oru.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Touching the didactic contract: a student perspective on intergenerational touch in PE
Örebro University, School of Health Sciences.
School of Health and Education, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden.
Örebro University, School of Health Sciences. (SMED, RISPA)
2017 (English)In: Sport, Education and Society, ISSN 1357-3322, E-ISSN 1470-1243Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

A growing anxiety around intergenerational touch in educational settings has both emerged and increased in recent years. Previous research reveals that Physical Education (PE) teachers have become more cautious in their approaches to students and they avoid physical contact or other behaviour that could be regarded as suspicious (Fletcher, 2013; Öhman, 2016; Piper, Garratt, & Taylor, 2013). Some also feel anxious about how physical contact might be perceived by the students. The purpose of this article is to investigate physical contact between teachers and students in PE from a student perspective. This is understood through the didactic contract. For this purpose, focus group interviews using photo elicitation have been conducted with upper secondary school students in Sweden. One of the major findings is that intergenerational touch is purpose bound, that is, physical contact is considered relevant if the teacher has a good intention with using physical contact. The main agreements regarding physical contact as purpose bound are the practical learning and emotional aspects, such as learning new techniques, preventing injury, closeness and encouragement. The didactic contract is in these aspects stable and obvious. The main disagreements are when teachers interfere when the students want to feel capable or when teachers interfere when physical contact is not required in the activity. In these aspects the didactic contract is easily breached. It is also evident that personal preference has an impact on how physical contact is perceived. In conclusion, we can say that physical contact in PE is not a question of appropriate or inappropriate touch in general, but rather an agreement between the people involved about what is expected. Consequently, we should not ban intergenerational touch, but rather focus on teachers’ abilities to deal professionally with the didactic contract regarding physical contact.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2017.
Keywords [en]
Intergenerational touch, physical education, student perspective, didactic contract, physical contact
National Category
Social Sciences Pedagogy Sport and Fitness Sciences
Research subject
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-62117DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2017.1346600Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85021831746OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-62117DiVA, id: diva2:1154489
Projects
“Don’t touch! – Pedagogical consequences of the ‘forbidden’ body in Physical Education”Available from: 2017-11-02 Created: 2017-11-02 Last updated: 2017-11-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Caldeborg, AnnicaÖhman, Marie

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Caldeborg, AnnicaÖhman, Marie
By organisation
School of Health Sciences
In the same journal
Sport, Education and Society
Social SciencesPedagogySport and Fitness Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 68 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf