equipment for the successful implementation of the Sport Ed. model in a tchoukball unit. Oscar successfully initiated collaboration with Steve and other department members and gained a wealth of comfort and knowledge and successfully changed and implemented new CPIs in his class. 83 Oscars’ rapid journey through the stages of change and successful implementation of the CPIs was made possible through the right conditions. Oscar had support and collaborated well with other PE members. He was committed to the cultural change that began to take shape at that time and mastered the Sport Ed. model by the end of the study. Teacher Five: Charlie 4.2.5Charlie was a contributing member of the PE department and his transforming progressed at a moderate pace. Stage One - Beginning/Attempting 4.2.5.1Charlie’s three top philosophy statements suggest a leaning in his PE teachings towards developing positive lifelong attitudes toward physical activity, enhancing physical growth and development, and gaining self-esteem and self-worth. Charlie began the study by stating that “fun lead up games was working” for him but also revealed that “boys and girls co-existing and participating in his classroom did not work in his PE class” (Charlie: Temperature check in #1, October 18, 2014). He also specified that he had “attempted and tried most of the instructional models” but was not so comfortable with the “individual learning” of the students (Charlie: Temperature check in #1. October 18, 2014). Charlie was optimistic that the future of PE at Games School and the province were all moving in the right direction. Charlie concluded by stating that he felt there was not sufficient time provided by the school to implement changes (Charlie: Temperature check in #1, October 18, 2014). 84 Stage Two - Emerging/Learning 4.2.5.2At the midpoint of the study, Charlie had attempted Hellison’s Personal and Social Responsibility Model in his PE classes. In Charlie’s temperature check in #2 (see Appendix J) at the PE workshop, he specified that he was “looking for new knowledge and confidence so that he could lead a Sport Ed. model unit in his class from the upcoming PE workshop” (Charlie: Temperature check in #2, November 28, 2013). Charlie indicated that he was going to bring an open mind to support the collaborative learning PE workshop (Charlie: Temperature check in #2, November 28, 2013). Charlie’s responses to the temperature checkout (see Appendix J) at the conclusion of the PE workshop provided evidence that the workshop had been beneficial to Charlie. Charlie confirmed that “the guest instructor provided a lot of useful information and experience” (Charlie: Temperature check out #1, November 28, 2013). His knowledge and understanding of the Sport Ed. model was supported by the guest instructor, Dr. Sheppard, as they co-taught Charlie’s PE 8 class using the Sport Ed. model. Here Dr. Sheppard provided a lot of useful and vital information and experience in the proper implementation of the Sport Ed. model in the PE classroom. However, despite all the information given to Charlie, he was still uncertain about, “how to implement all the Sport Ed. roles in one class” (Charlie: Temperature check out #1, November 28, 2014). This concern was immediately addressed by Dr. Shepard following the PE workshop during the round table discussion. This was quickly reinforced by Steve when he suggested that 85 one can gradually introduce roles throughout the unit and not try to introduce them all at once at the beginning. During the workshop, Charlie contributed and shared the co-teaching duties with the guest instructor. He also expressed that “the PE department members seemed eager to learn and grow” from the experience of the PE workshop (Charlie: Temperature check out #1, November 29, 2013). To conclude, Charlie requested from the department head, and all the members, that he would like more exemplars so that “he could visualize the overall unit better” (Charlie: Temperature check out #1, November 29, 2013). Steve supported this request and provided a plethora of unit plans and resources, in print and on the PE department shared document drive on the school network, which the entire department accessed regularly and at any time. From there, Charlie and the rest of the PE department, excluding Julie, downloaded the resources and shared more documents if they chose to do so. Stage Three - Transforming 4.2.5.3Charlie’s journey through the stages of CPI change progressed moderately with a few periods of hesitation as he wanted to get a clear understanding of the innovations prior to implementation. Charlie implemented Hellison’s Personal and Social Responsibility (PSR) model with his PE 8 class and he saw this as a great tool that educated his students other than by “just putting a ball in a hoop” (Charlie: Blog/questionnaire, December 5, 2013). Charlie was very comfortable when he implemented this CPIs as he had wanted to focus on leadership from the beginning of the year and therefore he found it seamless to implement. 86 Charlie suggested that his students eventually “bought into his model but that it had been a slow process.” The students “realized that they are in more control of their learning than they think” (Charlie: Blog/questionnaire, December 5, 2013) when he used this model in his classes. Charlie stated that one challenge that he overcame centered on when he helped change his students’ perception of this model. The students demonstrated their ‘buy in’ when they shared life stories and when they role-modelled the proper behaviors in the classroom. One success that was observed by Charlie among his students was that by using this PSR model “the expectations of how the students were to behave were much clearer to both the students and to him” (Charlie: Blog/questionnaire, December 5, 2013). The students interacted socially in the class with the teacher and amongst their peers. Charlie collaborated with Steve and received excellent resources, mentorship and support when he implemented the PSR model. To conclude, Charlie recommended that to continue to transforming using the PSR model, “teachers should use it early in the school year to model the proper social behavior in the PE class and create a base for expected good behaviors” (Charlie: Blog/questionnaire, December 5, 2013). Charlie’s willingness to share his experiences in the exit interview helped as he contributed rich data. The paramount elements that underwrote to transformation in his teacher practice were shared in the interview. He itemized influences that included: “support from the department head;” “the process was necessary and makes for best practice;” “personal growth;” and “safe environment to try new things and…wasn’t afraid to try” (Charlie: Exit interview, May 2, 2014). According to these responses, the themes that influenced Charlie the greatest included: 87 leadership and support, culture change, and the CPIs themselves. His revelation that “personal growth” played a role happened as a direct result of the themes of the changes that took place. He further demonstrated this by affirming he had changed his approach and instructional strategies. “In my classes there was less of an emphasis on the teacher but rather a more of a student centered focus and learning” (Charlie: Exit interview: May 2, 2014). The department changes influenced his personal teaching practices. They were perpetually transforming due to an environment that supported the teachers. Charlie shared his views on the most influential elements that changed the department. He began by stating “the start of changes was when the PE department decided last year that it was not mandatory to include unit notes and tests at the end of a unit and things began to change in a huge way” (Charlie: Exit interview, May 2, 2014). The cultural shift began and the leadership and support was instantly offered to begin the CPIs. This was made possible due to a “change in department head” (Charlie: Exit interview, May 2, 2014). The change of the department was further supported when Charlie shared that “George and Steve were able to use their knowledge and expertise form their master’s program and move the entire department through change and to showcase the department as a leader in PE throughout the school board and district” (Charlie: Exit interview, May 2, 2014). Charlie shared that the changes were not without challenges. On a personal level, Charlie noted that “some classroom dynamics make it difficult to implement some innovations as some classes are not ready to try riskier models... more student responsibility is required in the Sport Ed. model” (Charlie: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2014). He was also concerned with the lack of “lesson and unit preparation time” (Charlie: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 88 2014). His personal challenges differed from the department challenges. Where his constrictions where structural in nature, he felt the department challenges where more in terms of each of the members’ personal growth as professionals. Charlie shared in his interview that “some teachers” demonstrated an: “ignorance;” a “lack of awareness and knowledge of the various curricular and pedagogical innovations;” and a “personal reluctance to change for some teachers” (Charlie: Exit interview, May 2, 2014). However, the positive statements he shared in his interview clearly demonstrate that he viewed the process as a success. He continued with the positive statements when he detailed that they were indeed positive (Charlie: Exit interview, May 2, 2014). He explained when he identified “the greatest tool and resource provided was the PE workshop. Here the Sport Ed. model was used to model the approach and was very engaging for the entire department” (Charlie: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2014). Charlie’s conclusion regarding the positive process and his declaration of success was given more credibility when he shared that “the entire experience of enacting change was positive for everyone! Sustainability and advocacy …I will be leaving Game School next year due to layoffs and I will be taking what I have learned and experienced this year and be an advocate for continued and sustainable change in PE” (Charlie: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2014). Charlie was laid off despite a very strong year of teaching and his transforming his practice. Like Oscar, who was also laid off, he did not allow it to jade his practice. He found that the CPIs were a positive process. 89 Discussion of Charlie’s Findings 4.2.5.4Overall, Charlie moved through the three stages of CPI change with ease. The minor speed bumps along the way were quickly overcome through supports, collaboration, and resources. Charlie saw that his journey through the CPI stages of change was needed for his own personal growth. This provided his students with “best practice” teaching methods. Charlie was comfortable when he tried new CPIs as he knew that a safe environment had been established at the beginning of the study. The PE workshop was a turning point for Charlie as he had had the most practical and enriching experience. He was able to co-teach the beginning lesson of the Sport Ed. model with guest speaker Dr. Joanna Shepard and gained a tremendous amount of experience and knowledge from the workshop. This gave him the comfort level to implement CPIs in his future classes. Charlie received a leadership role during the PE workshop as the co-teacher from the department head, which supported his successful implementation and had further collaboration on the successes and challenges of CPI change. Overall, the success level for Charlie was high. At the beginning of the study he accepted that change was required both personally and professionally. As a consequence of receiving frequent support, leadership, resources, and collaboration opportunities Charlie was able to strongly contribute to the positive departmental environment. Teacher Six: Steve 4.2.6Steve was in the first year as the department head and in his eighth year as a teacher at Games School. 90 Stage One - Beginning/Attempting 4.2.6.1Steve’s three top philosophy statements suggest a leaning in his PE teachings towards developing positive lifelong attitudes toward physical activity, gaining self-esteem and self-worth, and enhancing creative abilities. Steve began the study by using a variety of instructional strategies that engaged the students in the PE classroom. Steve struggled with how to assess his students using CPIs and he was also concerned by the “lack of female participation in senior PE classes” (Steve: Temperature check in #1, October 18, 2013). He stated that he was “comfortable with the inventing games model, TGfU, Physical Literacy and direct instruction models of instruction” (Steve: Temperature check in #1, October 18, 2013). At the first department meeting, Steve stated that he felt the future of PE was bright. He believed that “the impending changes included: a hybrid approach to PE; more creativity in games, and creating more respect for PE at Game School and across the province” (Steve: Temperature check in #1, October 18, 2013). Steve saw the benefits of curricular and pedagogical change in PE as it directly benefits the students at GS. He concluded by confirming that he would “provide as much time at department meetings, and at the PE workshop, to initiate changes in instructional strategies for all PE department members” (Steve: Temperature check in #1, October 18, 2013). Stage Two - Emerging/Learning 4.2.6.2At the midpoint of the study, Steve was engaged in the process of transforming the Inventing Games model in his PE classes. He implemented and had many discussions with his 91 students about physical literacy and its importance to live a healthy and active lifestyle. Furthermore, he applied the Sport Ed. model in his PE classes. As the department head, Steve had hoped to gain more insight into what each of the members of the PE department were still struggling with in implementing curricular and pedagogical innovations in their PE classrooms. He continued to assist, support and guide all his department members leading up to the workshop. After the success of the workshop, Steve provided further information, support, resources, and guidance as the implementation of curricular and pedagogical innovations went to a new level. Stage Three - Transforming 4.2.6.3Steve closely collaborated with Oscar in the implementation of an Inventing Games (IG) unit. Steve and Oscar shared the gym and fitness room facilities and succeeded with the implementation through collaboration on the IG unit as they combined Steve’s PE 10 class with Oscar’s PE 9. When they shared the facilities, the common concern about space during the winter months was also eliminated. Steve was also concerned that there was limited time to implement the entire IG unit developed by Butler (2013). There were only seven classes to complete this unit and the number of interruptions from other school events took away more time. To overcome this concern, Steve and Oscar actively engaged in dialogue and collaborated to fine tune the IG unit and agreed to take out some portions of the unit. Steve stated that “the students were actively engaged in the IG unit and that there was an overall increase in the level of participation” (Steve: Temperature check in #2, November 28, 2013). This was due to the fact that the IG model was student-focused in its delivery. Overall, Steve said that: “he collaborated; 92 co-taught; shared facilities; and developed, implemented and reflected on the modified IG unit with Oscar” (Steve: Temperature check in #2, November 28, 2013). These factors were important to the very successful unit and they felt that the students from both classes benefitted tremendously from this shared unit. Steve conveyed in his final exit interview/questionnaire (see Appendix I) that the greatest factors that contributed to the change occurring in his and his colleagues’ teaching practice were: “a desire and passion to deliver a PE curriculum that the students can feel empowered to take control of their learning and to set up the conditions for the students to be successful;” “lead a PE department that was invested in changing their teaching methods;” “collaborating with other PE teachers and networking;” and “participating in the TGfU2 masters cohort and having the knowledge to implement and deliver the CPIs” (Steve: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2014). Steve indicated that he felt that the PE department as a whole had changed: “yes, without a doubt. This is evident in each of the member’s successes and in meeting our goals set forth at the beginning of the year in the PE department” (Steve: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2014). He went on to conclude that the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in the PE department were: “the early buy in and the collective desire to change ways in our PE department;” “allocating time during the PE department meeting to take a temperature check and hear from the other teachers experiences with implementing the CPIs;” and “collaboration with each member of the department” (Steve: Exit interview/questionnaire, May 2, 2014). 93 Discussion of Steve’s Findings 4.2.6.4Steve had a very extensive knowledge and rich background when he implemented the CPIs at the start of the study as he was a member of the Physical Education TGfU2 Masters cohort under the tutelage of Dr. Joy Butler at the University of British Columbia. During this time, Steve was exposed to all of the CPIs in great depth and detail. As a result, Steve’s transformation occurred in the previous school year and had already begun the process of further transforming new CPIs into his PE class. He polished and made minor adjustments as he reflected on his experiences when he implemented the CPIs. He integrated them seamlessly into his teachings. Steve’s roles as the department head, an active member in the study, and one of the two principal researchers, gave him several roles and perspectives in the study. Firstly, his role modeled the proper implementation of the CPIs in his classroom at a mastery level and provided clear examples of how to use the CPIs in the classroom to the other teachers in the PE department. Other teachers observed and asked questions when they saw something that they liked and planned to use or try out in their own classes. Secondly, Steve provided leadership, supports, resources and collaboration opportunities that facilitated a successful cultural change in the PE department, as each member individually and collectively journeyed through the implementation of CPIs in their PE classes. Overall, Steve exceeded the expectations of the administration, staff and the members of the PE department when he facilitated a successful implementation of CPIs. He offered a clear path and expectations for the CPI stages of change process that were transparent, uplifting and successful for all involved in the study. 94 Chapter 5: Results and Discussion of the Five Major Research Themes This chapter explains the five major research themes from all our gathered data. We received responses from most of our participants in the PE department in the form of questionnaires, blogs, interviews, and temperature checks. These themes were revealed as a result of coding all the data sources, the details of which can be found in chapter four. This chapter is divided into five sections, each discussing one of the five major research findings of key themes (see figure 1) that are required to positively enact change in a PE department: collaboration and relationships; leadership and support; curricular and pedagogical innovations (CPIs); cultural change; and barriers to enact change in a PE department. Figure 1: Major Research Themes Successful Change in PE Dept. 1 Collaboration and Relationships 2 Leadership and Support 3 Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations 4 Culture Change 5 Barriers to Enacting Change in a PE Department 95 Figure 2: Summary of Major Research Themes Numbers in the chart indicate # times that teachers referred to the themes (in all data sources). 5.1 Theme One: Collaboration and Relationships A strong theme that emerged was collaboration and relationships. This theme made up 17% of our overall data (third highest percentage) as shown in figure 2 above. Teachers referred to the theme of collaboration and relationships 161 times in the overall data shared with us. Figure 3: Collaboration and Relationship Data Summary 17% 26% 35% 17% 5% Collaboration andRelationships (161)Curricular and PedagogicalInnovations (248)Culture Change (344)Leadership and Support(165)Barriers to ImplementingChange In a PE Dept. (49)Collaboration and Relationship Data Summary Collaboration - 113Communication - 11Relationships - 3796 Collaboration and relationship building was a significant key to curriculum and pedagogical innovation implementation. Collaboration, communication and relationships were all referred to by the teachers as the building blocks that constructed the connections and partnerships. Each successful teacher who implemented change repeatedly listed collaboration as important. The theme of collaboration on the surface may appear to be obvious, yet, as we have observed over years of experience, some teachers’ practices are more consistent with little teacher fiefdoms than membership in a great PE department. Instead of a grassroots and organic model where department members nurtured relationships that led to successful collaboration, these teachers isolated themselves from their colleagues, resulting in no collaboration, communication, or professional growth. The fiefdom mentality coincides with the ‘command and control’ nature of the classes, which was more common prior to the introduction of the CPIs – where the teacher was the earth and the students were symbolized as the sun that revolved around the earth. The teachers did not need each other and therefore the relationships that existed were superficial instead of collaborative. When the department was led to change, Steve provided the support and leadership to introduce the CPIs and set up a safe environment to cultivate relationship building and collaboration. Through necessity, the teachers needed collaboration to make the innovations work. All the teacher participants needed collaboration to successfully implement the CPIs. The initial weeks and months of the study revealed department members that had been provided support and leadership to apply new instructional strategies but were still reluctant to collaborate with each other. For example, Irene and Eric were inspired to collaborate after the PE workshop. 97 The collaborative PE workshop was the turning point where teachers began their process of collaborating with each other to implement changes. We immersed ourselves in this living change through collaboration with specialized PE teachers. We began by creating a common ground that the entire PE department identified with, leading them to feel safe and attached to part of a greater whole. This was achieved by effective communication, which led to the creation and establishment of PE department growth plan goals and a discussion surrounding our philosophy of physical education. This creation of a common ground amongst our teachers created a solid foundation for emergent change to occur, and all members of the department heard each member’s voice. This framework encouraged cultural change that made this PE department relevant in the 21st century and consistent with the new BC PE curriculum. Eric reported that one of the factors that hindered change in the department was that not all teachers were on board with the changes. Julie’s communication lacked genuine intent, which hindered relationship building and resulted in no collaboration taking place. Julie and the rest of the PE department did not collaborate on a level that would help her successfully implement the CPIs. Julie’s primary role of administrator first, and PE department member second, could have provided additional leadership and support to develop cultural change to successfully implement the CPIs. However, the lack of relationships established by Julie hindered any attempts at collaboration by other department members with her. The theme of collaboration and relationships revealed itself time and time again in the data. Had the leadership and support not been present, the communication between department 98 members would not have developed as quickly, which in turn would not have nurtured the relationships built. We believe that, as a result, the collaboration would not have taken place. The CPIs were successful because the changes were not imposed from the top down. They worked due to the interaction of all the parties and because all parties were invested in the changes. As a result of the strong relationship building and collaborative discussions, a new PE department vision, mission and philosophy statement was developed. 5.2 Theme Two: Leadership and Support Leadership and support emerged as a theme that set a tone in the PE department at GS. This theme made up of 17% of our overall data (third highest percentage) as shown in figure 4 below. Teachers referred to the theme of leadership and support 165 times in the overall data shared with us. Figure 4: Leadership and Support Data Summary 99 The research data showed that the leadership differed from the conventional perception of leadership as being hierarchical in nature where commands are top-down. Through years of observations and immersion in the British Columbia education system, we observed a clear connection between this type of leadership and perpetual failure of goals and initiatives. We have observed and experienced that this hierarchical leadership style has failed to cultivate a collaborative environment; and with an absence of a culture change, the initiatives also failed. At GS, we aimed to avoid a top-down hierarchical command system. George’s previous experience as a vice-principal and department head in counseling made him privy to very sensitive issues at schools where leaders failed to lead, as they mistakenly viewed culture change as obedience. Leadership 5.2.1As a young department head, and one of the principal researchers, Steve provided leadership that was well planned and instilled with vision and purpose. The culture change he sought was not blind obedience by teachers. Feedback by the department members provided some of our most valuable data on the theme of leadership. When asked in the exit interviews, “what were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in your teaching practice?” the answers repeatedly referred to the leadership and support the department received. Oscar responded that information and resources were provided by the department head at meetings and there was a clear connection between the theory and practice of delivering PE with the implementation of new instructional strategies. He continued by stating “it wasn’t just lip service” and that “resources were provided to support and enable change to happen” (Oscar exit interview/questionnaire – May 2, 2014). 100 Feedback 5.2.2Feedback was not the type of support that the teachers were seeking in implementing change in the PE department. It was only coded twice (1.2%) in the leadership and support theme. This indicates that the teachers are in need of more than just simple feedback on their performance. Resources 5.2.3A subheading that appeared within this theme was the need for resources to be readily available to successfully implement CPIs into the teacher’s toolbox. The resources that the teachers referred to the most were time and space. Support 5.2.4Our data revealed that all the teachers who were successful in implementing CPIs made repeated references to leadership and support from the department head. Oscar and Charlie made references to a safe environment that was created by the department head. The leadership and support led to a culture change that encouraged healthy risks to be taken that improved teachers professionally and therefore directly benefitted the students. However, the leadership provided isn’t necessarily enough to enact successful change. Irene and Eric were still struggling with a cognitive dissonance with the changes they needed to make to adopt CPIs. This was when our collaborative workshop was introduced in late November to provide support for those teachers who were struggling with the confidence and competence to implement the CPIs. 101 PE Workshop 5.2.5The data from the collaborative PE workshop indicated that this was one of the most supportive and successful initiatives the department head showed as a leader. Furthermore, Steve lobbied for administrative support for the workshop and the principal agreed to provide release time to all the PE department teachers for a half-day collaborative workshop. According to our data, this workshop is where Charlie’s transformation took place as he worked with Dr. Sheppard (guest speaker) in his PE 8 class and collaboratively taught a hybrid model using a combination of Sports Ed., PSR, and TGfU models in a basketball lesson. This collaborative effort by Dr. Sheppard and Charlie influenced Irene and Eric as they used the workshop to learn the “how to” and also bought into the cultural shift the leadership provided. Ultimately they decided to collaborate on an upcoming tchoukball Sport Ed. unit. The leadership nurtured a cultural shift to collaborate, but it did not reach everyone. Julie attended the workshop but appeared distant at times and her body language showed that she did not particularly want to participate nor did she want to collaborate. Later in the workshop, during the debrief session with Dr. Sheppard, Julie left the collaborative workshop to help set up a school assembly. Although we agreed that the assembly was important to the school, this action indicated to us that she did not view the workshop as important. Julie’s actions might have undermined the goals of the day, yet, in the end, the only member of the department who did not successfully change was Julie. The other department members all contributed feedback and pointed to the significant importance of the workshop. 102 5.3 Theme Three: Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations (CPIs) Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations (CPIs) is a new term that we used to introduce and identify the new instructional tools and strategies which include several student-centered learning models for 21st Century Learning. These included: Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU); Inventing Games (IG); Sport Education (Sport Ed.); Physical Literacy (PL); Personal and Social Responsibility (PSR); and a combination of such models in a hybrid approach. The theme of CPIs made up of 26% of our overall data (second highest percentage) as shown in figure 5 below. Teachers referred to the theme CPIs 248 times in the overall data shared with us. Figure 5: Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations (CPI’s) Data Summary 103 Initially, we anticipated that the teachers would gravitate towards TGfU as the CPI of choice. The teachers used their knowledge of TGfU to reflect on their current teaching practices. However, our findings revealed that TGfU was not the primary model of choice to begin the change in their teaching practices. They discovered that there were many other innovations available to them, which offered them choice and comfort. The data revealed that all members of the department demonstrated a specific pattern to initiate change in their teaching. The pattern revealed that the CPI of choice was the Sport Ed. model which also served as a platform from which to develop their teaching and implement other CPIs. The data in figure 5 above reveals that the CPI of choice was in fact Sport Ed. Model as it was coded 32 times as compared to TGfU that was mentioned only 17 times in the data. Sport Ed. Model 5.3.1We found in our data that the teachers’ gravitation towards the Sport Ed. model was due to it being more palatable to teachers. They viewed it as an easier transition from their previous practice of direct teacher-centered methods. One area that was cited revealed that it was “easy to implement due to the fact that the teachers were still in control of the overall direction of the class as they facilitated the various roles of the team members” (Oscar blog/questionnaire – Dec 5, 2013). Eventually the students assumed more responsibility of their roles, which contributed to the transition to a more student-centered approach. It also made the teacher workload lighter and less stressful, and as the unit developed, the students took more control of the direction of the class and their own learning. 104 Our research data indicated another pattern that emerged, as the teachers became more “confident and comfortable with the CPIs they began to use a hybrid approach that incorporated various strategies from TGfU, PL, IG, and PSR models throughout the unit and within each lesson” (McGinley, 2014). Many of our participants then developed a hybrid model with Sport Ed. as the vehicle and then combined it with one of the other CPIs. For example, Charlie successfully combined the Personal and Social Responsibility (PSR) in most of his Sport Ed classes as he saw the benefits that it provided his students and that the overall effectiveness of his teaching increased as a result. Charlie’s example revealed a pattern for all the participants who successfully transformed their teaching practices. The pattern revealed that teachers felt a hybrid model was more effective and they felt more comfortable when they were able to combine elements they wanted from the CPIs. Overall, the Sport Ed. model was the CPI of choice and was used as a vehicle to transform change in classroom practice and the curriculum, moving ultimately from direct teaching methods to more student centered approaches. 5.4 Theme Four: Cultural Change Cultural change was overall the strongest theme that came out in teachers implementing CPIs into their teaching practices. The data revealed that this theme of cultural change was the crux for the success of teachers’ transformation as they all stated this at various points of the study and it is evident in the final data numbers. Cultural Change made up of 35% of our overall data (highest percentage) as shown in figure 6 below. Teachers referred to the theme of Cultural 105 Change 344 times in the overall data shared with us. This signified that it was in fact a collective cultural shift within the PE department that was happening and we journeyed together as individuals in a department to enact changes. Figure 6: Cultural Change Data Summary We started the study with a reflection of how PE looked a number of years ago and what it should look like today (see table 3 p. 49). Furthermore, we investigated the new school growth plan, as well as the new British Columbia PE curriculum. From there, the entire PE department collaboratively created an extensive chart that outlined what we needed our PE classes to look 139, 41% 18, 5% 39, 12% 17, 5% 8, 2% 80, 24% 38, 11% Culture Change Data Summary General Referal to Culture ChangeAssessment and Re-AssessmentEmergenceGrowth PlanParticipationPhilosophyTransformation106 like. Teachers implemented CPIs in their PE classes and reported back to the department on their successes, failures and barriers on a continual basis. To sustain the cultural change, the department created a new PE department vision, mission, and philosophy statement to sustain the cultural change within the department. General Referral to Cultural Change 5.4.1The PE department clearly realized that in addition to making structural changes, it was paramount that we needed a complete buy in by teachers to change the culture of the PE department. This was the most important factor to implement and sustain longer-term cultural changes. As Schlechty stated, “structural change that is not supported by cultural change will eventually be overwhelmed by the culture, for it is in the culture that any organization finds meaning and stability” (Schlechty, 2001, p. 52). Teachers revealed in the data that to overcome barriers in implementing change, the structural changes needed to include: more time, flexibility in the schedule, and more facility space. These were barriers that impeded successful change. Each of the teachers was able to overcome these barriers as they were committed to cultural change and this in turn helped them to overcome barriers to structural change. Irene and Eric were able to combine their PE classes so they had twice the facilities to use. They also combined two units together, a total of sixteen classes, to successfully implement the Sport Ed. model as it was stated that for the successful implementation of this model, more time was needed and more flexibility required in the schedule. Irene and Eric demonstrated that the structural changes that took place were successful because they were supported and were part of the bigger cultural change. 107 Oscar quotes Dr. Muhammad in his exit interview, “it starts with cultural change for people to change. Cultural change will eat structural change for breakfast” (Oscar: Exit interview – May 2, 2014). Our data revealed that all the teachers that were successful in implementing CPIs mentioned that cultural change was a key component to the overall change that was occurring in their own practices and within the PE department as a whole. The PE workshop was mentioned by all the participants as the real turning point for personal and PE department cultural change. The PE workshop demonstrated leadership and support by the department head and administration; collaboration and relationship building were occurring and the curricular and pedagogical innovations implementation followed in their PE classes. Furthermore, the department’s commitment to reflect on the current state of the PE department at GS and to develop new PE mission, vision, and philosophy statements will go a long way to achieve a cultural change that can sustain itself for years to come. Interdependency of Themes to Create Cultural Change 5.4.2This theme of cultural change overlapped with all the other themes of: leadership and support; collaboration and relationships, barriers to enacting change in a PE department; and curricular and pedagogical innovation. They are all interdependent on one other. Firstly, cultural change was established when there was strong leadership and support from the PE department head, the administration and from teachers within the PE department. This is supported by Oscar stating “that there was an acceptance of change from the administration and leadership team” (Oscar: Exit interview/questionnaire – May 2, 2014). Secondly, this strong leadership and support provided the building blocks for the nurturing of relationships amongst all the educators. This fostered a cohesive and constructive cycle of successful collaboration that ended in 108 successful cultural change. Eric supported this effort by stating some of the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in the PE department were that there was an “acceptance among teachers to change with a clear focus and a plan in place to make changes and this was successful by the collaboration of the department” (Eric: Exit interview/questionnaire – May 2, 2014). Finally, once the leadership and supports were in place, the relationships and collaboration developed and grew, and the curricular and pedagogical innovations were implemented successfully by overcoming the barriers to change in a PE department. “George and Steve were able to use their knowledge and expertise from their Master’s program, move the entire department through change and to showcase the department as a leader in PE throughout the school board and district” (Charlie: Exit interview/questionnaire – May 2, 2014). As the study developed, it became apparent that these themes were like an ecosystem. All the themes were interdependent and were responsible to each other for the successful implementation of new instructional strategies. If one theme failed, the rest would fail and therefore the changes would not be successful. This interdependence was the common ground for cultural change to occur. 5.5 Theme Five: Barriers to Enacting Change in a PE Department Barriers to enacting change made up of 5% of our overall data (lowest percentage) as shown in figure 7 below. Teachers referred to this theme 49 times in the overall data shared with us. 109 Figure 7: Barriers to Enacting Change and Implementing CPIs With change there are always going to be barriers that make progress challenging. Teachers in our study mention that CPI challenges, space, and time are all barriers to implementing change. General Referral to Implementing Change 5.5.1Most often when teachers referred to any of the barriers, they used the general term of barriers to implementing change. Space 5.5.2The lack of space and facilities at Games School presented itself as a challenge to the teachers. Eric was concerned with the amount of space in terms of facilities and the consistency 33 6 3 7 05101520253035Barriers toImplementing Change CPI Challenges Space TimeNumber of comments Barriers to Implementing Change 110 of space was an issue to implementing CPIs because it limited what he was able to achieve when facilities were not available. To help alleviate this problem and others, Eric and Irene combined classes to utilize and share all the facilities during the same time period when conducting a combined grade eight and grade nine tchoukball unit using the Sport Education model. CPI Challenges 5.5.3Implementing CPIs into the PE classroom comes with various challenges. At the early stages of the study there is a “huge learning curve for the both the students and the teachers when implementing CPIs” (Oscar: Exit interview/questionnaire – May 2, 2014). “Some classroom dynamics makes it difficult to implement some CPIs as some classes are not ready to try riskier models. More student responsibility is required in the Sport Ed. Model” (Charlie: Exit interview/questionnaire – May 2, 2014). Charlie continued by revealing that the teachers themselves shared in the responsibility of the challenges they faced. He indicated that “ignorance by some teachers, the lack of awareness and knowledge of the various CPIs, and the personal reluctance to change for some teachers” (Charlie: Exit interview/questionnaire – May 2, 2014) contributed to the barriers of implementing change. Time 5.5.4The lack of time to implement change was a recurring concern, referred to directly and indirectly, to many of the teachers during our study. Steve and George overcame this by providing collaboration time, a PE workshop, and ongoing active support to successfully implement CPIs. Irene acknowledged that this support of time was provided. She stated “that 111 there was time given, but there was still a lack of time” (Irene: Exit interview/questionnaire – May 2, 2014). 5.6 Conclusion In this chapter we have clarified the five major research themes from all our gathered data. Our participants in the PE department provided us with responses in the form of questionnaires, blogs, interviews, and temperature checks. The coding of all the data sources discovered the themes discussed. This chapter was organized into five sections which discussed the major research conclusions that are essential to positively enact change in a PE department: collaboration and relationships; leadership and support; curricular and pedagogical innovations (CPIs); cultural change; and barriers to enact change in a PE department. 112 Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations Our study has provided us with understandings into how teachers can successfully implement CPIs in a secondary PE department. We addressed our research question and goals for lasting curriculum and pedagogical innovations to succeed in the PE department. To effectively implement change we have outlined our findings and categorized them into five major themes, which include curricular and pedagogical innovations; cultural change; leadership and support; relationships and collaboration; and barriers to implementing change. We believe that these themes are the keys to successful change in a PE department. We have drawn up a list of change indicators in Table 4, which summarize indicators to recognize that a teacher is going through the various stages of change while implementing CPIs. Our data also revealed the barriers that emerged when the CPIs were implemented successfully, although in Julie’s case, unsuccessfully. Our teachers were a diverse group who had many different years of teaching experience and their emergence and rates of change were also very different from each other. However, when the teachers involved felt invested in the process, then those devoted teachers helped to make a positive cultural shift happen in the entire department and the CPIs took root. This will contribute to 21st century PE making meaningful and positive strides. The following are brief summaries of our findings within each theme describing the successful implementation and change process the department experienced. 6.1 Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations Our intention was to attract teachers to the TGfU model, which we believed would help develop Physical Literacy (PL) in our students. As our research progressed, we found that the 113 initial vehicle for teachers to consider change was not the TGfU model. We found that the Sport Ed. model became the perfect catalyst to help teachers ease their way into the new CPIs. The teachers found the Sport Ed. model to be a more palatable innovation from which they were able to jump into and move beyond towards other CPIs and PL. We feel that the more PE curriculum and pedagogical innovations are exposed and made readily available to PE teachers, the more these teachers will feel comfortable with implementing them into their teaching practice. We achieved this by the following means: set up the environment for the entire PE department to commit to collaboratively enact changes to their practices; teacher professional development days; and workshops. With these conditions in place we believe this will increase the likelihood that PE curriculum and pedagogical innovations will become more the norm in PE. 6.2 Cultural Change In our study of enacting change, we found that some teachers resisted the CPIs for several reasons, both conscious and unconscious. We believe that the teachers who are resistant to change, even when being passive aggressive, will change to some degree. The collegial atmosphere created and the relationships built helped to motivate teachers to try these innovations because the environment was safe and supported by the administration. This in turn resulted in a grassroots cultural shift amongst the teachers. In our study, we recorded that only one teacher did not made significant changes, but we noted and verified that her language had changed when she further discussed PE. This change in language signified at least a verbal change in philosophy. 114 6.3 Leadership and Support For successful curricular and pedagogical changes to flourish in a PE department, the changes must be grassroots, collaborative and organic in nature. We found that the proposed changes worked best when they were nurtured through support. We believed that a forced change would not build a nurturing environment or allow any cultural shift to occur. We put a great deal of energy into creating a healthy environment that encouraged dialogue, inquiry and sharing of ideas. 6.4 Relationships and Collaboration Another interesting finding of our research was the importance of relationship building. It was relationship building that made these innovations a success in the end. The relationships teachers created by working together were a tremendous influence that helped with positive changes in implementing CPIs. Our findings strongly suggest the relationships with the people within the study had a positive influence when implementations of CPIs were attempted. The phenomenological nature of the study, as discussed in our literature review, played a major role in the successful implementation of the curriculum and pedagogical innovations the experiences of the teachers were constructed through their personal involvements, understandings and perceptions when they implemented the CPIs and they found the experiences of having worked in partnerships helped with successes. The future of PE will be bright if the innovations are sincere and the efforts genuine. During our experiences in the research, a genuine and sincere contribution made by the teachers when they implemented CPIs revealed a very strong and positive contribution to the constructive 115 and encouraging effects of Physical Literacy. By doing so, it will take root as a lasting change in PE that benefits everyone in society. These physical, emotional and affective benefits for individuals will also have lasting impact on the community and the overall environment. 6.5 Barriers to Implementing Change Our first four themes are very positive in nature and contributed to making successful curricular and pedagogical implementations in the GS PE department. However, another theme that our research revealed revolved around the barriers to change. The teacher participants exposed their concerns to risk change due to the learning curve required by teachers and students alike to implement CPIs successfully. Furthermore, the limited resources of time and space made for challenges to apply CPIs. The teachers acknowledged time was given, and appreciated it; but they reported that more time was necessary. Limited space at GS also caused a barrier to implementing change. The facilities were too limited to deliver the CPIs in a manner they felt comfortable with. As a result, teachers combined classes as it allowed them to share limited space. 6.6 Physical Literacy Physical Literacy was the ultimate goal in our study for all our students. We introduced the concept of PL and began to develop it in the PE setting at GS. We did this by introducing, and helping to implement, TGfU and other innovations. We anticipated an increased level of PL with students immediately in the study and anticipate an increase over the long term. We foresee these changes also benefiting society as a whole because the transformations of the students today will positively affect the economy in future years. We anticipate a healthier population of 116 students if CPIs are implemented across Canada. A predominantly healthy population can potentially save taxpayers billions of dollars in health care costs. 6.7 Significance and Contributions This research is significant because it has provided us with a better understanding of the successful implementation of CPIs in a PE department and of overall positive cultural change. As stated above, our study has identified the five major themes of successful change. It is also important to state here that our teachers, with the exception of one, have changed to some degree. An important impact our study has to offer centres on the fact that there are very few studies about departmental change. Therefore we hope that our research will pave the way for other departments to take on wholesale change. The results of our study will contribute to the growing amount of research aimed at implementing successful and sustainable changes in PE by overcoming barriers and embracing cultural change. With a clearer understanding of cultural change, future researchers may be able to share more success stories and their strategies to implement change in PE 6.8 Strengths to our Research Strengths of our research revealed that when changes were implemented in the PE department it fostered an environment of camaraderie and inclusion, which had previously been lacking. In the end we found that we could not force teachers to change. Successful change in a PE department could only be achieved through support, positive leadership, and providing support and encouragement for teachers as they worked to change their teaching practices. We felt that our teachers’ responses were honest in nature when they personally reflected on their 117 journey and shared their responses with us. We were able to approach our research question through the experiences of our teachers and construct new knowledge through this relationship. We validated our teachers’ contributions as much as our own knowledge and therefore were able to create a higher level of knowledge of change collectively as a department. As the department changed, the students also significantly benefited from the new CPIs. Oscar stated that the CPIs were “a huge benefit to the students” (Oscar: Temperature check #1, October 18, 2013). “…students did increase accountability and ownership…” (Oscar: Blog/questionnaire, Dec 5, 2013). Furthermore, our relationship building and support of working relationships was the key to the success of every teacher in the department. Teachers declared that they felt safe as they collaborated and offered their insights and struggles to the rest of the collective group. 6.9 Limitations to our Research As with many studies where the accuracy of the personal experiences and information is paramount in collecting rich data, ours depended on the truthfulness of our teachers’ accounts, our field notes, and our interpretation of this data. Another limitation is the fact that we only studied one school in this research and potentially the findings may not compare with other PE departments. Time may also prove a limitation as our research in the study only took place over a span of several months. We anticipated technology to be an active agent in PE innovations for 21st century learning. However, our introduction to the benefits of technology was not followed by additional support for the teachers. As a result, there was no cultural shift in this regard, even when iPads and other e-technology devices were available. We found that without follow up support, 118 technology will not influence innovations in PE in a culturally significant manner; but it is relevant to the 21st century learner, so this is something we recommend be addressed in future studies. We are cognizant of our limitation in the study as any departments in the future that attempt to implement CPIs will have to address technology. Failure to do so could potentially contribute to the cultural vacuum of modern PE being viewed as outdated. By embracing technology, and using it as a valuable contributor to the CPIs, it affirms modern cultural values and helps give it cultural legitimacy to educators and students. 6.10 Possible Future Research Directions/Recommendations The implications of our project can potentially help with the successful implementation of CPIs for 21st century learners. Our findings have the potential to inform PE teachers, administrators, student teachers looking to enact curricular and pedagogical change. This research is coming at a time where the BC Ministry of Education is completely overhauling the BC curriculum and it will be useful for PE teachers looking for ways to effectively deliver new curriculum. There are a number of recommendations we advocate to foster successful change in teaching approach and the implementation of CPIs in physical education.  Teachers need more of a sound understanding and knowledge of the curriculum and pedagogical innovations models. This can be achieved through: 1) CPIs being placed into teacher education preparation programs for teacher candidates to be exposed to and sample in their practicum schools (Petrie, 2007); and 2) CPIs 119 being placed in professional development program days to maximize chances of improved performance and change within teachers (Patton &Griffin, 2008b).  Teachers need to be supported in their efforts through a collaborative investigation, and to receive backing from colleagues with expertise in curricular and pedagogical innovations. Confidence to persist in efforts to change will prevent teachers returning to prior practice. PE is in danger of losing significance in the 21st century as it has retained outdated practices by many of its practitioners (Penney and Chandler, 2012). Our engagement of CPIs in the PE department at GS was aimed at making change from skill testing, or as Kirk accurately coined “physical education-as-sport-techniques” (Kirk, 2012) to CPIs that look at developing the whole student into one who cultivates their physical literacy. Our data revealed that time was an issue and a concern for teachers implementing CPIs (see figure 7). Kirk’s finding supported our data as he concluded “…the mainstay of the standard length lesson and short units of work is the teaching and learning of the techniques of a wide range of sports” (Kirk, 2012, p. 122). He argues that the word technique, instead of skill, best defines PE as it has taken the skills, kinetics, sport IQ and emotional IQ out of game play circumstances and reduced it to a static assessment of an out of context movement with no real world relevance. “Within this context, all of the research evidence shows that learning progression seldom occurs (Lounsbery and Coker, 2008), and so introductory units of work tend to be taught over and over again (Siedentop, 2002; Kirk, 2012). We focused on “...the relationship between physical education and interests in enabling more people to establish and maintain ‘active and healthy lives’ from a curriculum development perspective” (Penney and 120 Jess, 2007, p. 269). We believe that the CPIs, once introduced, will bring the relevance back to the skills in a games context and the social, emotional and physical benefits of Physical Literacy will be made clear to a generation of learners in a PE setting. 6.11 Conclusion In conclusion, we feel that for sustainable change to occur, educational leaders must collaboratively enact change following the cyclical collaborative teacher inquiry’s three main stages of: focus and planning; implementation; and reflecting and evaluating. This cycle involves several stages of collaboration, which also aids in a wide variety of support networks. We have drawn up a list of change indicators in Table 4, which summarize indicators to recognize that a teacher is going through the various stages of change. 121 Table 4: Stage indicators of CPI change STAGE INDICATORS OF CPI CHANGE STAGE 1 - BEGINNING AND ATTEMPTING 1-1 Discovered knowledge and gathered resources of new CPIs 1-2 Exposed to new instructional strategies 1-3 Attempted to implement CPIs into lesson plans 1-4 Accepted that change was necessary, and reflected on personal PE philosophy 1-5 Attended professional development workshop on new CPIs 1-6 Teachers invested in planning lessons and unit planning 1-7 Teachers asked questions and struggled with CPIs 1-8 Articulated and discussed philosophies of PE and implemented them 1-9 Support received by teachers and department head 1-10 Time allocated to develop CPI lesson plans 1-11 Identified and anticipated barriers and attempted to overcome 1-12 Collaborated with teachers in the department STAGE 2 - EMERGING AND LEARNING 2-1 Emerged knowledge of CPIs 2-2 Confident to try CPI while learning them. 2-3 Attempted to implement CPIs into unit plans 2-4 Identified barriers into CPIs and attempted to overcome them 2-5 Relationships emerged between department members 2-6 Collaboration increased between department members. 2-7 Resources between department members shared more readily 2-8 Felt safe to attempt CPIs in class 122 2-9 Attended PE workshop on CPIs 2-10 Teachers felt supported and not scared to fail if CPIs were not successful 2-11 Continued support received by teachers and department head 2-12 Time given to develop CPI unit plans STAGE 3 - TRANSFORMING 3-1 Transformed knowledge of CPIs 3-2 Continued reflection and re-implementation of unit 3-3 Collaborated with department members on implementing new unit 3-4 Educated other teachers on CPIs 3-5 Developed new personal/departmental PE philosophy 3-6 Teachers felt confident and competent with CPIs 3-7 Continual support received by teachers and department head 3-8 Time given to develop, reflect and redevelop CPI unit plans 3-9 Barriers were overcome prior to unit beginning 3-10 Continued collaboration with teachers in the department 123 References Araújo., D, Button, C., Chow, J,I., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Shuttleworth, R. (2007) The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research, 77 (3), 251-78. Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Butler, J. I. & McCahan, B. J. (2005). Teaching games for understanding as a curriculum model. In J. I.Butler & L. L. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice (33-53). Champaign, Il, Human Kinetics. Butler, J. (2005): TGfU pet-agogy: old dogs, new tricks and puppy school, Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 10 (3), 225-240 Butler, J. (1996) Teacher responses to teaching games for understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67 (1): 28–33. Butler, J. (2006). Curriculum constructions of ability: enhancing learning through teaching games for understanding (TGfU) as a curriculum model. Sport, Education and Society, 11 (3), 243-258. Butler, J., & Griffin, L. (2010). More teaching games for understanding moving globally. Windsor, Ontario: Human Kinetics. Butler, J., Griffin, L., Mitchell, S., & Oslin, J. (2008). The way forward for TGfU: Filling the chasm between theory and practice. The Physical and Health Education Journal, 74 (2), 6-12. Butler, J., Hopper, T., & Mandigo, J. (2007). What is teaching games for understanding? A Canadian perspective. Physical & Health Education Journal, 7 (2), 14-21. Card, A. (2008). The stories of four senior PE teachers in implementing TGFU. In T. F. Hopper, J. Butler, & B. Storey (Ed.), TGFU...Simply Good pedagogy: Understanding a Complex Challenge (pp. 235-244). Ontario: PHE Canada Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39 (3), 124-131. Brooker, R. & Clennett, A. (2006). There is a lot behind the name! Health & physical education in the contemporary curriculum for Australian schools. ACHPER Health Lifestyles Journal, 53 (1), 7-11. Davis, B. (2010). Principles of teaching lecture series. Vancouver: UBC. 124 Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging minds: Changing teaching in complex times. New York: Routledge. Davis, Wade (2008, February). The worldwide web of belief and ritual [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/wade_davis_on_the_worldwide_web_of_belief_and_ritual Davis, Wade (2008, February). Wade Davis: The worldwide web belief and ritual [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/wade_davis_on_the_worldwide_web_of_belief_and_ritual.htm Díaz-Cueto, M., Hernández-Álvarez J., & Castejón F.(2010). Teaching games for understanding to in-service physical education teachers: rewards and barriers regarding the changing model of teaching sport. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29 (4), 378-398. Earl, L. (In press). Educators as knowledge leaders. In Robertson & Timperley (Eds.), Leadership and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Glennie, E. (2003, February). Evelyn Glennie: How to truly listen [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/evelyn_glennie_shows_how_to_listen.html Griffin, L. & Butler, J. (2005). Teaching games for understanding: theory, research and practice. Champaign, Il. Human Kinetics Gubacs-Collins, K. (2007). Implementing a tactical approach through action research. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12 (2), 105-126. Hargreaves, A. & Fink, S. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Leading in Tough Times, 61 (7), 8-13 Hetherington, K. & Underwood, S. (2010). Is TGfU for you? A study to determine the barriers of implementing TGfU. (Masters graduating paper, University of British Columbia) Hopper, T. (1998). Teaching games for understanding using progressive principles of play. CAHPERD, 64 (3), 4-7. Hopper, T. (1997). Learning to respond: supervisor novice physical educators in an action research project. Sport, Education and Society, 2 (2) 163-180. 125 Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2012). Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. New York: Routledge. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: problem and process in human development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London: Routledge. Kirk, D. (2012). Physical Education Futures: Can we reform physical education in the early 21st Century? eJRIEPS 27, 120-144 Light, R. (2003). The joy of learning: Emotion and learning in games through TGfU. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 36 (1), 93-108. Light, R., &Tan, S. (2004). Early career teachers’ experiences of implementing TGfU/GCA in Australia and Singapore. In Conference Proceedings of the II International Conference for Physical Educators ICPE July2004, (pp. 321–30). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.. Lounsbery, M.F. & Coker, C.A. (2008). Developing skill analysis competency in pre-service physical education teachers. Quest, 60, 255-267. Lu, C., & De Lisio, A. (2009). Specifics for generalists: Teaching elementary physical education. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1 (3), 170-187. Lu, C., Francis, N., & Lodewyk, K.R. (In Press). Movement domains. In D. Robinson & L. Randall (Eds.). Physical Education in Canadian Schools. Thomson Publishing. Mandigo, J., Butler, J., & Hopper, T. (2007). What is teaching games for understanding? A Canadian perspective. Physical and Health Education Journal, 73 (2), 14-20. Mandigo, J., Francis, N., Lodewyk, K., & Lopez, R. (2009). Physical literacy for educators. PHE Journa,l 75 (3), 27-30. Mezler, M. (2005). Instructional Models for Physical Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Moore, A. (2004). The Good Teacher: Dominant Discourses in Teacher Education. New York: Routledge. Muhammad, A. (2014). The courage to lead moving people out of their comfort zones. Catholic Educators Conference 2014. Vancouver. Negroponte, Nicholas (2006, February). Nicholas Negro Ponte: One laptop per child [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/Nicholas_negroponte_on_one_laptop_per_child.html 126 Nelson, T., & Slavit, D. (2008). Supported teachers collaborative inquiry. Teacher Education Quarterly, 99-116. Oslin, J., & Mitchell, S. (2006). Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald & M. O'Sullivan (Eds.), The Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage Publications. Patton, K., & Griffin, L.L. (2008a). Experiences and patterns of change in a physical education teacher development project. Journal of teaching in Physical Education, 27 (3), 272-291. Patton, K., & Griffin, L.L. (2008b). Three physical education programs’ adaptive approaches to change: “How can I spin that so it works for me?”. Sport, Education and Society, 13 (4), 413-430. Patterson, J. L., & Czajkowski, T. J. (1979). Implementation: neglected phase in curriculum change. Educational Leadership, 204-206. Penney, D., & Jess, M. (2004). Physical education and physically active lives: a lifelong approach to curriculum development. Sport, Education and Society, 9 (2), 269–287. Penney, D., & Chandler, T. (2000). Physical education : What future (s)? Sport, Education and Society, 5 (1), 71-87. Perry, William G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: the making of meaning. In A. W. Associates, The Modern American College (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Petrie, K. (2007) Physical education in primary schools: Holding onto the past or heading for a different future? Retrieved from http://www.educaitoncounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/25294/25331. 67-80. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, Digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 1-6. Randall, L., (2008).Implementing TGFU in the field. Physical and Health Education Journal, 74 (1), 16-20. Rainer, J. A., & Guyton, E. M. (2001). Structures of community and democratic practices in graduate teacher education, teacher change, and linkages facilitating change. Action in Teacher Education, 23 (2), 18-29. Robinson, Sir Ken (2010, October). Sir Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html 127 Robinson, Sir Ken (2010, February). Sir Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution! [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html Robinson, Sir Ken (2010, October). Sir Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html Siedentop, D. (2002) ‘Content knowledge for physical education’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 368-377. Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tan, S.K.S., & Tan, H.E.K. (2001) Managing change within the physical education curriculum: issues, opportunities and challenges. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W.K. Ho (Ed.) Challenges Facing the Singapore Education System Today (pp. 50–70). Singapore: Prentice Hall. Van Manen, M. (2000). Moral language and pedagogical experience. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32 (2). Van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & practice, 1 (1), 11-30. Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding: Evolution of model. JOPERD, 67 (1), 28-33. Whitehead, M. (2007, February). Physical literacy and its importance to every individual. Presentation at the National Disability Association Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. Accessed online May 22, 2013 at http://www.physical-literacy.org.uk/dublin2007.php Whitehead, M. (2007). Physical literacy: philosophical considerations in relation to developing a sense of self, university and propositional knowledge. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 1 (3), 281-298. Wooden, J. (2001, February). John Wooden: The difference between winning and succeeding [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/john_wooden_on_the_difference_between_winning_and_success.html Zander, Benjamin (2008, February). Benjamin Zander: The transformative power of classical music [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/benjamin_zander_on_music_and_passion.html 128 Appendices Appendix A: Teacher Questionnaire/Blog Phase One Questionnaire / Blog: To note, unless otherwise stated, all instructional strategies implemented and referred to, are used in the context of pedagogical change. 1. Did you use a new instructional strategy last new unit? ie. Sport Ed, TGfU, personal and social responsibility model, etc. 2. What is working? 3. What is not working? 4. What are your insights on students: reactions; engagements; and participations level to the new instructional models used? 5. What are your perceptions as a teacher to the differences of the students’ performance, attitudes and general behaviors? 6. What is your comfort level with the instructional strategy with the new strategy you have implemented? 7. Did this new implementation work? 8. Why or why not? 9. Do you see yourself using this specific model the whole year? 10. Why or why not? 11. Will you use it again at some point in the year? 12. What were the challenges of using this instructional model? 13. What strategies did you use to overcome these challenges? 14. What were the successes of the using this instructional model? 15. Did you collaborate with other members of your department on implementation of these instructional models? 16. If so, how did you collaborate with other members of the department? 17. What other resources would you like to be provided with to help you succeed with your instructional strategy? 18. During our upcoming release time what would you like to collaborate on in terms of instructional change? 129 Appendix B: Questionnaires and Temperature Checks Games School PE Department Temperature Check #1 Name: _____________________________________ Task: Write down you initial response to the following questions. These should be quick off the cuff answers. 1. What is working for you in your PE class and/or PE department? 2. What is not working for you in your PE class and/or PE department? 3. What instructional models are you comfortable with? 4. What instructional models are you not comfortable with? 5. What are your thoughts about the future of PE at Game School and in the Province? 6. Do the changes from above feel forced or do you feel they will benefit students and the school environment? 7. Is there sufficient time provided from the school to implement the changes? 130 Name: _______________________ Temperature Check- In 1. Reflecting back at our last department meeting and our department action plan what is one instructional strategy that you are attempting, learning, or mastering? 2. In moving forward what do you hope to gain form this PE workshop to assist you in your development and understanding of instructional strategies and pedagogical change? 3. What are you going to bring to support a collaborative learning workshop? 131 Name: ____________________________ Temperature Check-Out 1. As a result of this Game School PE department workshop, what has supported your understandings around instructional strategies? 2. What is one aspect of today’s workshop that may have puzzled you? 3. What were your contributions to today’s workshop? 4. What did you notice about others contributions to today workshop? 5. In moving forward, what do you need to support your attempting, learning and mastering your implementing of a new instructional strategy? 132 Questions for Principal 1. What is the current state of the PE department? 2. What is 21st century learning to look like in PE? 3. For curriculum change, what are the necessary steps involved for success? 4. Once implemented, what is necessary for long term implementation? 5. What is important to do when making change within the department? 6. Where can I get support form to make these changes? 7. What are some barriers that I will need to overcome along the way? 8. What is the most important thing or advice that you can give me for the successful change or implementation of the new PE department that you can give me? 9. What changes would you like to see within the department? 10. This is what we have been working on so far...where do you think we should steer the department next? 11. You might also want to ask what support structures there are or what she might recommend for such a process? 12. Could you request some professional development for you and the department to meet say once a month to discuss the process? 133 Appendix C: Field Notes – Observation of the teacher participants 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Appendix D: Exit Interview Questions Exit Interview Questions Background Information: 1. Name: 2. Gender: 3. Age: 4. Education, year graduated, programs: 5. Years of teaching experience: 6. Coaching experiences: Teacher Reflection: What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in your teaching practice? What were the factors hindered change in your teaching practice? Do you feel that you have changed your approach or instructional strategies to PE this past year? PE Department Reflection: What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in the PE department? What were the factors hindered change in the PE department? Do you feel that the PE department has changed their approach or instructional strategies towards PE this past year? Any other: 1. Would you like to comment on any aspect of enacting curricular and pedagogical change in PE? 151 Appendix E: PE Workshop Agenda and Minutes GAME SCHOOL PE DEPARTMENT MEETING A G E N D A/MINUTES PE Release Thursday November 28, 2013 Time Item Minutes 12:20pm – 1:05pm Meet in Room 312 Introductions: 1. Lunch (provided) 2. Overview of the day 3. PE department goals/ CISVA evaluation review 4. Work on PE department questionnaire - Steve gives introductions of Jo-Anna, and provides overview for the day. - Charlie has graciously volunteered his PE 8 class to use as a demo. - Jo-Anna and Charlie will work through the first day of a sport ed model (basketball) with Richard’s class. - Steve reviews some discussion points from the CISVA evaluation during the previous week (complemented as being on the forefront of PE) - George echos the evaluation comments regarding the progressive model of the PE Department at GS. Introduction to class practical presentation and how this will unfold. TGFU, PSR and Sport Ed Model that will presented in the class - Steve introduces basics of the Sport Ed model to be used in class. - Other teachers will be observers of the class during the instructional time. - Round table discussion (temperature check-in)… Sharing thoughts in on new instructional models. - Oscar – Sport Ed, Irene – Sport Ed (future), Charlie – Personal & Social Responsibility, Eric – Inventing Game, Julie – TBD, - What to gain… 1) Practical picture of what models look like during class. 2) Student Centered. - What to contribute… 1) Be a resource. 2) Ask good questions. 3) Share materials between teachers. 152 Time Item - Minutes 1:10pm – 2:15pm Practical Gym Session: Grade 8 PE class (28 students) Invasion Games: Basketball 1. First class of Sport Ed. (basketball) 2. TGFU infused 3. PSR infused - See notes… (in-class) 2:20pm – 4:00pm Library Session : 1. Debrief practical session 2. Department temperature check 3. Department feedback 4. Present on TGFU, and/or PSR, and/or Sport Ed model. 5. Collaborate with department member to beginning planning a unit for future use. - Impress upon the students that it is THEIR role, they are responsible for completing their role. - Commissioners feedback, - Award of the day… used in the tournament play. - Earn achievements that benefit the team in the end. Unit Plan Creation: 1. Pair up with department member 2. Begin creation of new unit plan for upcoming unit - Check, Connect, Reflect (CCR). - Hybridity - High school – Elementary Resources: 1. I drive 2. Websites 3. PE library in PE Office 4. Jo Anna Shepard Action Plan: 1. Implement a new model for upcoming unit 2. Collaborate with same grade level teacher or during the same block 3. Report to department 4. Collaborate with each other 3:45pm Conclusion and thank you Moving forward 153 Appendix F: Developing a Philosophy of Physical Education Name: _____________ Developing a Philosophy of Physical Education Rank the following goals of physical education for PE grade 8-12 students with 1 being the most important and 10 least important. ____ Learn useful physical skills ____ Enhance physical growth and development ____ Acquire knowledge and understanding of movement ____ Apply movement knowledge in varied situations ____ Develop positive lifelong attitudes towards physical education ____ Gain self-esteem and self-worth ____ Acquire desirable social skills ____ Enhance their creative abilities ____ Develop an aesthetic appreciation form movement ____ Maintain or enhance physical fitness 154 Appendix G: Responses to Exit Interviews Teacher Reflection – Eric What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in your teaching practice?  Exposure to new teaching approaches  Atmosphere of department – engaged in process  Support from teacher and department head What were the factors that hindered change I your teaching practice?  Potential backlash or push back from students  Time  Space (consistency)  Schedule Do you feel that you changed your approach or instructional strategies to PE this past year?  Yes PE Department Reflection – Eric What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in the PE department?  Acceptance among teachers  Clear focus (instructional strategies) o Plan in place o Vision  Collaboration o Sharing o Discussing  Connections to focus o Professional development day at Douglas College o Workshop, on paper 1. Debrief, Paper, Pro-D, Workshop, Internal Meetings What were the factors hindered change in the PE department?  Not all teachers on board in department.  Counter questions  Distractions Do you feel that the PE department has changed their approach or instructional strategies towards PE this past year?  “Why do you want to penetrate that zone?”  Certain  Compared to isolated skills and the students don’t understand  Yes  Clear evidence in class rooms  Positive discussion in meetings and outside of class  Eric and Irene collaborated in their classes Any other?  Sport Education model the whole year – roles  TGfU is continuous throughout the year and more a philosophy rather than an instructional strategy o Hybrid approach Would you like to comment on aspect of enacting curricular and pedagogical change in PE?  N/A 155 Teacher Reflection – Irene What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in your teaching practice?  Availability of resources  PE Workshop – “see it happen because it answers so many questions”, “more doable”  Frame of reference  Video to model instructional models  Irene and Eric collaborated in class What were the factors that hindered change in your teaching practice?  Collaboration time with department outside of department meeting time  Do you feel that you changed your approach or instructional strategies to PE this past year?  Yes, absolutely PE Department Reflection – Irene What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in the PE department?  Resources provided for us  PE meetings were dedicated to change  Time to talk about things What were the factors hindered change in the PE department?  Time given, but still a lack of time  Schedule: more flexibility in blocks of time and units Do you feel that the PE department has changed their approach or instructional strategies towards PE this past year?  Significantly yes  Yes. Room for more  Excited, positive changes! Make changes to schedule Any other?  Sustain change! = adjustments to time, schedule… Would you like to comment on aspect of enacting curricular and pedagogical change in PE?  N/A 156 Teacher Reflection – Oscar What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in your teaching practice?  Information and resources provided by the department head at meetings  There was a clear connection between theory and practice of PE and the implementation of new instructional strategies.  “It wasn’t just lip service” – resources were provided to support and enable change to happen  We had the freedom to try it and that it was ok not to succeed the first time as we had time to discuss and reflect with other teachers and try something again What were the factors that hindered change in your teaching practice?  Huge learning curve for both the students and the teacher  Challenges in the assessment of the Sport Ed. model as it is very different Do you feel that you changed your approach or instructional strategies to PE this past year?  Yes, for sure! I used many different innovations and see that I use way less skill based drills in my class and use more games based drills.  Games based had more of a purpose than skill based and focused on decision making and leadership in a small sided game environment. PE Department Reflection What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in the PE department?  New PE department head gave new life!  Acceptance of change by the administration and leadership group.  Access to resources to support implementing new strategies. What were the factors hindered change in the PE department?  Non participation by some teachers  “The students were not the problem at all, they picked up and bought in to everything I implemented and taught them” Do you feel that the PE department has changed their approach or instructional strategies towards PE this past year?  Yes, 100% Any other?  N/A Would you like to comment on aspect of enacting curricular and pedagogical change in PE?  “It starts with cultural change for people to change. Cultural change will eat structural change for breakfast”.  There is a great need and support form administration and department head to accept failure during the process of change.  Teachers are needed to sell the new strategy to the kids and explain that it is different but very good. 157 Teacher Reflection – Charlie What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in your teaching practice?  Support from the department head.  This process was necessary and makes for better “best practice”.  Personal growth.  Safe environment to try new things and I wasn’t afraid to try. What were the factors that hindered change I your teaching practice?  Some classroom dynamics makes it difficult to implement some innovations as some classes are not ready to try riskier models. More student responsibility is required in the Sport Ed. model.  Lesson and unit preparation time. Do you feel that you changed your approach or instructional strategies to PE this past year?  Yes.  “At first I did not understand what 21st century learning in PE would look like but the curricular and pedagogical innovations introduced to us, and in particular the Sport Ed. Model, is very usable and reflective of what will be used in PE classes with the new British Columbia curriculum.”  In my classes there was less of an emphasis on the teacher but rather a more of a student centered focus and learning. PE Department Reflection What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in the PE department?  The start of changes was when the PE department decided last year that it was not mandatory to include unit notes and tests at the end of a unit and things began to change in a huge way.  Change in department head.  George and Steve were able to use their knowledge and expertise form their master’s program and move the entire department through change and to showcase the department as a leader in PE throughout the school board and district. What were the factors hindered change in the PE department?  Ignorance by some teachers.  Lack of awareness and knowledge of the various curricular and pedagogical innovations.  Personal reluctance to change for some teachers. Do you feel that the PE department has changed their approach or instructional strategies towards PE this past year?  Yes.  The greatest tool and resource provided was the PE workshop. Here the Sport Ed. model was used to model the approach and was very engaging for the entire department. Any other?  The entire experience of enacting change was positive for everyone!  Sustainability and advocacy - “I will be leaving Game School next year due to layoffs and I will be taking what I have learned and experienced this year and be an advocate for continued and sustainable change in PE”. Would you like to comment on aspect of enacting curricular and pedagogical change in PE?  Students as a whole benefit the most with the implementation of the curricular and pedagogical innovations  “There is a perception that we as PE teachers simply roll out the balls and let the students play. But these instructional models take student centered learning to a higher level and encourage decision making and engage the learner”. 158 Teacher Reflection - Steve What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in your teaching practice?  A desire and passion to deliver a PE curriculum that the students can feel empowered to take control of their learning.  Lead a PE department that was invested in changing our teaching methods.  Collaboration with other PE teachers and networking.  Participating in the TGfU2 masters cohort and having the knowledge to implement and deliver a CPI model. What were the factors that hindered change I your teaching practice?  Buy in from other teachers.  Fear of failure.  Time to develop unit plans and lesson plans. Do you feel that you changed your approach or instructional strategies to PE this past year?  Yes, significantly!  Direct result of the TGfU2 Cohort and networking. PE Department Reflection What were the greatest factors that contributed to change occurring in the PE department?  The early buy in and the collective desire to change our ways in our PE department.  Making time available in the department meeting to take a temperature check and hear form the other teachers experiences with implementing the CPI’s.  Collaboration with each member. What were the factors hindered change in the PE department?  Buy in from some members initially and in some cases the entire time. Do you feel that the PE department has changed their approach or instructional strategies towards PE this past year?  Yes, without a doubt. This is evident in each of the members successes and in meeting our goals set forth at the beginning of the year in the PE department. Any other?  N/A Would you like to comment on aspect of enacting curricular and pedagogical change in PE?  Looking forward to next year and in the years to come. For the current changes to sustain itself there needs to be a continued cultural change amongst the department to provide each other with support, resources, to successfully collaborate with each other to sustain change. 159 Appendix H: Responses to Temperature Check 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 Appendix J: Game School Growth Plan (Physical Education) GAME SCHOOL GROWTH PLAN (PHYSICAL EDUCATION) SCHOOL GROWTH PLAN GOALS FOR 2013-2014 HOW THE PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT WILL ACHIEVE SCHOOL GROWTH PLAN GOALS IN 2013-2014 1. Curriculum unit plans will reflect AFL instruction and assessment practices.  New PE participation rubric has been developed based on an AFL model.  Re-assessment opportunities are in place and explained to the students.  Collaborative teacher inquiry to develop a unit that we are currently teaching to become TGFU and student centered (as units are completed).  Different assessment techniques and instructional strategies will be integrated into units. Instructional strategies that we use in our units: peer teaching, guided discovery, Sports-Ed. model, query based learning, TGFU, Personal and Social Responsibility. A variety of instructional approaches will be used during units and reported back to the department.  Varied types of instruction are being used in physical education including fieldtrip opportunities, guest presenters for self defense and dance units.  Unit plans reflect both formative (on going) and summative assessment practices.  Assignments or performance tasks are PLO driven 2. Leadership team will collaborate to revise and implement school wide policies and practices to support current pedagogy of assessment.  Post policies in the gym, on the course outlines… make it visible for students and parents etc. (zeros, lates, etc.)  PE Participation policy revised and updated (sick, injured, etc.).  Post PE policies on Moodle, I-Drive, gym etc.  Collaborative teaching in terms of department or school wide policies: same course outlines and participation rubric.  Common ground on zero policy, late work and I –Report criteria ( school based)  One re-assessment policy for the department. 3. Leadership team will continue to expand access to resources and develop support systems to enhance the learning environments  PE Department teachers will be given resources and tools to develop new unit plans from the PE Department Head (as an addendum to the collaborative teacher inquiry to be completed during the year (research project)).  Teacher collaboration on unit making  Department head and research partner will plan, develop, and deliver TGFU/Sport Ed. workshop for the PE department.  Developing new units, and acquiring the resources (equipment, videos, books, articles, etc..) that can be utilized by teachers and students.  I-Drive will be revised and used to create a resource library for PE teachers.  Access to PHE Canada and other PE related resources (newsletters, and current theory is available).  Development of a PE department mission statement and philosophy to better reflect our current practices and beliefs.
Graduating Project
eng
Unreviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
University of British Columbia. EDCP 590
Enacting change in a secondary Physical Education department
Text