The previous couple of weeks saw me plan out the unit. My rationale was simple - to try and give the students a feeling and sense that they are close to becoming teachers of physical education and moving away from being student-teachers of physical education. I really wanted to re-emphasise the importance of staying 'true' to who they are, hence the first week was going to be about reflections of them as learners and how these values and beliefs contribute to them developing their philosophies for their teaching and their thoughts on the profession. Everything else throughout the short semester from unit planning and curriculum planning, reflective practice, contemporary issues in PE comes back to this.
My enthusiasm is high - this is the one true subject (i think at least) that really focuses on physical education and its pedagogy, not sport and outdoor recreation, human movement or exercise science. It focuses on PE. For me this has been missing in many degrees for a long long time and I do not think that students are really afforded the opportunity to contextualise their discipline knowledge within PE and its contexts - so I am really glad that this can be the focus.
I was hoping that my planning for week 1 was meticulous. I had planned out the seminar and then reflected on it via notes that I had scribbled at various times in the handout section on what points I wanted to get across. I really thought my opening 5-10 minutes gave the students the feeling about how important this unit was and how I could be used to support them in my learning. I continue to offer myself up, but still students seem not to seek or want my help. Is this because of who I am? Is there some other way that I can give them access to the information (beyond MUSO and Blackboard)? How can I really engage them in developing in this way?
For me the PLR was unique and it has been an extension of what I traditionally do in classes (which is to try and find ways of connecting with students based on their backgrounds). As I walked the room there was plenty of discussion about the questions, but what were they actually learning about themselves? Many of the responses they had given were simply one word responses - I wanted this to be so much more...I am hoping that some students will go away and really sit down and have a look at these questions again because it is som important for how they conceptualise their teaching practices. I think that the stated purpose became clearer to them when we drew the links between the PLR and the importance of their philosophies (both personal and professionally). But we had so much discussion about the PLR that I really had to skip over the slides and discussion points that I wanted to get to about teaching and why you want to become a teacher. My thoughts in presenting my personal philosophy about teaching gave the students a feeling of where I was coming from personally - most of the SOR students historically have understood this, but those students enrolled in the Grad Dip have no such knowledge. My journey and approach now is that I have to 'live up' to these expectations that I have set and publicly stated to the group. I need to make sure these are explicit in my further teaching and I do hope that the students will continue to question me on these practices.
As a teacher educator one of the points that I find gets clouded in in units is that assessments are not really tied to the learning objectives. I know that these are aligned because I designed them this way, but additionally I overlaid the importance of a rationale for professional practice that would allow the students to see the link between what they were doing (in assessments) and in or for their future practices. We did spend some considerable time on the assessments (a goal that I worked for because in the past I have let students figure out these for themselves; often at the expense of my expectations for them), so I am really hoping that this discussion and time spent on the assessments here and now will guide them through their learning journey with much more clarity - only time and the students will tell? My concern though is the multiple modes of presenting the same information. It is not like changing it on the web changes all the printed materials as well. This was a downer for me. I had worked so hard on the MUSO site, that when I edited the unit guide a failed to make some minor editorial changes (three to four) and weeks of when journals needed to be completed. What complicated things more was that I have yet to change the MUSO site (hopefully it should be changed soon!). Bugger...this makes me look bad...do the students really think about this and me in a negative way?? Part of me says that it is really unprofessional and I agree, but I have so many things running through my head...
I really did not think that it was going to take so much time this seminar. My planning and timing was a little off and I did not get to spend much time explaining the philosophical readings. I did want this to occur to really clarify their understandings of a number of different levels. I perhaps could do this one or two ways; begin next weeks class with a summary of these readings and or do a podcast overviewing some of the important issues? I wonder what students would think?
I am really happy that some of the students got involved with using the technology. They were tweeting me in class, signing up for assessment tasks using their smartphones....it is really great! I am just hoping that they can see the potential for tools of the trade in their professional learning, podcasts, vodcasts, tweets and other social media. We really do need to connect with the generations and I am hoping that I can provide you with some of these skills and its applicability.
Signing off for week 1,
Trent 27th July 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Sir Ken Robinson - Education and Creativity
I am hoping that most of you have seen Sir Ken Robinson present. If you have not please sit and watch this video. I am sure that as an educator it will provide you with enthusiasm and optimism and leave you asking questions - how can I change? Trent
Pieter Bruegel's "Children’s Games" - 1560
I cam across this from an article that I was reading. It really resonated with me. The words below come from a site known as Zazzle that sells this print to the public. Enjoy!
A classic artwork that has passed into the public domain and makes wonderful gifts and other products.
Bruegel loved to cram many busy figures into his paintings. This is one of his more whimsical works (in that it does not involve toil, gloom or death) and in it he captures close to 100 games of his time. He is said to have tried to include every child's game he knew. On a deeper level many scholars suggest that the lack of adults in the picture indicates a broader moral or message he is sending, essentially that the social disorder of the time was parallel in many ways to the irresponsible and fantasy play of children.
Bruegel (1525-1569) was a Dutch Renaissance painter whose works include Landscape with the Fall of Icarus (circa 1558), The Tower of Babel (1563), as well as his famous peasant scenes. Also known as "Peasant Bruegel," he was father to Pieter Brueghel the Younger and Jan Brueghel the Elder, and uncle to Jan Brueghel the Younger.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Some reflections on the AIESEP conference - Limerick 2011
The AIESEP Limerick conference from my perspective was one of pretty high quality. It was a thoroughly enjoyable conference, during both the academic communications and the social sessions. As is customary with these get togethers, the importance of networking with colleagues close and abroad was important from my perspective as a mechanism to develop my international networks. These opportunities were facilitated from the organising committee as early as breakfast on the morning of the registration where I had the pleasure of meeting colleagues from Germany (Hans-Peter Bred.....), Italy (Attilio Carraro), New Zealand (Ben Dyson), Finland (Hans-Erik ROmar) and France (Olivier Vors).
The opening reception was very pleasant and presented some more wonderful opportunities to further engage with other physical educators from around the world. This was followed by a provocative keynote speech from Professor Scott Kretchmar, Penn-State University, who presented us with a philosophic insight into ‘play disability’ and the importance of physical educators to present or nurture ‘movement playgrounds’. In a genuinely interesting take there was critique on dualisms, the importance of the good life, and role of physical educators in engaging individuals with their movement playgrounds. In my brief discussion with Professor Kretchmar after his keynote, he told me that this keynote was some ongoing and developing work from his book section on Creating Moving Playgrounds in his Practical Philosophy of Sport and Physical Activity book. These continuing developments of ideas were supported by one of his doctoral students, Cesar Torres (so we may need to watch this space!). Scott was also a kind gentlemen thoroughly excited by the prospect of engaging with physical education teachers, researchers and teacher educators to further understand and develop these ideas. (Postscript – when I caught up with Scott towards the end of the conference he was very positive in his praise on what he heard, saw and was presented with across the duration of the conference!).
What was clear from my perspective is the importance of physical education teacher educators to research and reflect on their own practice. This concept, idea, approach developed initially from the keynote address of Professor Fred Korthagen, Utrecht University and was then followed up by Kirsten Petrie (University of Waikato) and Ashley Casey (University of Bedfordshire) as invitees to the conversation by Emeritus Professor Judy Oslin (Kent State University), who presented a response to Korthagen’s work. Judy drew on a diverse set of ideas as ways of informing/different ways of knowing* from emotions (McCaughtry, 2004), caring (Fernandez-Balboa), self-study (Brown, 2011), auto-ethnography (Armour, 2006) and visual images (Pope, 2011). I am lucky that at Monash University there are several researchers who have excelled in this area of research, the now Dean, Professor John Loughran (see books such as What Expert Teachers Do – Allen and Unwin and Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education – Routledge) and Amanda Berry are a couple that might be able to facilitate a way forward. Hopefully I will get a chance to catch up with them and further discuss some of these important issues. I also know that there are several researchers that are interested in self-study and what it can provide the profession. I must continue these conversations with the likes of Ash Casey (Beds), Ann MacPhail (Limerick) and others.
Other keynote presentations from Clive Pope and Tony Hall each had the audience in reflective frames of minds. They both pondered questions of importance, Clive’s powerful keynote on ‘Society gets the individual it deserves: implications for sport pedagogy’ was provocative and highlighted the importance of engagement. It resonated strongly with me as it suggested an important link with meaning and meaning-making. I also concur with Clive’s thoughts on the passing of Peter Arnold. Tony’s presentation on ‘Technologies in support of Physical Education, Sport and Physical Activity’ took a very different take on the importance of technology as tools. The engagement of his philosophical background really reiterated the importance of experience in moving related activities, inclusive of technological oriented activities such as Kinect, Wii and other virtual devices. It was refreshing to hear a optimistic and good news story, as opposed to the deficit model of thinking that such technologies are always so neagative and a cause of destruction and disease.
I would encourage any physical educator interested in what is happening in the field to peruse that submitted abstracts at the following URL – http://www.iccbookings.com/AIESEP2011/AIESEP%202011%20Conference%20electronic%20book%20of%20abstracts.pdf . There are so many wonderful areas that research has been conducted on that it is really difficult to list them all here.
Some highlights for mine:
• H-PETE mentoring that is occurring at the University of Queensland (Louise McCuaig)
• Doctoral work by Bronwyn Nicholson (also UQ, under the tutelage of Prof Richard Tinning). One part of the project involves an interesting technique known as citation analysis. A complex but really interesting phenomena which if played out in our field could provide a richness of our citation and referencing approaches.
• Supervision and professional practices with PETE students in Ireland (Dublin City University; Sarah-Jane Belton and Queensland (QUT; Craig Daly)
• The doctoral work of Chang-Hyun Lee (supervisors, David Kirk and Toni O’Donovan) in teacher education at Bedfordshire. The interests are related around the importance of practical knowledge, Arnold and PETE.
• All of Ash Casey’s work – models based practice, cooperative learning (I need to learn more about this one for myself and benefits of my students).
• The really interesting work in the primary ITE PETE session. It was great to see how and what each country was doing with regard to primary level school physical education.
Follow me on Twitter (@DrTrentBrown) or alternatively drop me an email.
Trent
6th July 2011.
The opening reception was very pleasant and presented some more wonderful opportunities to further engage with other physical educators from around the world. This was followed by a provocative keynote speech from Professor Scott Kretchmar, Penn-State University, who presented us with a philosophic insight into ‘play disability’ and the importance of physical educators to present or nurture ‘movement playgrounds’. In a genuinely interesting take there was critique on dualisms, the importance of the good life, and role of physical educators in engaging individuals with their movement playgrounds. In my brief discussion with Professor Kretchmar after his keynote, he told me that this keynote was some ongoing and developing work from his book section on Creating Moving Playgrounds in his Practical Philosophy of Sport and Physical Activity book. These continuing developments of ideas were supported by one of his doctoral students, Cesar Torres (so we may need to watch this space!). Scott was also a kind gentlemen thoroughly excited by the prospect of engaging with physical education teachers, researchers and teacher educators to further understand and develop these ideas. (Postscript – when I caught up with Scott towards the end of the conference he was very positive in his praise on what he heard, saw and was presented with across the duration of the conference!).
What was clear from my perspective is the importance of physical education teacher educators to research and reflect on their own practice. This concept, idea, approach developed initially from the keynote address of Professor Fred Korthagen, Utrecht University and was then followed up by Kirsten Petrie (University of Waikato) and Ashley Casey (University of Bedfordshire) as invitees to the conversation by Emeritus Professor Judy Oslin (Kent State University), who presented a response to Korthagen’s work. Judy drew on a diverse set of ideas as ways of informing/different ways of knowing* from emotions (McCaughtry, 2004), caring (Fernandez-Balboa), self-study (Brown, 2011), auto-ethnography (Armour, 2006) and visual images (Pope, 2011). I am lucky that at Monash University there are several researchers who have excelled in this area of research, the now Dean, Professor John Loughran (see books such as What Expert Teachers Do – Allen and Unwin and Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education – Routledge) and Amanda Berry are a couple that might be able to facilitate a way forward. Hopefully I will get a chance to catch up with them and further discuss some of these important issues. I also know that there are several researchers that are interested in self-study and what it can provide the profession. I must continue these conversations with the likes of Ash Casey (Beds), Ann MacPhail (Limerick) and others.
Other keynote presentations from Clive Pope and Tony Hall each had the audience in reflective frames of minds. They both pondered questions of importance, Clive’s powerful keynote on ‘Society gets the individual it deserves: implications for sport pedagogy’ was provocative and highlighted the importance of engagement. It resonated strongly with me as it suggested an important link with meaning and meaning-making. I also concur with Clive’s thoughts on the passing of Peter Arnold. Tony’s presentation on ‘Technologies in support of Physical Education, Sport and Physical Activity’ took a very different take on the importance of technology as tools. The engagement of his philosophical background really reiterated the importance of experience in moving related activities, inclusive of technological oriented activities such as Kinect, Wii and other virtual devices. It was refreshing to hear a optimistic and good news story, as opposed to the deficit model of thinking that such technologies are always so neagative and a cause of destruction and disease.
I would encourage any physical educator interested in what is happening in the field to peruse that submitted abstracts at the following URL – http://www.iccbookings.com/AIESEP2011/AIESEP%202011%20Conference%20electronic%20book%20of%20abstracts.pdf . There are so many wonderful areas that research has been conducted on that it is really difficult to list them all here.
Some highlights for mine:
• H-PETE mentoring that is occurring at the University of Queensland (Louise McCuaig)
• Doctoral work by Bronwyn Nicholson (also UQ, under the tutelage of Prof Richard Tinning). One part of the project involves an interesting technique known as citation analysis. A complex but really interesting phenomena which if played out in our field could provide a richness of our citation and referencing approaches.
• Supervision and professional practices with PETE students in Ireland (Dublin City University; Sarah-Jane Belton and Queensland (QUT; Craig Daly)
• The doctoral work of Chang-Hyun Lee (supervisors, David Kirk and Toni O’Donovan) in teacher education at Bedfordshire. The interests are related around the importance of practical knowledge, Arnold and PETE.
• All of Ash Casey’s work – models based practice, cooperative learning (I need to learn more about this one for myself and benefits of my students).
• The really interesting work in the primary ITE PETE session. It was great to see how and what each country was doing with regard to primary level school physical education.
Follow me on Twitter (@DrTrentBrown) or alternatively drop me an email.
Trent
6th July 2011.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)