Exploring teachers' professional development and change through physical education curriculum reform and the Sport Education model

Boung Jin Kang, Purdue University

Abstract

Over the past two decades, many educational reforms have been put into practice to address deficiencies in the US educational system. These reforms have had mixed results – some have helped students; others have been ineffective (Fullan, 2001, 2007). Physical education programs have also been the target of reform. This has been particularly true in the last decade with the initiation of the Carol M. White Physical Education Progress (PEP) grants that have been targeted to improve school physical education in the United States. Currently, there are a number of curriculum and instructional models that have been introduced to teachers through PEP grants that can aid teachers in improving the quality of physical education for their students. For example, the Sport Education (SE) model (Siedentop, 1982, 1987) has been introduced to the two schools in this study through a PEP grant. SE is a model developed for students to authentically experience sport within the physical education environment. The purpose of this study was to examine the teachers and programs within the two Indiana schools that received a federal grant to improve their physical education programs as concerns the SE curriculum model and the process of reform. The study describes the reform effort and identifies the factors that facilitated or hindered the change process. Eight physical education teachers from the middle school (N=4) and junior high school (N=4) levels participated in continuing professional development (CPD) that focused on learning and implementing Sport Education (Siedentop, Hastie, & van der Mars, 2004). Qualitative data were collected through field observations and interviews to assess teachers’ receptivity and perceptions of the SE model as well as teachers’ attitudes toward reform. Major research findings for the study indicated: (1) teachers at both schools stated that they were open to change, excited about the PEP grant and expected it to improve their program; (2) all of the teachers recognized the benefits of the SE curriculum model (i.e., students’ responsibility, leadership, and actual involvement), but they agreed that implementing the new model took too much time at the beginning of the unit of instruction; (3) the teachers concurred that the SE curriculum model was a good fit for their PE program even though its implementation was a hybrid of the SE model learned in CPD; and (4) they concurred that the PEP grant project provided an opportunity for them to improve and refocus their pedagogy through collaboration. This research confirms what Guskey (2002, 2007) has shown - that individual and group ownership in the reform process impacts the degree of success in changing the culture of a program. Some late career teachers showed excessive confidence during the project, but this was difficult to sustain over the long run. Overall, the SE model seems to be a practical and motivating curriculum option for school physical education. Moreover, given the professional development support and curriculum development, the physical education teachers were able to implement a hybrid SE model in their schools. Successful reform and CPD calls for active initiation and participation of all teachers in partnership with one another and with support groups (administrators, university partners, students) in order to bring about sustained commitment, behavior change, and a vision for the future.

Degree

Ph.D.

Advisors

Templin, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Physical education|Curriculum development

COinS