View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Personal Journey: TGfU Teacher Development in Australia and the USA

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Personal Journey: TGfU Teacher Development in Australia and the USA
Language: English
Authors: Light, Richard, Butler, Joy
Source: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Nov 2005 10(3):241-254.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2005
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Preservice Teacher Education, Foreign Countries, Educational Change, Cultural Differences, Faculty Development, Comparative Analysis, Teacher Education Programs, Student Teacher Attitudes, Physical Education, Games, Learner Engagement, Student Motivation, Interviews, Educational Environment
Geographic Terms: Australia, United States
DOI: 10.1080/17408980500340778
ISSN: 1740-8989
Abstract: This paper examines teacher development of TGfU in teacher education programmes in Australia and the USA by taking a cross-sectional snapshot across a sequence covering the final two years of a teacher education programme in which TGfU is emphasised, and the first two years of teaching after graduating from the same programmes. It explores the interrelated nature of the pre-service teachers' prior dispositions toward PE teaching, their reasons for adopting TGfU and their experiences of TGfU teaching. Conducting this research in two distinctly different cultural and insitutional settings provides a means through which we also explore the situated nature of teacher education and the effect that different cultural and institutional settings might have on TGfU teacher development. (Contains 1 table.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 35
Entry Date: 2008
Accession Number: EJ819839
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG0UP7knNiG_MDRsiaAMZzxAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNtUAL_fgb8FddL09wIBEICBmam6x6BUh4a290LDpWtphTXGPPtEbSWxjjHLx89RDALufalTYzsSNDudWL9FTenSWJc8zZb09ufd4shkUMvjDWSwei7Dd_hpYCo_4aiYEDXdIfeNwppaPAyCFMQ-x139j7XZdTIgRHmfbxVbrr4BLYJ0Q76B6K-dnRzvMLCPnN82iX5jj-oARK5VUvHDnIotBXDZlxAQW4q7Kg==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0019216167;z3x01nov.05;2019Mar20.13:19;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0019216167-1">A personal journey: TGfU teacher development in Australia and the USA. </title> <p>This paper examines teacher development of TGfU in teacher education programmes in Australia and the USA by taking a cross-sectional snapshot across a sequence covering the final two years of a teacher education programme in which TGfU is emphasised, and the first two years of teaching after graduating from the same programmes. It explores the interrelated nature of the pre-service teachers' prior dispositions toward PE teaching, their reasons for adopting TGfU and their experiences of TGfU teaching. Conducting this research in two distinctly different cultural and insitutional settings provides a means through which we also explore the situated nature of teacher education and the effect that different cultural and institutional settings might have on TGfU teacher development.</p> <p>Keywords: Culture; Situated learning; Teacher development; Teacher stories; TGfU</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The TGfU model was first published over two decades ago (Bunker & Thorpe, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]) and has experienced considerable growth in interest from researchers and practitioners over the past five years or so. In some cases it has been adopted by governing bodies responsible for education, such as the Ministry of Education in Singapore in the form of the Games Concept Approach (GCA) and in the 2005 New South Wales Personal Development, Health and Physical Education syllabus in Australia (Light & Tan, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref2">31</reflink>]). Despite this, TGfU continues to constitute an innovative approach to games and sport teaching that challenges existing and entrenched practices (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]; Kirk & Claxton, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]; Light, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>]). It can thus prove difficult for pre-service and beginning teachers to implement. Physical Education teacher education programmes that emphasise TGfU can justifiably be seen as working at the forefront of educational change but there is an inherent problem involved with attempting to initiate change through pre-service teachers and graduates. As research suggests, the weight of responsibility experienced by beginning teachers when combined with resistance to change in schools typically leads them to abandon innovative practice and adopt the 'path of least resistance' (Evans & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref6">15</reflink>]; Bullough & Baughman, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]; Macdonald & Glover, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref8">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Concerns with the ability of teacher education programmes to successfully initiate change have generated a significant amount of research in this area. The bulk of such studies on early career teachers' development of innovative practice in schools has focused on the ways in which structures such as school systems and cultures restrain early career teachers' implementation of innovation (Bullough & Baughman, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref10">6</reflink>]). This paper instead draws on teachers' stories to focus on the personal and social nature of teacher development and on teacher agency. These teacher stories provide a means of studying teacher change and development, and their power to provide understanding of pedagogy and the development of teacher knowledge is now widely recognised within the general education literature (Jalongo & Isenberg, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref11">20</reflink>]; Bullough & Baughman, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>]). Such personal accounts of teacher development offer the chance to invite engagement and reflection and can identify patterns of thought characteristic of teachers' work within particular contexts (Bullough & Baughman, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>]). For many teachers, such as those in this study, their desire to become a teacher and the pedagogy they adopt are embedded in the story of their life.</p> <p>The study reported on in this paper takes a cross-sectional 'snapshot' of teacher development in the two distinctly different cultural and institutional settings of an Australian and a US teacher education programme. It examines teacher development of TGfU across a sequence covering the final two years of a teacher education programme in which TGfU is emphasised, and the first two years of teaching after graduating from the same programmes. It explores the interrelated nature of the participants' own experiences of PE and sport prior to entering the teacher education programme, their prior dispositions toward PE teaching, their reasons for adopting TGfU and their experiences of TGfU teaching. Examining pre-service and early career teachers' experiences of learning to teach TGfU in two distinctly different cultural and institutional settings provides a means through which we explore the effect that different cultural and institutional settings might have on TGfU teacher development. The situated nature of learning in and through games using a TGfU approach has received attention in the physical education literature. There has, however, been less attention paid to TGfU teacher development focused on culture and the situated nature of learning for pre-service teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0019216167-4">Participant selection</hd> <p>The pre-service teachers at both sites were selected from third- and fouth-year students who had volunteered to take part in the study. The Australian pre-service teachers were chosen from those taking the HPE (Health & Physical Education) option in which TGfU is emphasised, and the pre-service teachers in the USA were chosen from members of the Teaching for Understanding Majors' Club in the Health Physical Education and Recreation (HPER) department. The early career teachers were selected from those graduating students who had been enrolled in the third- and fourth-year HPE option in Australia or had been members of the TFU (Teaching for Understanding) club in the USA and had kept in contact with their former professors through their attempts to develop their TGfU teaching. The balance between male and female participants for both sites reflects the gender balance in their respective teacher education courses.</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-5">The participants</hd> <p>All USA participants graduated from, or were studying in, a Physical Education Major and specialising in a K-12 teacher certification option. Their course comprised a general education course, core physical education classes, teacher certification classes and a range of electives. Students who attend Majors' Clubs are usually more motivated and committed to teaching and professional development (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]). All participants in the Australian study graduated from, or were enrolled in, a general primary teacher education programme. Within the first two years of the programme HPE is compulsory but is offered as an option in the third and fourth years.</p> <p>The names of participants and their institutions used in this paper are pseudonyms used to protect their anonymity and their positions and experience are outlined in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. The participants</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>US teachers</td><td>Experience</td><td>Australian teachers</td><td>Experience</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>3rd-year student</td><td>Pat</td><td char=".">Pre-service</td><td>Karen</td><td char=".">Pre-service</td></tr><tr><td>4th-year student</td><td>Halle</td><td char=".">Pre-service</td><td>David</td><td char=".">Pre-service</td></tr><tr><td>1st-year teacher</td><td>Bob</td><td char=".">PE specialist in State High School (9–12)</td><td>Kathy</td><td char=".">PE specialist in K–6 independent girls' school</td></tr><tr><td>2nd-year teacher</td><td>Phillip</td><td char=".">PE specialist in State Elementary School(k–2)</td><td>Monica</td><td char=".">PE specialist in K–6 independent girls' school</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0019216167-6">The sites</hd> <p>Participants in the USA study all graduated from, or were enrolled in, a four-year Physical Education major and were specialising in a K-12 teacher education option. The teacher certification option classes are based on behaviourist learning theory and incorporate technique-based activity classes. While second-year students are exposed to both behaviourist and constructivist learning theory at an introductory level, the only other time that students have any exposure to constructivist learning theory is in the TFU Majors' Club. The teaching experience programme offers little opportunity for 'hands-on' teaching in the first two years, with most practice teaching taking place in the fourth year. All participants in the USA study made particular reference to contradictory messages they received from staff other than their TFU Majors' Club advisor and the ways in which what they learnt in the club was so often contradicted by other HPER faculty.</p> <p>Participants in the Australian study were enrolled in, or had graduated from, a four-year general primary school education programme within which Health and Physical Education (HPE) was one of eight KLA (Key Learning Areas) that constitute the state syllabus. HPE is a compulsory subject for during the first two years of the course, during which students are exposed to conceptual approaches to athletics teaching and the TGfU approach to games teaching in the second year over a six-week period. In the third year HPE is offered as a year-long option in which TGfU forms the core of the course. Students taking the fourth-year HPE option do a little more with TGfU and are exposed to other student-centred approaches such as Sport Education (Siedentop, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref15">36</reflink>]). Generic teaching and learning subjects and all KLA method subjects are all underpinned by a student-centred, inquiry-based approach. Pre-service teachers in the Australian University have three, three-week teaching experiences each year from the first year, with their initial teaching experience being primarily observation. Fourth-year students finish with a term-long internship in which they spend two days a week teaching at the same school. Students have regular classroom teaching experience but little, and sometimes no, physical education teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-7">Data generation and analysis</hd> <p>Data at both sites were generated through a series of extended, in-depth interviews structured around sets of focus questions aimed at generating reflection and extended responses from the participants. The participants were encouraged to tell us their personal stories of teaching. Interviews were conducted at the Australian university over an eight-month period from April to November 2003 by the first author, who was also the third-year HPE subject coordinator. Interviews at the USA university were conducted over a seven-month period from September 2003 to March 2004 by the second author, who was their TFU Majors' Club advisor. The pre-service teachers in both studies volunteered to take part in the study on the understanding that the research would in no way affect their assessment at university. The comfortable relations between participants and the researchers provided the trustful relationships that are necessary to generate authentic and productive data (Hammersley & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]). Given the researcher's inescapable engagement in the social setting of research we suggest that questions of objectivity or division into participant and non-participant are artificial. As Bogden and Biklen [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>] suggest, consideration of the researcher's depth of entry is more relevant. All participants enjoyed close relationships with the researchers, who were also their respective professors. We adopted a reflexive approach to the research (Bourdieu & Wacquant, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]) to consider these relationships in our analysis. Interviews with the early career teachers were all conducted in their schools, and interviews with the pre-service teachers were conducted on campus. The data were examined and compared to identify themes and emergent ideas over the period of the study. These were explored further in subsequent interviews. This study thus sought to situate both the participants' decisions to adopt a TGfU approach and their attempts to implement it within the context of their life histories and their social interactions. Interviews were, therefore, designed to explore the participants' reasons for becoming teachers, their own experiences of sport and physical education and how this shaped their decision to adopt a TGfU approach and their experiences of its implementation.</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-8">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0019216167-9">Personal experiences of sport and physical education</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0019216167-10">The USA site</hd> <p>All participants in the USA study spoke about the benefits that they felt sport and physical education had afforded them. More often than not, they described the value of participating in sport in affective and social terms. These included growth in confidence, positive responses to personal challenges, the idea of 'character building' experiences, discipline that would transfer to academic studies, improved personal relationships and social interactions, as well as health-related physical benefits. They suggested that playing sport had positively affected their social life and their academic achievement, both at school and at university. At high school Bob said that he had initially struggled in class but suggested that the confidence he gained through playing sport helped him develop the confidence needed to succeed academically. While the others reported mixed memories of PE and Sport at school, Pat said that she had uniformly very positive experiences of PE and Sport at school and this motivated her to reproduce such experiences for her own students: 'I would say all of my experiences in PE and Sport have contributed to me wanting to help kids have the same experiences that I have had'.</p> <p>Physical education and Sport had formed a central part of Halle's life. She is a two-sport varsity athlete at the college level and describes sport and physical activity as 'her whole life'. Halle's encouraging parents exposed her to a variety of sports, including skiing at the age of two, yet despite her long and positive association with sport, Halle said that she 'hated gym' at high school due to the boredom of drill and the way it excluded the less able in her classes: 'it was so boring it made me mad'. As with Kathy in the Australian study, Halle is athletically talented yet is concerned with the way in which traditional teaching tends to exclude the less able and less confident. Like Kathy, she also wants to teach in a way that will address this concern and feels that TGfU can provide her with a means of doing so. Phillip was not particularly talented in sport at school but enjoyed being part of the team. The stress on skill performance at high school led him to describe his experiences in physical education as a 'bad experience because I wasn't good at anything, I just played to be with my friends'.</p> <p>As much as they expressed a firm belief in the propensity of Sport and Physical Education to engender positive affective, social and physical learning, Bob, Halle and Phillip also described numerous negative experiences where they had been marginalised or had their self-esteem tested.</p> <p>All four participants, including Pat, were also critical of the teaching and coaching approaches to which they had been exposed. They were uniformly committed to teaching in a better way.</p> <p>They also expressed concern with coaching. In particular they were concerned with an over-emphasis on winning in sport at the expense of providing positive experiences of sport for as many children as possible, not just the talented. They indicated that, although getting children to play better was important, they valued coaching that was more inclusive and fair:</p> <p>One coach, he was one of those guys, no matter how well we did, it was always bad. It just really turned me off. It shouldn't be as competitive as it is [in high school]. It definitely shouldn't be a do or die, life or death. I mean you are still there to have fun. (Phillip, 12 September 2003, USA)</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-11">The Australian site</hd> <p>Like their USA counterparts, the Australian participants all valued the lessons that they felt sport could teach young people and children and had experienced differing degrees of success in competitive sport. Like Pat, Kathy and Karen had very rewarding experiences of sport at school and in local clubs and had been well supported by their parents. While Monica had been good at individual events such as running, she had not enjoyed team sports and had not enjoyed physical education at school. David describes himself as a 'sports nut' who is interested in all sport but was, at best only 'half decent' at sport while at school. He liked participating but not competing. Like Phillip in the USA study, he enjoyed friendships built through sport and the social interaction that it stimulated.</p> <p>Despite their belief in the benefits of playing sport, the Australian participants were all critical of the ways in which physical education had been taught when they were at school and were committed to doing better as teachers. For participants in both studies, this critical reflection seemed to have been stimulated largely by their engagement in TGfU and the consequent exposure to a way of thinking about coaching and teaching that was very different to what they had previously experienced. The ways in which we provided sympathetic ears for such critical reflection is also likely to have encouraged them. Although Kathy and Karen had been good at PE and Sport, Kathy had been very concerned with the ways in which the emphasis on skill performance and competition in PE had alienated her friends who were not 'sporty'. She felt frustrated because this alienation from sport deprived them of the benefits that she felt sport could provide and was determined to teach in a way that did not exclude anyone. Karen was a successful gymnast and had enjoyed PE at school but also felt that the way it had been taught excluded too many students and deprived them of benefits such as fitness, good health and 'feeling good about yourself' that she felt sport could provide.</p> <p>Monica said that in general, 'I was just turned off by the way I was taught (PE) at school'. She did not like the ways in which aggressive males dominated and excluded the girls and the boredom of standing in line doing 'skill drills' as has been noted elsewhere (see, for example, Ennis, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref19">14</reflink>]). David enjoyed physical activity and the friendships and group interaction it fostered but did not enjoy serious competition. For all of the Australian participants, social interaction was a highly valued aspect of their participation in sport and what they saw as being one of the strengths of PE as a subject:</p> <p>I like the social aspect of PE, getting together. Everything is all about being together. I think you need to focus on the social and get the best out of them. (Karen, 13 May 2003, Australia)</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-12">The personal and professional appeal of TGfU</hd> <p>The USA participants had made a considered decision to study TGfU by joining the TFU Majors' Club and each of them spoke with conviction and passion about its merits. Their interviews indicated that they felt they had discovered something professionally and personally meaningful for them and were prepared to advocate for it strongly. Indeed, within a faculty where teaching staff often did not agree with the TGfU approach, they needed a degree of belief and commitment to sustain their development of TGfU teaching. As a beginning teacher Bob felt that TGfU was common sense. For him there really was no other way to teach, 'It just seems so blatantly obvious that that's what you should be doing'. More specifically, Halle liked the student-centred nature of TGfU and the ways in which it empowered the learner:</p> <p>TGfU allows students to think for themselves, to figure it out for themselves. It's real learning that involves making choices and decisions and making better ones with experience. (Halle, 12 September 2003, USA)</p> <p>One of the strongest themes running through the interviews conducted at both sites in terms of TGfU's appeal for pre-service and early-career teachers is their view of its capacity to provide more equitable experiences of sport for all involved than traditional approaches:</p> <p>The TGfU approach gives children a higher level of responsibility and thus creates a higher level of enthusiasm. The TGfU approach gives everyone the opportunity to be involved equally. Most PE classes are dominated by the more athletic student, but using the TGfU approach gives those children that are intimidated a chance to affect the game or activity by using their intellect. Giving these children a sense of ownership helps build their confidence and the amount of effort displayed in class. (Bob, 21 September 2003, USA)</p> <p>Of her first exposure to TGfU at the Australian university Karen said, 'It was fun, it was different actually thinking about how you're doing things'. David and Monica both said that, while they liked the constructivist approaches taken in maths, science and literacy, they had never thought that such approaches could be used in PE. Indeed, prior to working with TGfU they had seen PE as being outside the rest of the general primary school curriculum. Reflecting upon her first exposure to TGfU at university, Monica said that the different role of the teacher in TGfU and the way it took the teacher 'off centre-stage' really surprised her:</p> <p>We were always taught this inquiry approach and to question and discovery learning in every other subject and then all of a sudden I came to PE and I discovered this fantastic new approach and I thought 'Wow.' I'd never heard of TGfU, I'd never seen that sort of approach. PE teaching for me was always standing out the front, telling people what to do. (Monica, 1 May 2003, Australia)</p> <p>Monica and Kathy were both excited by their first exposure to TGfU in a practical class at university. They both immediately recognised TGfU as a means through which they could realise the teaching that they had aspired to and address their concerns with physical education teaching. Kathy was excited about her introduction to TGfU. Her 'anti-sport' friends also enjoyed the session and, knowing Kathy's love of sport and the way in which she wanted to teach, rushed to her after the lesson:</p> <p>When we finished the first tute so many of my friends obviously knew I wanted to be a PE teacher and they were like 'How good was that? That makes sense' and, 'I'm so anti PE but I really enjoyed that lesson.' It was like, if these adults think like this then it can only benefit the kids and definitely people wanted to know how I thought about it. (Kathy, 7 May 2003, Australia)</p> <p>Monica and Kathy said that their exposure to TGfU had provided them with a way of realising their ideals of providing inclusive and enjoyable physical education for children. Monica talked of the excitement she had felt being part of change in PE while at university and was almost evangelistic in her enthusiasm for TGfU, 'I want to get out there. I want to see this thing [TGfU] happening in schools. You need someone to get out there and do it. It's got to start somewhere' (Monica, 7 May 2003). Monica's enthusiasm has seen her enjoy outstanding success in the development of her own teaching and the promotion of TGfU across her school and the cluster of eight schools it is part of, through taking a leadership role in the development of TGfU.</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-13">TGfU teaching</hd> <p>Despite resistance from some physical education teachers for the pre-service teachers, and some teaching staff at the USA university, participants in both studies were motivated by the positive responses to TGfU from children. They spoke of the ways in which TGfU stimulates student interaction and helps the formation of strong relationships between students and between students and their teacher. They also felt that through its emphasis on the intellectual dimensions of games (Howarth, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>]; Light, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]), TGfU could help address their concerns with the ways in which physical education typically suffers low status within schools due to its perception as a 'non-academic' subject.</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-14">Pre-service teachers</hd> <p>The two pre-service teachers, Pat and Halle, had both experienced teaching a constructivist approach in after-school programmes (educational gymnastics in the spring semesters and inventing games in the fall/autumn semesters). When it came to teaching in practicum experiences, however, both participants maintained that whether or not they would try out the TGfU approach would be dependent upon the cooperating teacher's attitude to TGfU. While on most occasions cooperating teachers were receptive to the participants wanting to 'try out' TGfU during teaching practica, they were sceptical of its practical value in schools. Reflecting upon one teaching practicum Phillip said that his cooperating teacher was happy for him to experiment but told him that TGfU would be 'impractical in PE'. Despite these practical problems, Pat and Halle are optimistic about TGfU. They are even stimulated by some of its challenges:</p> <p>I would say the thing that encourages me the most is just that it's different—it's new and it helps me enjoy teaching more because I have to work a little bit harder at making lesson plans so that students really enjoy it and understand what they're learning. (Pat, 26 September 2003, USA)</p> <p>The Australian pre-service teachers' attempts to implement TGfU in schools had been frustrating and much of this was due to the restraints imposed by the structure of practice teaching. The structure of their teaching experience as a series of three-week episodes made the implementation of innovative teaching difficult for the two pre-service teachers. They were provided with opportunities to teach sports such as soccer and cricket using TGfU within local schools as part of their physical education course but these were typically single two-hour 'clinics' limited in the time they offered for the development of their teaching. Despite resistance from physical education specialist teachers, they were motivated by the positive responses from children in terms of the way in which it stimulated student interaction, the relationships between students and the relationship it encouraged between teacher and students. They saw it as a means through which they could transfer what they saw as 'good teaching practice' from the classroom to physical education lessons. They also saw TGfU as offering a means through which physical education could be made more intellectual and brought into 'the thinking curriculum' which was a strong theme in their teacher education programme. Pre-service teachers at both sites recognised the structural restraints placed on them during teaching practica but, encouraged by the responses of the children they taught, intended to persevere with TGfU.</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-15">Early-career teachers</hd> <p>Phillip described himself as being 'lucky' on his practicum at a middle school because he was able to slip straight into volleyball and try out some ideas he had learned from the TFU club. Although both Phillip and Bob are the only physical educators in their respective schools they said that some other teachers, and even a few parents, had shown interest in TGfU. They both received support for their implementation of TGfU from their administrators and in particular from their respective principals. Light and Fawns [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref22">29</reflink>] argue that PE is typically located outside the school academic curriculum, where it is seen as a non-intellectual subject and placed at the lower end of a knowledge hierarchy. This appeared to be a particular problem for the USA pre-service teachers. Phillip was disappointed with what he saw as the low expectations of learning in PE that other staff had: 'So long as there is control and the children seem happy no one really minds (what happens in PE)'. Phillip and Bob said that the emphasis that TGfU placed on thinking could help raise the status of PE in their schools. Bob felt that other teachers in his school see PE as something separate from the rest of the school curriculum and more a distraction than a subject in which meaningful learning takes place. He did, however, have a crucial ally in his supervising teacher, who was impressed with TGfU:</p> <p>My supervisor is the assistant principal and she loves the idea of TGfU. She loves the change from traditionalism to constructivism. She received a crash course in it when I explained my Inventing Games unit to her and she then observed the rule-making process of that unit. I really believe that my explanation of the approach and especially the inventing games unit was a huge reason I received the job. They really were impressed with it during my interview. (Bob 21 September 2003, USA)</p> <p>Ironically, while the USA early career teachers had encountered considerable resistance from HPER staff in their teacher education programme outside their TFU Majors' Club, they found more support in their schools. Importantly some other teachers in their schools were also interested in TGfU and supportive of Bob and Phillip's efforts to develop it as beginning teachers. Phillip recounted how he had been encouraged by a colleague's comments on one of her student's responses to his teaching: 'A teacher came up to me and told me something that she overheard in class. "A 4th grade girl said that she used to really hate PE class, but now she really loves it"' (Phillip, 14 January 2004, USA). Teaching kindergarten to Grade Two limits Phillip's ability to explore the TGfU approach fully but he uses its underpinning principles to teach. In particular he uses movement education as the core of his programme. Despite a degree of support in their schools, Bob and Phillip felt a little isolated and would have like more active collegial support for their TGfU teaching.</p> <p>The USA participants described the problems they encountered in TGfU teaching as 'challenges' rather than 'difficulties'. They all felt that the TGfU model required a lot of preparation and a lot of adaptability. Halle felt that a teacher using this approach needed to be knowledgeable about offensive and defensive strategies and also about connecting drills. Recognising the need for teacher flexibility and creativity, she felt that teachers who needed to stick with a strict plan would find TGfU most difficult. Pat said she saw why pre-service teachers might prefer a technique-based approach due to its instrumental approach, but felt that it lacked excitement for her and the students: 'It was easier for me to plan using a skills based approach, but now I think "wow this is really boring" ... it takes 2 or 3 lessons to get to the actual game' (Halle, 12 September 2003, USA).</p> <p>At the Australian site, Monica enjoyed an extremely successful start to her career in Australia. In her second year of full-time teaching Monica had been promoted to Coordinator of Sport and Physical Education and the school has adopted TGfU for its entire PE programme from Prep (the first year of school in the state of Victoria) to Year Six. She had also been asked to teach in the junior years of the senior school (Grades Seven and Eight), where she was introducing a TGfU approach into the secondary school. In her first year of teaching Kathy had taken it upon herself to not only develop her own teaching but also to have it adopted in the school. Other staff were interested in TGfU, she had good support from her mentor and the principal and had organised a professional development seminar at the school on TGfU. Despite her feeling that she had not been as successful as she had hoped to be, she had made a significant impact upon the school. This is evident in her appointment for 2004 to a leadership position in developing TGfU across the entire junior school.</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-16">Children's responses</hd> <p>Participants in both studies found that children often had some initial reservations about 'doing something different' and were unused to being empowered by the use of questioning in TGfU. The students' positive reaction to TGfU, however, was the main reason for them continuing to use it. The USA participants described the students as always being active, thinking, working together to figure out the problems presented and enjoying the process. Reflecting the ways in which, as Light and Fawns [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>] suggest, TGfU pedagogy is consistent with Dewey's [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>] philosophy of education, Halle identified the way in which students learn through the social interaction stimulated by the environment that the teacher structures in TGfU more than through what the teacher 'teaches' directly to the students. She describes the teacher's role as being 'more of a guide instead of a teacher, and so the students are figuring it out themselves and I think that's the best way for them to learn, to remember it' (Halle, 12 September 2003, USA). As full-time teachers, Kathy and Monica in Australia and Bob and Phillip in the USA, had the opportunity to experience this more than the pre-service teachers. The range of learning and enjoyment that they felt seemed to emerge from the student interaction that TGfU stimulated encouraged them all:</p> <p>Student interaction is definitely important. As soon as I start explaining [a new game] their eyes gleam and they're already looking at each other and they're trying to suss out how we go about playing this game. I start teaching them a game and they're already thinking about how they can modify the game. There's a lot more discussion and problem solving together. (Monica, 26 June 2003, Australia)</p> <p>Pat described in detail how elevated student interaction, motivation and the learning that emerges from it in TGfU gave her satisfaction as a teacher:</p> <p>It [TGfU] empowers the students to be creative and work together and it's always great to see the student running up and down the court trying to figure out the game and all of the sudden they stop and they're like, 'Wait! Wait! This doesn't work! We have to change a rule.' That's what's so great about the TGfU approach ... it helps the students really understand what they're learning and gives them a, 'Why?' (Pat, 3 October 2003, USA)</p> <p>Pat's description of the learning moment here recalls Bruner's (1974) suggestion that constructivist approaches to learning provide for the individual to find novel connections while being able to harness peripheral connections. As Phillip also points out, when TGfU is employed, 'It isn't just a game anymore. They actually have to think, which is an added challenge that seems to be really appreciated'.</p> <hd id="AN0019216167-17">Discussion</hd> <p>While the two case studies reported on in this paper, limit the extent to which we can generalise, the similarities in results between studies conducted in two distinctly different cultural and institutional settings are compelling. Learning to teach involves more than just selecting and acting upon particular pedagogical approaches, it is a more complex matter of enacting sensibilities that are deeply embodied (Davis <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref25">11</reflink>]). Many of the ways in which the teachers in this study are learning to teach using TGfUs arise, we argue, from an embodied and often unarticulated recognition of it as something more than just a good way to teach. There is a personal, affective dimension to their belief in TGfU and the meaning it seems to hold for them. Their stories reveal a personal attachment to TGfU that has been shaped by their own life experiences of sport and physical education and their beliefs about, and dispositions toward, teaching. Certain ways of knowing that are non-textual and embodied are basic to teaching and teacher development (Rorty, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]; Garfinkel, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref27">16</reflink>]). It is these embodied understandings, operating below the level of consciousness that work to create, maintain, reproduce and transform particular modes of social relationships that are central to teaching (Garfinkel, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>]). Through our own experiences of TGfU as researchers, teachers and learners, we suggest that one of the features of TGfU that most distinguishes it from traditional directive teaching is the different set of relationships that it fosters between learners and between learners and the teacher (Light & Fawns, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>]). TGfU challenges traditional hierarchical relationships between teacher and learner(s) and positions the teacher as a co-learner or partner in learning (Davis & Sumara, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref30">10</reflink>]). In TGfU, learners are not passive receivers of knowledge but are actively co-constructing it by making meaning of the learning experience. It is our contention that the particular social relationships and interaction that constitute TGfU teaching make it so appealing for the teachers in this study and give it so much meaning for them.</p> <p>The learning environments that typify schools often fail to provide relevant, real-life situations (Lave & Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]). They are thus limited in their capacity to extend young people's intellectual and social predispositions within a context of relevant 'cultural poverty' in schools where the knowledge students bring to lessons is typically undervalued (Abbott & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>]; Light & Quay, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>]). The TGfU approach to teaching games and sport allows the body to be made active, brought into being and mobilised in the development of social relations, not just among students, but also between the teacher and students. While some recent studies—such as Pope's paper on affect in TGfU in this issue—have highlighted the affective dimensions of learning in TGfU for learners (see also, Holt <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>]; Light, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref35">27</reflink>]; Pope, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref36">33</reflink>]) there has, with the exception of Light and Tan's [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref37">31</reflink>] cross-cultural examination of TGfU teacher development, been scant attention paid to exploring the affective and social dimensions of learning to teach using TGfU pedagogy. There has been no significant attempt to inquire into teachers' understandings of TGfU at an embodied level in the TGfU literature. While Lave and Wenger's [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>] notion of situated learning has been applied to learning in and through TGfU (Kirk & Macdonald, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref39">22</reflink>]; Kirk & McPhail, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>]), there has been little consideration of the deeply situated nature of learning to teach TGfU. There have been a number of studies on Physical Education teacher socialisation but these have tended to take a more structuralist approach that pays less attention to agency and the subjective nature of these processes (see, for example, Dewar, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref41">12</reflink>]; Armour & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>]). Rovegno [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref43">35</reflink>] examines teachers' knowledge development in learning to apply constructivist learning theory to physical education teaching but does not address the notion of embodied understandings and dispositions that teachers bring to teacher education programmes.</p> <p>TGfU encourages more equitable and mutually beneficial social relations and positive social learning (Light & Fawns, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref44">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref45">27</reflink>]). It conceptualises knowledge as a way of discourse through which pedagogical relations between teacher, learners and the game redefine the <emph>status quo</emph> of power relations in schools. In this way, we suggest that TGfU represents not only a preferred way of teaching for the participants in this study, but also a way of living, a way of being, that holds deep personal and cultural meaning. Over the past decade an expanding interest in TGfU has begun to produce a wide range of research approaches and directions that explore diverse aspects of the model. As part of this growing research base we welcome the beginning of more holistic approaches to research on TGfU, as is evident in interest in the affective dimensions of learning in and through TGfU (see, for example, Pope in this issue) and in embodied learning in and through TGfU (see, for example, Light & Fawns, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref46">29</reflink>]). While this is a promising development, more attention still needs to be paid to the social, affective dimensions of learning to teach using TGfU and of understandings that are non-conscious, embodied in teacher preparation programmes that emphasise TGfU.</p> <ref id="AN0019216167-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref32" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abbott, J. and Ryan, T.1999. Constructing knowledge, reconstructing schooling. Educational Leadership, ASCD, 57(3): 66–69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref42" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Armour, K. and Jones, R.1998. Physical education teachers' lives and careers, London: Falmer Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref17" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bogden, R. and Biklen, C.1992. Qualitative research for education, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, J.D.1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology, Cambridge: Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bullough, B. and Baughman, K.1995. Continuity and change in teacher development: first year teacher after five years. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(2): 86–95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bullough, B. and Baughman, K.1996. Narrative reasoning and teacher development: a longitudinal study. Curriculum Inquiry, 26(4): 385–415.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bunker, D. and Thrope, R.1982. A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18: 5–8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, J.1996. Teacher responses to Teaching Games for Understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1): 28–33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, J.2003. Starting a majors' club. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 74(3): 33–37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, B. and Sumara, J.1997. Cognition, complexity and teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1): 105–125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, B., Sumara, D. and Luce-Kapler, R.2000. Engaging minds: learning and teaching in a complex world, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewar, A.1989. "Recruitment in physical education teaching: toward a critical approach". In Socialisation into physical education: learning to teach, Edited by: Templin, T. and Schempp, P.Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J.1936/1986. "How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process". In John Dewey: the later works, 1925–1953, Edited by: Boydson, J.Vol. 8, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennis, C.1999. Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls. Sport, Education and Society, 4(1): 31–50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, J. and Clarke, G.1988. "Changing the face of physical education". In Teachers, teaching and control in physical education & recreation, Edited by: Evans, J. London: Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garfinkel, H.1985. Studies in ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P.1983. Enthnography: principles in practice, London: Tavistock.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holt, N., Strean, W. and Begoechea, E.G.2002. Expanding the Teaching Games for Understanding model: new avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 21(2): 162–177.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howarth, K.2000. Context as a factor in teachers' perceptions of the teaching of thinking skills in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19: 270–286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jalongo, M.R. and Isenberg, J.P.1995. Teachers' stories: from personal narrative to professional insight, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk, D. and Claxton, C.Learning, excellence and gender: Promoting girls' participation in physical education and sport. BAALPE Annual Conferenc. July. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales institute. paper presented at the</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk, D. and Macdonald, D.1998. Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17: 376–387.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk, D. and McPhail, A.2002. Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21: 117–192.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave, J. and Wenger, E.1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, R.2002a. The social nature of games: pre-service primary teachers' first experiences of TGfU. European Physical Education Review, 8(3): 291–310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, R.2002b. Engaging the body in learning: promoting cognition in games through TGfU. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 49(2): 23–26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, R.2003. The joy of learning: Emotion, cognition and learning in games through TGfU. New Zealand Journal of Physical Education, 36(1): 94–108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, R. and Fawns, R.2001. The thinking body: constructivist approaches to games teaching in physical education. Melbourne Studies in Education, 42(2): 69–87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, R. and Fawns, R.2003. Knowing the game: integrating speech and action in games through TGfU. Quest, 55: 161–177.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, R. and Quay, J.2003. Identity, physical capital and the disjunction between young men's experiences of soccer in school and community-based clubs. Melbourne Studies in Education, 44(2): 89–106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, R. and Tan, S.Early career teachers' experiences of implementing TGfU/GCA in Australia and Singapore. Conference Proceedings of the II International Conference for Physical Educators (ICPE2004). pp.6–10. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education. July</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macdonald, D. and Glover, S.1997. Subject matter boundaries and curriculum change in the health and physical education key learning area. Curriculum Perspectives, 17(1): 23–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pope, C.Once more with feeling: affect and TGfU. Second International Conference: Teaching Sport and Education for Understanding. Melbourne, Australia. pp.11–14. paper presented at the, December</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rorty, P.1980. Philosophy and the mirror of knowledge, Oxford: Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rovegno, I.1998. The development of in-service teachers' knowledge of a constructivist approach to physical education: teaching beyond activities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(2): 147–162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siedentop, D.1994. Sport education: quality PE through positive sport experiences, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Richard Light and Joy Butler</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref44"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ819839
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Personal Journey: TGfU Teacher Development in Australia and the USA
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Light%2C+Richard%22">Light, Richard</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Joy%22">Butler, Joy</searchLink>
– 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>. Nov 2005 10(3):241-254.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; 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: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><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+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Differences%22">Cultural Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Teacher+Attitudes%22">Student Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Games%22">Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%22">United States</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17408980500340778
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1740-8989
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper examines teacher development of TGfU in teacher education programmes in Australia and the USA by taking a cross-sectional snapshot across a sequence covering the final two years of a teacher education programme in which TGfU is emphasised, and the first two years of teaching after graduating from the same programmes. It explores the interrelated nature of the pre-service teachers' prior dispositions toward PE teaching, their reasons for adopting TGfU and their experiences of TGfU teaching. Conducting this research in two distinctly different cultural and insitutional settings provides a means through which we also explore the situated nature of teacher education and the effect that different cultural and institutional settings might have on TGfU teacher development. (Contains 1 table.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 35
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2008
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ819839
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ819839
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17408980500340778
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 241
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Personal Journey: TGfU Teacher Development in Australia and the USA
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Light, Richard
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Butler, Joy
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2005
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1740-8989
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 10
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
              Type: main
ResultId 1