This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Quest on 26th Jan 2015, available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2014.984733Physical learning, cognitive learning, social learning, and affective learning are positioned as the legitimate learning outcomes of physical education. It has been argued that these four learning outcomes go toward facilitating students’ engagement with the physically active life (Bailey et al., 2009; Kirk, 2013). With Cooperative Learning positioned as a pedagogical model capable of supporting these four learning outcomes (Dyson & Casey, 2012), the purpose of this review was to explore the empirical research in the use of Cooperative Learning in physical education reported on the achievement of learning in the physical, cognitive, social, and affective domains (or their equivalents). The review found that while learning occurred in all 4 domains, the predominant outcomes were reported in the physical, cognitive, and social domains. Affective learning was reported anecdotally, and it became clear that more work is required in this area. The article concludes by suggesting that research into the outcomes of this and other pedagogical models needs to focus on learning beyond the initial instructional unit and extend over a period of years and not just weeks

Background: The popularised notion of models-based practice (MBP) is one that focuses on the delivery of a model, e.g. Cooperative Learning, Sport Education, Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility, Teaching Games for Understanding. Indeed, while an abundance of research studies have examined the delivery of a single model and some have explored hybrid models, few have sought to meaningfully and purposefully connect different models in a school's curriculum (see Kirk, D. 2013. ‘Educational Value and Models-based Practice in Physical Education.’ Educational Philosophy and Theory 45 (9): 973–986.; Lund, J., and D. Tannehill. 2015. Standards-based Physical Education Curriculum Development. 3rd ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.; Quay, J., and J. Peters. 2008. ‘Skills, Strategies, Sport, and Social Responsibility: Reconnecting Physical Education.’ Journal of Curriculum Studies 40 (5): 601–626.). Significantly none, to date, have empirically investigated broader notions of MBP that make use of a range of different pedagogical models in/through the PE curriculum (Kirk, D. 2013. ‘Educational Value and Models-based Practice in Physical Education.’ Educational Philosophy and Theory 45 (9): 973–986.). Aim: To provide a first empirical insight into using a MBP approach involving several models to teach physical education. At its heart, this paper presents the reader with the realistic and nuanced challenges that arise in striving towards, engaging with, planning for, and enacting a broader, multimodel notion of MBP. Method: While the study itself was broader, we focus primarily on three units (one using Cooperative Learning, one using a Tactical Games/Cooperative Learning hybrid and a third using Sport Education) taught to boys in two different age groups (i.e. 11–12 and 14–15). Two analytical questions inform and guide our enquiry: (1) What do we learn about MBP implementation through this project that would help other physical education practitioners implement a multimodel MBP approach? and (2) What are the key enablers and constraints of early MBP implementation? Data sources included (a) 21 semi-structured interviews with student groups, (b) teacher post-lesson and post-unit reflective analyses, (c) daily teacher reflective diaries, and (d) teacher unit diaries. Data were analysed comparatively considering the two analytical questions. Results: The data analysis conveys strong themes around the areas of teacher and student prior learning, working toward facilitating a change in practice, sufficient time to consider changes in practice, and changing philosophies and practices. The results suggest that the consistent challenge that arose for the teacher towards the goal of adopting a MBP approach was the reduction of his overt involvement as a teacher. While the teacher bought into the philosophy of multimodel MBP he was continually frustrated at not progressing as quickly as he would like in changing his practice to match his philosophy. Conclusions: Despite his best intentions, early attempts to use a multimodel MBP approach were limited by the teacher’s ability to re-conceptualise teaching. The teacher made ‘rookie mistakes’ and tried to transfer his normal classroom practice onto paper handouts while simultaneously inviting students to play a more central role in the classroom. In considering this journey, we can see an indication of the investment needed to implement a MBP approach. Pedagogical change in the form of MBP is a process that needs to be supported by a community of practice intent on improving learning across multiple domains in physical education.

This paper provides a commentary on research on models-based practice within physical education and presents a tutorial that aims to guide the reporting of future research using pedagogical models. Three key elements are presented that could be considered as essential for inclusion in any methods section in order for readers to gain an accurate and complete understanding of the results of studies. These are (a) rich description of the curricular elements of the unit, (b) a detailed validation of model implementation, and (c) a detailed description of the program context that includes the previous experiences of the teacher and students with the model or with models-based practice. Examples of why these are particularly prudent are provided by reference to papers reporting the outcomes of several currently used models (e.g., Sport Education, Teaching Games for Understanding, and Cooperative Learning).

This paper seeks to address two key questions: (1) how could a pedagogically driven approach to the use of DigiTech in health and physical education (HPE) benefit young people’s learning and (2) what steps are required to develop new DigiTech pedagogies? The paper is a response to the largely pessimistic views presented in this journal by Gard, Lupton and Williamson about the role of technology in HPE. In this paper, we argue that while we need to be aware of the risks, we also need to explore the opportunities for digital technologies (DigiTech) to shape HPE in new and positive ways. Specifically, we argue that a focus on pedagogy is largely missing from earlier discussions. In mapping the evidence-base on DigiTech against a three-dimensional categorisation of pedagogy – in the form of learners and learning, teachers and teaching, and knowledge and context [Armour, K. M. (Ed.). (2011). Sport pedagogy: An introduction for coaching and teaching sport. Harlow: Prentice Hall] – we are able to demonstrate the value of a pedagogically informed debate on this topic. The paper concludes by arguing for a ‘profession-wide’ debate to co-construct, trial and evaluate new ways in which we should – and should not – use DigiTech to optimise young people’s learning in HPE.

Background: Many critical curriculum theorists in physical education have advocated a model- or models-based approach to teaching in the subject. This paper explores the literature base around models-based practice (MBP) and asks if this multi-models approach to curriculum planning has the potential to be the great white hope of pedagogical change or, if in fact, it is a white elephant that should be reconsidered or abandoned. Purpose: To review the literature around pedagogical and curricular change in physical education that relates to teachers experience of models-based practice. This review of research on teachers’ perceptions and use of MBP was undertaken in an effort to ascertain the ways in which practitioners’ interpreted this type of change in practice. Data collection: Papers were selected by searching EBSCO databases with the identifiers “Instructional Models”, “Sport Education”, “Teaching Games for Understanding” and their hybrids, “Cooperative learning”, “Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility”, “Personalised System of Instruction” “Peer Teaching Model” and “Inquiry Teaching.” These were chosen as they match the seven innovative models in Metzler's (2010) compendium of instructional models. Further articles were obtained through the citations and references in the original documents. Data analysis: Analysis of the 45 papers followed a systematic process of inductive analysis and constant comparison. The categories, which emerged from the analysis, were based upon the researcher's perceptions of findings and revealed five key findings/themes; (i) change for teachers, (ii) difficultly and time, (iii) diversification in the teacher's role, (iv) evidence of effectiveness and (iv) university/teacher collaboration. Findings: While changes in attitude, positive feelings, efficacy, enthusiasm and vigour were reported by teachers, there was also an acknowledgement that they lacked experience in using MBP which made them feel like they were ‘beginning teachers’ again. For some the conceptual shift was too much and they deliberately returned to their old pedagogies. For others, the change occurred slowly but gradually over the course of the intervention. When professional learning was part of the relationship between the teachers and researchers, then these returns to old practices was not reported. However, it was acknowledged that to engage with MBP required greater effort on behalf of the teacher and that to feel comfortable could take upwards of two years. Change was a difficult undertaking, but when ‘evidence’ of success was used to support the teachers’ learning then they felt more confident in their decisions. The biggest factor in engendering change was the sustained support offered through collaborative partnerships between schools and universities. These supportive relationships allowed the teachers to continually reconsider their practice with the help of experienced colleagues. Conclusions: While MBP has begun to help practitioners to change and develop their pedagogies and curriculum, we are still a way away from understanding the impact of changing to a models-based approach. Research needs to be focused beyond the initial use of the model(s) and one needs to explore the longitudinal impact of adopting a multi-model curriculum. Furthermore, advocates of MBP need to explore the pedagogical and curricular ramifications on teachers of the long-term adoption of a models-based approach.

Background: Physical education has long been caught in a time of ‘innovation without change’. Yet, despite a wealth of pedagogical innovations and policies, which encourage a reconsideration of the ‘traditional pedagogy’, teachers rarely move beyond the honeymoon period of implementation. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore how communities of practice emerge, develop and support innovation that results in pedagogical change. Participants and setting: Six secondary school teachers from a comprehensive secondary school in the UK used the Cooperative Learning model, which was identified as the pedagogical innovation, to teach physical education for a minimum of four units of activity (6–8 lessons each). Teachers were supported by a researcher who acted as a boundary spanner. Research design: To support their understanding and use of Cooperative Learning the teachers' engaged with action research through (a) the analysis of their observations and reflections, (b) dialogue with the boundary spanner and colleagues, and (c) negotiation with their students. Multiple sources of data informed the study including: teacher reflections, a field journal, a Verification Tool, interviews, teacher observations, professional learning meetings, and discussions on social media. Data analysis: Data were analysed through constant comparison, inductive analysis and peer examination. Findings: The boundary spanner was a catalyst for the adoption and sustained use of pedagogical innovation, facilitating teachers' use of action research, driving social energy, and the subsequent emergence of a community of practice. Conclusion: If physical education is to move beyond the traditional pedagogies, then communities of practice are a professional learning strategy that can support pedagogical innovation with change, especially when boundary spanners help to get them started.