Pre-Service Teachers Content-Related Analyses of a Physical Education Learning Task
Saved in:
| Title: | Pre-Service Teachers Content-Related Analyses of a Physical Education Learning Task |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Mathilde Musard (ORCID |
| Source: | Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2024 29(3):276-288. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 13 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Preservice Teachers, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Physical Education, Physical Education Teachers, Teaching Methods, Interaction, Teacher Student Relationship, Undergraduate Students, Foreign Countries, Preservice Teacher Education, Teacher Role, Student Role, Authentic Learning |
| Geographic Terms: | France |
| DOI: | 10.1080/17408989.2022.2061936 |
| ISSN: | 1740-8989 1742-5786 |
| Abstract: | Introduction: There remains some consensus that pre-service teacher education should be centered on the development of teachers' content knowledge, as it is considered to be essential for quality teaching and learning. The development of more effective forms of pedagogical content knowledge requires pre-service physical education teachers to analyse teaching and learning tasks within contextualized situations. The Joint Action in Didactics (JAD) framework provides a set of concepts that take into account the teacher, the students and the content knowledge at stake during learning tasks [Amade-Escot, C., and P. Venturini. 2015. "Joint Action in Didactics and Classroom Ecology: Comparing Theories Using a Case Study in Physical Education." "Interchange" 46: 413-437.]. The purpose of this study was to use the JAD framework to understand how a cohort of pre-service teachers (PTs) analyse the content knowledge embedded in teachers' and students' didactic interactions. Methods: An open-ended questionnaire was distributed to 46 PTs to collect their individual didactic analyses of a recorded game-based basketball teaching-learning task. PTs were asked to analyse the effective actions of the students and the teacher involved in the learning task, to interpret the actions of the students and the teacher in relation to the planned content knowledge and propose possible adjustments of the learning task to facilitate student learning. A content analysis of the PTs responses was performed using a systematic process of inductive analysis and constant comparison. Results: PTs were able to identify the gap between what was planned and the actual actions of the teacher and students in a situated content learning task. They encountered some difficulties in capturing the complexity of the interactions between the teacher, students and the content knowledge at stake. Analyses mostly centered on the clarity and accountability of instructions provided by the teacher and failed to take into account the students' meanings or potential adjustments to the didactic milieu. Conclusions: The JAD framework provides PTs a potential lens to forefront contextualized content knowledge as a critical dimension in their analysis of the teaching-learning process. This level of analysis arguably provides a more robust platform for the development of more sophisticated and situated forms of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1423529 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG0aCPliqrwRzRF9jmu4ghVAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJNJxgBNmR3txJa_JAIBEICBm1NwG6emlvO7LwFlbTTeeT_Dt4NEIYdh8wYY3wXQa9RJaiyAbaatHh3xKv738g1Dwi2VyrOaK6rSMYYotX3EuqKVW09C_cRn1yMQJSr2gMRoWf466BRTC7UrYUa_cWydXwMAub9awj8gpYGf3V46LQNAxn8n7ikEAB3RwBvu3SHc-TODQmuZGfg8kIfdjm0-gPyEcCiunuGpbhhP Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0177038292;z3x01may.24;2024May07.05:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177038292-1">Pre-service teachers content-related analyses of a physical education learning task </title> <p>There remains some consensus that pre-service teacher education should be centered on the development of teachers' content knowledge, as it is considered to be essential for quality teaching and learning. The development of more effective forms of pedagogical content knowledge requires pre-service physical education teachers to analyse teaching and learning tasks within contextualized situations. The Joint Action in Didactics (JAD) framework provides a set of concepts that take into account the teacher, the students and the content knowledge at stake during learning tasks [Amade-Escot, C., and P. Venturini. 2015. "Joint Action in Didactics and Classroom Ecology: Comparing Theories Using a Case Study in Physical Education." Interchange 46: 413–437.]. The purpose of this study was to use the JAD framework to understand how a cohort of pre-service teachers (PTs) analyse the content knowledge embedded in teachers' and students' didactic interactions. An open-ended questionnaire was distributed to 46 PTs to collect their individual didactic analyses of a recorded game-based basketball teaching-learning task. PTs were asked to analyse the effective actions of the students and the teacher involved in the learning task, to interpret the actions of the students and the teacher in relation to the planned content knowledge and propose possible adjustments of the learning task to facilitate student learning. A content analysis of the PTs responses was performed using a systematic process of inductive analysis and constant comparison. PTs were able to identify the gap between what was planned and the actual actions of the teacher and students in a situated content learning task. They encountered some difficulties in capturing the complexity of the interactions between the teacher, students and the content knowledge at stake. Analyses mostly centered on the clarity and accountability of instructions provided by the teacher and failed to take into account the students' meanings or potential adjustments to the didactic milieu. The JAD framework provides PTs a potential lens to forefront contextualized content knowledge as a critical dimension in their analysis of the teaching-learning process. This level of analysis arguably provides a more robust platform for the development of more sophisticated and situated forms of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge.</p> <p>Keywords: Joint action in didactics; specialized content knowledge; didactic interactions; physical education teacher education</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Content knowledge to be taught and learned is a decisive element that lies at the heart of teachers' and students' interactions within physical education (Amade-Escot [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]). There remains some consensus that pre-service teacher education should be centered around the development of teachers' content knowledge, as it is considered to be essential for quality teaching and learning (Backman and Barker [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]; Shulman [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref3">31</reflink>]; Ward [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref4">36</reflink>]). Teachers' knowledge of content has been conceptualized using Shulman's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref5">31</reflink>], 8) framework of pedagogical content knowledge representing 'the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners and presented for instruction'. Perspectives from a behavioral analytic perspective have differentiated teacher pedagogical content knowledge into the sub-domains of common content knowledge and specialized content knowledge (Ball, Thames, and Phelps [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]; Ward [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref7">36</reflink>]). When teachers describe a learning task, including the required rules, safety protocols, techniques or tactics of a movement form they are articulating their common content knowledge of a physical activity. Specialized content knowledge includes how teachers represent common content knowledge in both planning and action and consists of teachers' knowledge of how to teach particular movement forms and concepts and recognizing the nature of common student errors in learning the intended content (Ward [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref8">36</reflink>]). Research has shown that changes in teachers' specialized content knowledge can manifest in the development of more sophisticated forms of pedagogical content knowledge including richer content descriptions, use of analogies/metaphors, cues, and specific congruent feedback (Iserbyt, Ward, and Li [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]). Despite this evidential warrant, research within this tradition has emphasized that many teacher preparation programs do not focus on specialized content knowledge and this limits pre-service teachers (PTs) ability to adapt instruction (Ward et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref10">37</reflink>]). In response, Ayvazo, Ward, and Stuhr ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]) provided recommendations on how PTs could develop specialized content knowledge during physical education teacher education programs including (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>) showing video clips of movement tasks and asking PTs to anticipate and/or identify errors, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>) using scenario-driven instructional problems designed to elicit solutions from PTs, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>) using freeze replay of teaching episodes where the representations of the instructional task were repeated by PTs to increase the clarity of solutions.</p> <p>More recent propositions have highlighted potential limitations to some of these behavioral interpretations of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (Backman and Barker [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]). Specifically, these critiques are centered on the need for teachers' to be able to make content-related pedagogical decisions that are situated in culturally bound contexts (Jones [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]). Knowing-to-teach is defined and situated within a particular context (Depaepe, Verschaffel, and Kelchtermans [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref17">12</reflink>]) and these contexts provide a myriad of potential student responses that require interpretation to enable a more 'phronetic or subjective version of pedagogical content knowledge' (Backman and Barker [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref18">5</reflink>], 458). To provide a more <emph>phronetic</emph> version of pedagogical content knowledge requires that the teacher continuously manages the uncertainty and makes adjustments in response to students' actions in situ. Following Backman and Barker's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]) proposition, we consider that PTs can develop their capacities to reflect and act based on their interpretation of teaching that accounts for the diverse needs of their students. Despite the potential merit of this proposition regarding interpretive versions of pedagogical content knowledge, its veracity remains largely untested. This dearth in empirical evidence may be due to the lack of appropriate frameworks available in the Anglophone literature to analyse how the intended content knowledge interacts within the teaching and learning process. The focus of previous analyses of teachers is often directed towards managerial concerns and little towards the content embedded within tasks (Calandra, Gurvitch, and Lund [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>]; Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref21">21</reflink>]; Napper-Owen and McCallister [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]; Standal and Moe [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>]; Zhu [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref24">38</reflink>]). There remains a need to examine how PTs analyse contextualized learning tasks with a focus on content knowledge such that they can move towards more interpretive forms of pedagogical content knowledge. The Joint Action Framework in Didactics (JAD) provides a potentially viable analytic tool for contextualized content-related teaching analyses. Recent developments with the JAD have included the didactic analysis of learning tasks in the context of physical education teacher education, which remains an important issue that needs further exploration (Brau-Antony [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref25">7</reflink>]; Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-3">The Joint Action Framework in Didactics (JAD)</hd> <p>In the francophone tradition of research, the word <emph>didactique</emph> does not have the same meaning as didactic in the English-speaking world, but rather represents a research program on teaching and learning phenomena with a focus on the content knowledge (Amade-Escot [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>]). This research tradition aims to describe, understand and explain how content knowledge is constructed through the interactions between the teacher and students during learning tasks. Anchored in a pragmatist and social-interactionist perspective of human activities, the JAD is a descriptive framework (Amade-Escot and Venturini [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>]; Leriche et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref29">22</reflink>]; Ligozat, Lundqvist, and Amade-Escot [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref30">24</reflink>]; Sensevy [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref31">30</reflink>]) that accounts for the situated dimensions of teaching and learning and models human interactions as a transmission of culture. According to Amade-Escot and Venturini ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>], 5), 'the purpose of the JAD framework is to capture the enacted curriculum in detail, taking into account simultaneously the teacher, the students and the particular situatedness of knowledge of content as interrelated instances'. As the knowledge is co-produced by the teacher and students in culturally bound contexts, teacher and student practices are theoretically seen as joint actions. However, joint action does not necessarily mean that the teacher and students share the same meanings and expectations for learning. Consequently, the negotiations about the content knowledge at stake occur continuously during the learning tasks. To provide a deeper analysis of these teaching-learning dynamics, the JAD provides a set of core concepts. In this study, we focus on two of the core interrelated concepts of the JAD: the 'didactic milieu' and the 'didactic contract'. Brousseau ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref33">8</reflink>], 3) defined the didactic milieu as 'all that acts on the students and/or that the students acts on'. The didactic milieu includes a set of conditions made of material, symbolic and semiotic objects embedded in the learning environment where the teacher is considered a resource to enhance student learning (Ligozat, Lundqvist, and Amade-Escot [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>]). As most of its components are negotiated by the teacher and students, the didactic milieu is conceptualized as continuously evolving. The didactic contract describes this negotiation as an implicit system of mutual expectations, norms and joint habits between the teacher and the students about the content knowledge (Brousseau [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref35">8</reflink>]). It evolves as the teacher and students develop a shared understanding of meanings in the classroom concerning what is expected. As this didactic contract is not a formal but an implicit contract, it changes as the content development progresses, giving rise to successive breaches (Brousseau [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref36">8</reflink>]). Amade-Escot ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>], 351) added that 'the notion of a breach acknowledges the fact that content is contingently unfolding as a result of a shared construction of meanings in the situation where the content knowledge or know-how is at stake. The teacher and the students have to share, at a minimum a common background regarding what is expected during the academic work'. Breaches in the didactic contract are deemed usual and necessary for the teaching and learning process as they allow the teacher to continuously adjust the didactic milieu.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-4">The JAD framework in the context of physical education teacher education</hd> <p>Research mainly published in French in the context of in-service physical education (e.g. Brau-Antony [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref38">7</reflink>]; Grosstephan [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref39">17</reflink>]) and more recently during pre-service physical education teacher education (Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref40">21</reflink>]; Vinson and Dugal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]) have used the JAD framework to facilitate teachers' analyses of how content is embedded in the teaching-learning process. During these sessions, teachers were invited to present to a group of peers a planned learning task and to define the intended content knowledge. Subsequent teacher analyses were guided by the didactic framework (Vinson and Dugal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref42">35</reflink>]). This framework included reflective questions directed at (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>) describing the effective actions of the students and the teacher involved in the learning task, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>) interpreting the gap between what content was planned by the teacher and what was actually acquired by the students and, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>) proposing potential adjustments to the learning task such that students can produce the intended content knowledge. The results of these studies (Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>]; Vinson and Dugal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref47">35</reflink>]) revealed that the JAD framework augmented teachers' awareness that the content knowledge to be taught and learned is 'a decisive element that lies at the heart of teachers' and students interactions within situated action' (Amade-Escot [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>], 343). Both in-service teachers and PTs were able to move from a spontaneous and superficial analysis to a more structured analysis that considered the content knowledge at stake in the task (Brau-Antony [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]; Vinson and Dugal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref50">35</reflink>]). Lenzen and Poussin ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref51">21</reflink>]) recently postulated that the inclusion of these types of reflective analyses is important within physical education teacher education as once learned, it is likely to be retained within professional practice.</p> <p>Previous research also suggested that PTs may encounter some difficulties in understanding the didactic concepts (Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref52">21</reflink>]; Vinson and Dugal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref53">35</reflink>]). For example, they often reduced the didactic milieu to their material dimensions, such as task equipment or space. They considered any mismatch between the intended content and actual action to be either the responsibility of the students or the teacher, without considering the didactic milieu (Orange [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref54">28</reflink>]). Lenzen and Poussin ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref55">21</reflink>]) characterized these analyses as (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>) normative to the professional development that underlies the program; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>) dominated by the teachers' instructional dimensions and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>) limited in consideration of the students' motor activity within learning situations. Brau-Antony ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref59">7</reflink>]) highlighted that there remains an important discrepancy between the PT's and the teacher educator's analyses of a learning task. These initial findings warrant further investigation, including how PTs analyse the content knowledge embedded in teachers and students didactic interactions. Previous studies have been limited to descriptions of a small group of novice or in-service teachers about their own physical education lessons. If these reflective practices are to be recommended for use in physical education teacher education programs, there remains a need to examine how a broader population of PTs reflect on the role of content knowledge within situated teaching-learning tasks.</p> <p>The purpose of this case study was to examine how a cohort of undergraduate PTs use the JAD framework to analyse a learning task that elicited multiple breaches in the didactic contract. More specifically, three research objectives guided the description of these analyses: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>) which elements of the didactic milieu do PTs consider in their analyses; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>) how do PTs interpret the breaches in the didactic contract and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>) which elements of the didactic milieu would PTs adjust such that students acquire the intended content knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-5">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177038292-6">Participants</hd> <p>This case study was conducted in France with a complete cohort (<emph>n</emph> = 46; 28 males, 18 females, 20–23 years old) of year-3 Bachelor's degree physical education teacher education students. During years 2 and 3 of the four-year teacher education program, students experience five main curriculum units: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>) sport pedagogy and physical education <emph>didactique</emph> science; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>) epistemology, history and sociology of physical education; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>) internship in physical education; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>) theory and practice of physical and sports activities and 5) cross-curricular courses (e.g. video and software tools, English language). All 46 PTs in the year-3 cohort group gave their consent to participate in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-7">Procedures</hd> <p>There is limited analysis of teaching and learning practices without a theoretical framework, and there are inadequate tools for analysis if there is not an understanding of the framework. PT participants were introduced to the JAD framework in the physical education <emph>didactique</emph> course at the end of the third year of the physical education teacher education program. During the first lesson of this introduction, PTs received a 3-hour lecture on the main concepts of the JAD framework. During these 3 hours, the researcher explained the concepts of the didactic contract and didactic milieu using video examples of learning tasks in physical education so the PTs became more aware that content knowledge is co-constructed in situ, through the interactions between the teacher and students. Using video recordings of PTs' lessons has been shown to be a useful reflective tool for teacher education (Ayvazo, Ward, and Stuhr [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref67">4</reflink>]; Palomaki and Heikinaro-Johansson [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]). This introductory approach, although limited in terms of providing the PTs a full interpretive lens for content-related analyses, facilitated opportunities for the PTs to repeatedly watch the evolution of a situated teaching-learning task with a specific group of students without having to manage the students in-action. In the second lesson (2 hours), the PTs analysed a video recording of a physical education learning task taught by a third-year PT from a previous cohort. In the third lesson (2 hours), the PTs re-watched the same video recording and discussed different interpretations of the same teaching episode. The focus of this study is the PTs' analyses of video recordings from the third lesson. In the case of the JAD framework, the video recordings allowed the PTs to reflect in detail on the content knowledge embedded in the effective actions of the teacher and students engaged in an authentic, situated physical education learning task. The learning task presented to the PTs was purposefully selected to demonstrate how a complex game-related task manifests interactions between the teacher and the students that give rise to successive breaches in the didactic contract, as well as potential adjustments of the didactic milieu.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-8">Situated learning task</hd> <p>The videotaped learning task took place in a gymnasium with a single, third-year PT and 24 students aged 14–15 years who were organized into eight groups of three students. The learning task presented was taken from the beginning of the fifth lesson of a nine-lesson basketball unit. The videotaped learning task lasted 10 minutes and presented: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) the instructions given by the teacher to the students for the learning task and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>) the effective actions of students and teacher, which revealed different breaches in the didactic contract. The intended content knowledge at stake in the task focused on developing students' knowledge of attacking principles of creating space in support to move the ball forward. On a teacher prompt, the groups of three players were instructed to organize their attack by using passes (without dribbling) to reach the closest target (basket). <emph>A priori</emph> analysis revealed that the specific intended content knowledge in the basketball game-related task was for the groups of three students to construct a collaborative passing attack that included players moving quickly to support the ball carrier with appropriate depth and width and then making quick, accurate passes to move the ball towards a target basket. The intended content knowledge in this basketball task was relevant to the official curriculum, which connects to the outcomes of a collective game and the developmental needs of the students (Gréhaigne, Wallian, and Godbout [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref71">16</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>A posteriori</emph> analysis revealed several breaches in the didactic contract with groups of students enacting different strategies to achieve the goal of the stipulated task. Students' responses to the tasks revealed that the primary didactic milieu was insufficient in constraining the triad groups of students to construct a collective and quick attack that used depth and width (i.e. absence of a given basket to construct the attack, absence of defensive players). Two of the players in one group who didn't have the ball remained behind the ball carrier such that they could not pass forward to the intended target and the ball carrier was constrained to (illegally) dribble alone towards the basket. Two of the groups of students delayed in their decision of which basket to attack and ended up attacking the same basket as other groups. This response made it impossible for the groups to construct a quick, direct attack and the players attacked the target laterally and not from the center of the court. One group of students decided to wait under a basket until the teacher again blew the whistle and they did not move to construct the attack with depth and width.</p> <p>The PT tried to help the students by repeating the task instructions, but failed to consider the meanings given to them by the students. Potential adjustments of the didactic milieu to accommodate the differential responses could have included adding a defensive player(s) so that the intended content knowledge to attack the target quickly became more meaningful for students. Alternatively, the milieu could have been re-organized such that each team was assigned a specific basket to attack and then rotated to the next basket.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-9">Data collection</hd> <p>The PTs observing the learning task were asked to individually complete an anonymous and open-ended paper questionnaire. The questionnaire included demographic information (gender, age, sports specialty) followed by three open-ended questions (Vinson and Dugal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref72">35</reflink>]): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>) Describe the actions of the students and the teacher involved in the learning task; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>) Interpret the actions of the students and the teacher in relation with the planned content knowledge and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>) Propose possible adjustments of the learning task to facilitate students learning. The video was played a first time, and then repeated to allow the PTs time to describe the actions of the students and teacher within the situated learning task. The 5-minute break between viewings also provided the PTs an opportunity to ask any clarifying questions to the researcher.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-10">Data analysis</hd> <p>Questionnaire responses from each prompt question were consolidated and downloaded to a Microsoft Word™ document to allow for in-depth content analysis. The first two authors then performed a systematic process of inductive analysis and constant comparison (Denzin and Lincoln [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref76">11</reflink>]; Loh [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref77">25</reflink>]). Content analysis consisted of five steps delineated by Creswell ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref78">10</reflink>]) and L'Écuyer ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref79">23</reflink>]). Initially, the authors performed an independent open coding of the data by reading the data line by line repeatedly and comparing and contrasting patterns of meaning between data. After the initial coding process, the authors met and conducted axial coding by repeatedly scrutinizing the recurring patterns of meaning that were commonly identified by participants. A process of categorization of codes was then completed by the authors, which was based upon a codification of meaning and not on the number or length of each respondent comments. Therefore, some category codes contained several comments which could be summarized in a single codification while some replies contained a single comment, but which had to be divided into three different codes. The Sphinx software was then used to calculate the number of responses in each category for the three questions posed to the PTs. Finally, the researchers interpreted the results from the distribution of codes. Trustworthiness and credibility were ensured through triangulation, peer review and debriefing (Denzin and Lincoln [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>]; Gagnon [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref81">15</reflink>]). Specifically, the credibility and reliability of the analysis were strengthened by the use of two coders who used a process of peer review and debriefing to elicit decisions on the development of categorization codes and representative quotes. To reduce selection bias, primary codes were first generated independently and the veracity of the code only accepted for inclusion once peer debriefing provided agreement. Triangulation processes included the two coders independently tallying all of the participant statements into the agreed upon coding categories developed from the questionnaire. Inter-rater agreement was 89.2% of questionnaire statements while the intra-rater agreement level being slightly higher at a rate of 93.3%.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-11">Results</hd> <p>The results are presented in three sub-sections. Specifically, Section 1 presents how the PTs described the effective teacher and student actions during the evolution of the learning task. Section 2 shows how the PTs interpreted the gap between the intended content planned by the teacher and what was actually performed by the students. Section 3 presents PTs potential propositions for adjustments to facilitate student learning of the intended content knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-12">PTs descriptions of teacher and students actions during the learning task</hd> <p>Figure 1 illustrates the elements considered by PTs to describe teacher and student actions engaged in the basketball learning task.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. PTs descriptions of teacher and student actions during the learning task.</p> <p>All 45 PTs primarily focused on student actions that did not respect the rules of the learning task given by the teacher ('students don't respect the instructions'), particularly the absence of a pass before attacking the target ('not all students have the ball', 'there are no passes'), students who don't move ('students wait under the basket' and 'students don't move quickly'), and students who chose to dribble the ball ('a girl goes alone to dribble to score'). The majority of PTs (<emph>n</emph> = 35) identified actions that did not correspond to the expected actions in the learning task regarding the intended content knowledge. In particular, that the students failed to move to appropriate space ('students do not occupy all the space') and therefore did not propose appropriate passing options for the ball carrier ('no organization between the players'). These actions did not allow the group to perform a quick passing attack: 'The passes are slow and the students are walking .... They also do not seek to provide support, but remain at one side of the other with no depth'. 33 PTs also described isolated students' movements ('face-to-face movements'), without establishing links with the intended knowledge (to consider the target to attack). 17 PTs identified that certain students respected the game rules by making passes ('students make passes') and by starting the activity in the center of the field. Finally, 10 of the PTs emphasized technical errors in passing and dribbling by pointing out the skill deficiencies of the students ('bad technique', 'imprecise passes', 'missed shot', 'no skill cues') without considering the intended tactical content knowledge.</p> <p>Concerning the actions of the teacher, data analysis revealed that the PTs analyses of the teacher mainly concerned task rules. 43 PTs described teacher regulations with respect to passing, moving and dribbling ('the teacher repeats the instruction: no dribbling or moving with the ball'). Over 30 of the PTs described the teacher's regulations related to the content knowledge, particularly the fact that the teacher invited the students to find solutions themselves: 'the teacher asked the students to find solutions'. 18 PTs described inadequate teacher accountability for the task rules, noting that 'the teacher did not observe if the students applied his feedback' or just 'he stopped the practice too quickly, so the students had no time to apply it'. Finally, 15 of the PTs described the positioning and movements of the teacher in the gymnasium. These PTs reflections were focused on the teacher's management of the stipulated task ('the teacher is on the center of the field' and 'the teacher moves to a group').</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-13">PTs interpretations of teacher and students actions during the learning task</hd> <p>Figure 2 illustrates the main interpretive elements given by the PTs in relation to teacher and student interactions in the learning task. Responses revealed that 31 PTs interpreted the actions of the teacher and students as a breach in the didactic contract, either by directly stipulating this concept ('breach in the didactic contract') or by describing the gap between the intended content knowledge and the effective students' actions ('gap between what was planned (depth and width) and what students do (no organization)'). Most of the PTs interpretations considered the students as the primary actors responsible for the breaches in the didactic contract. They mentioned that they: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>) 'did not follow the rules of the task' (i.e. only wanted to throw the ball into the basket) (<emph>n</emph> = 23); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref83">2</reflink>) 'did not move to support the ball carrier' (<emph>n</emph> = 20); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref84">3</reflink>) 'did not understand the rules' (<emph>n</emph> = 19); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref85">4</reflink>) 'were not interested in the task' (<emph>n</emph> = 13) and 5) had 'motor or cognitive difficulties that prevented them from achieving the intended content of the task' (<emph>n</emph> = 12). Some PTs also used disparaging vocabulary to describe students' responses to the task: 'Students ... were just too lazy to move around the room'. Thirteen PTs indicated that breaches in the didactic contract could have been caused by the learning task. These PTs highlighted problematic elements in the stipulated learning task including (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>) its design ('why provide space in support if there is no defender?'), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref87">2</reflink>) a paradox in the rules that requires a quick attack without dribbling ('it's faster for them to dribble than to pass') and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref88">3</reflink>) the spatial distribution of the players ('too many groups of students attacking the same target basket at the same time'). Nine of the PTs indicated that the teacher had some ineffective actions, namely an unclear definition of the learning task and inadequate rules and accountability ('instructions are not clear', 'feedback are not understandable', 'the teacher doesn't explain why it is important to do passes'). Conversely, another 9 PTs interpreted the teacher actions in a positive way by mentioning that he attempted to re-explain the task ('the teacher gave precise feedback') and allowed students to construct their own content solution for the task ('the teacher wants to give students decision-making autonomy').</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. PTs interpretations of teacher and student actions.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-14">PTs adjustments to facilitate students learning</hd> <p>Following the description and interpretation of the teacher and students' actions in the learning task, Figure 3 provides an illustration of the PTs proposed adjustments to the learning task such that students could acquire the intended content knowledge.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. PT adjustments of the learning task to facilitate students learning.</p> <p>The primary PT proposition was for the teacher to add further constraining instructions to the initial learning task (<emph>n</emph> = 31). These suggestions included adjustments to the material elements of the learning task, such as requiring students to 'change the target basket each time', 'establishing moving zones in front of the baskets' and 'forcing students to start from a fixed point in the center of the field'. In total, more than twenty diverse suggestions were provided by the PTs as part of a dominant logic of constraining the students' actions to achieve an effective execution of the intended content knowledge. The second most common suggestion was for the teacher to better define the task (<emph>n</emph> = 20) by demonstrating ('provide a demonstration with a group'), repeating the rules ('insist on the instructions', 'insist that students make three passes minimum', 'insist on the prohibition of dribbling') such that the students apply them or clarifying the rules ('explain the role of each player', 'question the students to see if they understood the instructions'). These dominant propositions revealed how PTs envision the role of students as receiving and applying the rules given by the teacher. A third category of proposition included improving the quality of regulations (<emph>n</emph> = 10), by 'making more use of rules', 'asking students about problems encountered during the task', 'giving collective feedback' or 'motivating students'). A fourth category of answer (<emph>n</emph> = 9) included transforming the initial task to make it more authentic to students by more overtly connecting it to the game of basketball ('integrating competition with defenders'). The last propositions (<emph>n</emph> = 5) were to change the teams ('do heterogeneous teams', 'do mixed teams') and to reduce the complexity of the task ('reduce the number of people per team', 'limit the distribution of players with width and depth').</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to begin to understand how PTs analyse the content knowledge embedded in contextually bound teacher and student didactic interactions. We discuss the benefits and the limitations of these content-related analyses during pre-service physical education teacher education and how PTs interpret content within the teaching and learning process.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-16">The content knowledge at stake in the learning task</hd> <p>The findings of this study highlight that PTs have the potential to forefront content knowledge as a critical dimension in their analysis of the teaching-learning process. PTs described students' and teacher' actions with regard to the content knowledge and were able to identify the breaches in the didactic contract. By highlighting, and often rephrasing the notion of breaches in the didactic contract, PTs provided evidence that they understood learning to be a non-linear process. Findings of the study are consistent with previous studies which have shown that the JAD framework facilitates PTs to focus more on the content rather than solely on class management concerns (Orange [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref89">28</reflink>]; Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref90">21</reflink>]; Vinson and Dugal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref91">35</reflink>]). The use of the JAD framework offered PTs an opportunity to take into account the content knowledge within the teaching learning process and thus to formulate more complex propositions that potentially increased their specialized content knowledge.</p> <p>Nevertheless, using JAD concepts in the context of pre-service teacher education is not easy and requires multiple iterations in the long-term (Vinson and Dugal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref92">35</reflink>]; Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref93">21</reflink>]). The didactic contract was not interpreted by PTs as an implicit system of expectations between the teacher and the students about the content knowledge at stake, but rather as an explicit process where the teacher provides the instructions, repeats, re-explains and demonstrates until the students succeed. This fundamental misconception elicited PT propositions for adjusting the learning task that were primarily directed at adding material constraints to the didactic milieu rather than adjusting it so that the students had more opportunity to construct an authentic meaning to the task.</p> <p>To move from an analysis centered on the planned content to one that questions the effective practices of the teacher and the students remains an ongoing challenge for content knowledge development in physical education teacher education (Grosstephan [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref94">17</reflink>]). Specifically, there remains a need to understand how content-related analyses such as the ones formulated within the JAD can be used to enhance PTs specialized content knowledge: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>) planning for content development; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>) interactions with students and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref97">3</reflink>) adjustments of the milieu. Further research is needed to examine how content-related analyses influence the complexity of PTs' pedagogical content knowledge and how they can use this knowledge to plan and teach content for specific groups of learners more effectively.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-17">Role of students and teacher in a learning task</hd> <p>The results reveal that PTs analyses primarily centered on student compliance with the instructions, which was viewed as a non-negotiable requirement before considering the potential influence of the stipulated game task rules on the content knowledge in the task. These findings reflect a unilateral conception of the teacher' and students' roles within the learning task; the teacher defines the rules of the game and the students have to abide by the rules and to apply them, irrespective of their potential ambiguity. These findings confirm previous research that has revealed that PTs analysis of teaching and learning predominantly focus on student respect of the teacher's instructions (Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref98">21</reflink>]). They also highlight a linear conception of content knowledge transmission such that if students were to learn the intended content, they must first comply and respect the instructions of the teacher, even if the stipulated rules do not always make sense to the intended outcomes (Sensevy [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref99">30</reflink>]). This notion of rules driving tasks resonates with the accountability dimension of Doyle's ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref100">13</reflink>]) classroom ecology. When there is limited teacher accountability (rules), or when it is ineffective, the accomplishment of tasks may be incomplete and tasks may be modified by students in ways that are different than what the teacher intended (Hastie and Siedentop [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref101">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Findings also revealed that for many PTs, breaches in the didactic contract are essentially the responsibility of the students. Specifically, students were perceived as lacking the resources, motivation and technique to complete the intended content of the task. The didactic milieu (the design of the learning task, the instructions of the teacher) was less overt in this step of the PTs analyses. This finding supports previous research that PTs often fail to perceive the complexity of the teaching and learning process and namely the necessity to adjust the didactic milieu (Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref102">21</reflink>]; Orange [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref103">28</reflink>]). PTs considered that it was sufficient for the teacher to clearly describe the learning task and that breaches in the didactic contract are not viewed as usual, but rather as something wrong or abnormal in the teaching-learning process. The PTs did not yet perceive the teaching and learning process as a joint action, where the teacher seeks to cooperate with students to adjust the didactic milieu and guide them through constructing the content knowledge (Dugal and Léziart [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref104">14</reflink>]; Vinson and Dugal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref105">35</reflink>]). This finding resonates with previous research that PTs analyses are focused on the instructional dimensions and less on the students' motor activity within the learning task (Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref106">21</reflink>]). Consequently, breaches in the didactic contract were not yet viewed as an opportunity to understand why the students may be experiencing difficulties. Students were not interpreted as singular subjects with their own practical epistemologies related to their past and present experiences of the intended content knowledge in the task (Amade-Escot [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref107">2</reflink>]). This finding highlights that if PTs are to develop more sophisticated versions of content knowledge, and specifically use more phronesis in their enactment of specialized content knowledge, the active role of the students in shaping content evolution should be at the forefront of their analysis and subsequent planning for tasks.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-18">Conclusions</hd> <p>The results of this study add to the extant literature on understanding PTs development of content knowledge by examining PTs analyses of teacher and student interactions within an authentic situated learning task (Lenzen and Poussin [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref108">21</reflink>]; Vinson and Dugal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref109">35</reflink>]). The JAD framework afforded the PTs an opportunity to observe and reflect on the teaching and learning process and provide some diagnostic propositions that moved beyond management issues and attempted to embed their developing specialized content knowledge of basketball. This study highlights the veracity of the JAD as a useful heuristic that allows PTs to question the gap between what was planned and the actual actions of the teacher and students in a situated content learning task. Previous research using a behavioral perspective on pedagogical content knowledge has proposed that to increase teachers' specialized content knowledge requires them to observe and analyse teaching episodes to anticipate and/or identify student errors and use scenario-driven instructional problems designed to elicit solutions (Ayvazo, Ward, and Stuhr [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref110">4</reflink>]). Iserbyt, Ward, and Li ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref111">19</reflink>]) revealed that this type of content training can improve teachers' specialized content knowledge such that there are consequential improvements in teachers' pedagogical content knowledge including the appropriateness of task selection and the clarity of how these tasks are presented. The findings of this study suggest that the use of the JAD framework could further enhance the development of pedagogical content knowledge by providing PTs with a more robust lens to understand how content development propositions (specialized content knowledge) can be contextualized within the practical epistemologies of the students.</p> <p>Despite the potential of this study in providing a bridge between the anglophone and francophone ontological perspectives on PTs content knowledge, the limitations of the study design warrant consideration. First, learning to interpret students' actions in a situated context is not easy to acquire or teach (Backman and Barker [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref112">5</reflink>]; Jones [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref113">20</reflink>]). Within the study, PTs were asked to describe, interpret and then provide propositions for action, but were not asked to implement these propositions in subsequent learning tasks and thus caution should be applied to the idea that it would be sufficient to involve PTs in a didactic analysis and hope for its automatic translation into professional practice. Without this practice, intermittent infusion of analysis opportunities on developing content may not meet the need for professional development. These reflective capacities need to be built towards school-based practicum experiences where PTs can use the didactique lens to reflect on their own professional practice and have an opportunity to adapt their practices in situ with students. Faced with the challenges of integrating reflexive analyses within physical education teacher education, it is important to note that these practices can improve teaching practices (Backman and Barker [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref114">5</reflink>]; Myers, Smith, and Tesar [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref115">26</reflink>]; Slade et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref116">32</reflink>]; Van Beveren et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref117">34</reflink>]). It would seem that future research needs to no longer to determine <emph>why</emph> it is relevant to integrate <emph>didactique</emph> in physical education teacher education, but rather <emph>how</emph> to do it effectively and meaningfully for the development of PTs pedagogical content knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0177038292-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0177038292-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amade-Escot, C. 2006. " Student Learning Within the Didactique Tradition." In Handbook of Research in Physical Education, edited by D. Kirk, M. O'Sullivan, and D. Macdonald, 347 – 365. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref13" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Amade-Escot, C. 2019. "Épistémologies pratiques et dynamique différentielle du contrat didactique: poursuivre le travail d'articulation conceptuelle" ("Practical epistemologies and differential dynamics of the didactic contract: Continue the conceptual work"). In Congrès de la TACD : La TACD en questions, Rennes, France, 26 June 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amade-Escot, C., and P. Venturini. 2015. " Joint Action in Didactics and Classroom Ecology: Comparing Theories Using a Case Study in Physical Education." Interchange 46 : 413 – 437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ayvazo, S., P. Ward, and P. Stuhr. 2010. " Teaching and Assessing Content Knowledge in Preservice Physical Education." Journal of Physical Education Recreation &amp; Dance 81 (4): 40 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Backman, E., and D. Barker. 2020. " Re-thinking Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Physical Education Teachers – Implications for Physical Education Teacher Education." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 25 (5): 451 – 463.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, D. L., M. H. Thames, and G. Phelps. 2008. "Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?" Journal of Teacher Education 59: 389–407.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref25" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brau-Antony, S. 2015. " Recherche en didactique et développement professionnel d'enseignants d'Éducation physique et sportive" ("Research in didactics and professional development of physical education teachers")." Éducation et Didactique 9 : 107 – 118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref33" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brousseau, G. 2003. Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics. Dordrecht : Kluwer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref20" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Calandra, B., R. Gurvitch, and J. Lund. 2008. " An Exploratory Study of Digital Video Editing as a Tool for Teacher Preparation." Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 16 : 137 – 153.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1994. " Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research." In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 1 – 19. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Depaepe, F., L. Verschaffel, and G. Kelchtermans. 2013. " Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Systematic Review of the Way in Which the Concept has Pervaded Mathematics Educational Research." Teaching and Teacher Education 34 : 12 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doyle, W. 1983. " Academic Work." Review of Educational Research 53 : 159 – 199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dugal, J. P., and Y. Léziart. 2004. " La circulation des savoirs entre recherche et formation: l'exemple des concepts didactiques lors d'une action de formation de conseillers pédagogiques" ("The circulation of knowledge between research and training: The example of didactic concepts during a training for educational advisers")." Revue Française de Pédagogie 149 : 37 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gagnon, Y. C. 2005. L'étude de cas comme méthode de recherche. Québec : Presses de l'Université du Québec.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gréhaigne, J. F., N. Wallian, and P. Godbout. 2005. " Tactical-decision Learning Model and Students' Practices." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10 : 255 – 269.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grosstephan, V. 2010. "Développement professionnel d'enseignants d'EPS: processus et effets dans le cadre d'un dispositif de formation continue associant praticiens et chercheur" ("Professional development of PE teachers: Processes and effects in the context of an in-service training involving practitioners and researchers"). PhD diss., University of Champagne-Ardenne.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P., and D. Siedentop. 2006. " The Classroom Ecology Paradigm." In The Handbook of Physical Education, edited by D. Kirk, D. MacDonald, and M. O'Sullivan, 214 – 225. London : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iserbyt, P., P. Ward, and W. Li. 2017. " Effects of Improved Content Knowledge on Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Student Performance in Physical Education." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 22 : 71 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, C. 2017. " Care and Phronesis in Teaching and Coaching: Dealing with Personality Disorder." Sport, Education and Society 22 (2): 214 – 229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenzen, B., and B. Poussin. 2019. " Analyse des discours réflexifs produits dans un dispositif de formation en alternance en éducation physique" ("Analysis of reflexive discourses produced in an alternating training device in physical education")." Nouveaux Cahiers de la Recherche en Education 21 : 64 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leriche, J., J. F. Desbiens, C. Amade-Escot, and R. Tinning. 2016. " Compatibility and Complementarity of Classroom Ecology and Didactique Research Perspectives in Physical Education." Quest 68 : 497 – 520.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> L'Écuyer, R. 1990. Méthodologie de l'analyse développementale de contenu: Méthode GPS et concept de soi (Developmental Content Analysis Methodology: GPS Method and Self-concept). Québec : Presses de l'Université du Québec.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ligozat, F., E. Lundqvist, and C. Amade-Escot. 2018. " Analysing the Continuity of Teaching and Learning in Classroom Actions: When the Joint Action Framework in Didactics Meets the Pragmatist Approach to Classroom Discourses." European Educational Research Journal 17 : 147 – 169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loh, J. 2013. " Inquiry into Issues of Trustworthiness and Quality in Narrative Studies: A Perspective." The Qualitative Report 18 (33): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1477</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers, C. Y., K. A. Smith, and M. Tesar. 2017. " Diffracting Mandates for Reflective Practices in Teacher Education and Development: Multiple Readings from Australia, New Zealand and the United States." Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 38 : 275 – 288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Napper-Owen, G., and S. McCallister. 2005. " What Elementary Physical Education Student Teachers Observe and Reflect upon to Assist Their Instruction." Physical Educator 62 : 76 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orange, C. 2006. " Analyse de pratiques et formation des enseignants : un point de vue didactique" ("Analysis of Practices and Teacher Education: An Educational Perspective")." Recherche et Formation 51 : 119 – 131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palomaki, S., and P. Heikinaro-Johansson. 2005. " Teacher as Researcher" Approach in the Finnish Physical Education Teacher Education." International Journal of Physical Education 42 : 19 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sensevy, G. 2012. " About the Joint Action Theory in Didactic." Zerziehungswiss 15 : 503 – 516.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman, L. S. 1987. " Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform." Harvard Educational Review 57 : 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slade, M. L., T. J. Burnham, S. M. Catalana, and T. Water. 2019. " The Impact of Reflective Practice on Teacher Candidates' Learning." International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 13 : 124 – 131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Standal, ØF, and V. F. Moe. 2013. " Reflective Practice in Physical Education and Physical Education Teacher Education: A Review of the Literature Since 1995." Quest 6 : 220 – 240.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Beveren, L., G. Roets, A. Buysse, and K. Rutten. 2018. " We all Reflect, but Why? A Systematic Review of the Purposes of Reflection in Higher Education in Social and Behavioral Sciences." Educational Research Review 24 : 1 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vinson, M., and J. P. Dugal. 2011. " De la formation continue à la formation initiale: Observation du didactique et effets de formation" ("From In-service Training to Pre-service Training: Didactic Observation and Training Effects ")." STAPS 1 : 63 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P. 2009. " Content Matters: Knowledge that Alters Teaching." In Historic Traditions and Future Directions of Research on Teaching and Teacher Education in Physical Education, edited by L. Housner, M. Metzler, P. Schempp, and T. Templin, 345 – 356. Morgantown : Fitness Information Technology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P., E. Tsuda, F. Dervent, and E. Devrilmez. 2018. " Differences in the Content Knowledge of Those Taught to Teach and Those Taught to Play." Journal of Teaching Physical Education 37 (1): 59 – 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu, X. 2011. " Student Teachers' Reflection During Practicum: Plenty on Action, Few in Action." Reflective Practice 12 : 763 – 775.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mathilde Musard; David Bezeau and Tristan L. Wallhead</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref117"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1423529 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Pre-Service Teachers Content-Related Analyses of a Physical Education Learning Task – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mathilde+Musard%22">Mathilde Musard</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0313-9118">0000-0002-0313-9118</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+Bezeau%22">David Bezeau</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4563-3691">0000-0002-4563-3691</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tristan+L%2E+Wallhead%22">Tristan L. Wallhead</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8553-7832">0000-0001-8553-7832</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Physical+Education+and+Sport+Pedagogy%22"><i>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</i></searchLink>. 2024 29(3):276-288. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 13 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pedagogical+Content+Knowledge%22">Pedagogical Content Knowledge</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Role%22">Student Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authentic+Learning%22">Authentic Learning</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22France%22">France</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/17408989.2022.2061936 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1740-8989<br />1742-5786 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Introduction: There remains some consensus that pre-service teacher education should be centered on the development of teachers' content knowledge, as it is considered to be essential for quality teaching and learning. The development of more effective forms of pedagogical content knowledge requires pre-service physical education teachers to analyse teaching and learning tasks within contextualized situations. The Joint Action in Didactics (JAD) framework provides a set of concepts that take into account the teacher, the students and the content knowledge at stake during learning tasks [Amade-Escot, C., and P. Venturini. 2015. "Joint Action in Didactics and Classroom Ecology: Comparing Theories Using a Case Study in Physical Education." "Interchange" 46: 413-437.]. The purpose of this study was to use the JAD framework to understand how a cohort of pre-service teachers (PTs) analyse the content knowledge embedded in teachers' and students' didactic interactions. Methods: An open-ended questionnaire was distributed to 46 PTs to collect their individual didactic analyses of a recorded game-based basketball teaching-learning task. PTs were asked to analyse the effective actions of the students and the teacher involved in the learning task, to interpret the actions of the students and the teacher in relation to the planned content knowledge and propose possible adjustments of the learning task to facilitate student learning. A content analysis of the PTs responses was performed using a systematic process of inductive analysis and constant comparison. Results: PTs were able to identify the gap between what was planned and the actual actions of the teacher and students in a situated content learning task. They encountered some difficulties in capturing the complexity of the interactions between the teacher, students and the content knowledge at stake. Analyses mostly centered on the clarity and accountability of instructions provided by the teacher and failed to take into account the students' meanings or potential adjustments to the didactic milieu. Conclusions: The JAD framework provides PTs a potential lens to forefront contextualized content knowledge as a critical dimension in their analysis of the teaching-learning process. This level of analysis arguably provides a more robust platform for the development of more sophisticated and situated forms of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1423529 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1423529 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/17408989.2022.2061936 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 13 StartPage: 276 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Pedagogical Content Knowledge Type: general – SubjectFull: Physical Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Interaction Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship Type: general – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Role Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Role Type: general – SubjectFull: Authentic Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: France Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Pre-Service Teachers Content-Related Analyses of a Physical Education Learning Task Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Mathilde Musard – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: David Bezeau – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Tristan L. Wallhead IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1740-8989 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1742-5786 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 29 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
