To Örebro University

Background: Student learning is not just a natural development; rather, it is an activation grounded in the student's actions and volition. This view resonates particularly well with understandings of learning as embodied and practical. Meanwhile, learning can take different routes and is notoriously difficult to capture from a research perspective. In this paper, a pragmatist, action-oriented perspective on student learning is used.

Purpose and research questions: This study aims to explore students' learning of movements when they practise and use DigiTech. The paper focuses on meaning-making in transactions to understand student learning (Dewey 1963). The following research questions guide the investigation: (1) How do students create meaning when they are practising and using DigiTech? (2) What are the consequences for student learning based on the meaning-making transactions when students are practising and using DigiTech?

Methods: The context is Swedish secondary PE, where four teachers enacted the practising model in five classes over 10-17 lessons. A total of 101 students participated, with 69 lessons recorded on video used as data, along with 125 student self-recorded videos. John Dewey's concepts of transaction and meaning-making were used as a theoretical framework. An Iterative-thematic Inquiry was used for data analysis.

Findings: The findings are structured around three contradictory consequences for student learning: (1) Productive distraction, (2) Inspiration (dis)engagement, and (3) Visual high-definition blind spots. Productive distraction involves some students using DigiTech productively while practising. An example is using video recordings as a guide for planning, but there are simultaneously examples of DigiTech distracting from practising. Inspiration (dis)engagement involves YouTube clips that motivate students to practise in inspiring ways, but when some students realise the distance left to their goal, they become disengaged. Visual high-definition blind spots include students not being able to discern parts of their movement, even though they use slow-motion recordings of their own efforts in practising.ConclusionsThe findings advocate a cautious approach to DigiTech use and to avoid viewing DigiTech as a shortcut to student learning. The consequences for student learning when practising and DigiTech are included are complex and not all good or all bad. This ambiguity warrants further exploration to provide more tailored recommendations.

Purpose: The specific aim of the study is to investigate how teachers enact the student-centered practising model in physical education.

Method: Four teachers and five classes participated and enacted the practising model, 10-17 lessons each. Video recordings of 69 physical education lessons and 125 self-recorded videos were used as data. We employed an abductive analysis, which involved identifying acts of teaching in the material and creating a creative nonfiction narrative.

Results: The findings illustrate nine acts of teaching, all enacted in varied ways, in which teaching is both student-centered and teacher-centered.

Discussion/ Conclusion: Using Biesta, we problematize our findings, seeing teaching as potentially lacking direction. However, teaching is often purposefully adapted. Our findings can serve as tools for considering how to teach physical education in a more varied manner.

The overall interest of this thesis is to contribute to knowledge about the educational value of pedagogical models in physical education (PE) from a didaktik perspective. The exploration comprises four papers, divided into two studies. The first study is a scoping review investigating various models and how teachers are positioned within this body of literature. The second study involves a pedagogical intervention where four teachers across five classes and 101 students enacted the practising model. This intervention integrates an Englishspeaking curriculum tradition (pedagogical models) with a Scandinavian/German didaktik tradition (Swedish PE). Practising as a phenomenon is also discussed from various perspectives, including a general didaktik perspective. A shared theme across all papers is scepticism towards considering models as a set of practices that can only be employed in a specific way. In this light, the didaktik perspective shows that models influence teaching identities in ways that may restrict pedagogical flexibility. Consequently, teachers must have autonomy over educational aspects such as content, teaching practices, and learning processes. However, the degree of freedom teachers should have becomes a core aspect of debate when traditions of curriculum and didaktik meet. Still, when viewing the potential of pedagogical models, these might be crucial to use if teachers are to move away from the dominant sport-based multi-activity approach, in which learning is not always foregrounded. Finally, several potential educational values are associated with enacting pedagogical models in PE; for example, enabling new pedagogical practices that emphasise learning by providing time and structured efforts. These pedagogical models also offer opportunities for Bildung for both students and teachers.

Various attempts have been made to emphasise the educational purpose of physical education (PE). Ennis (2011) has noted that understandings of content shift depending on curriculum. The aim of the paper is to explore what the enacted content becomes when the Practising Model is implemented in PE. Four PE teachers, in two Swedish secondary schools, enacted the Practising Model with five classes for 10–17 lessons. Qualitative data were generated in the form of video recordings of lessons, interviews with students and teachers, and student-produced material. The findings are presented as three main content areas: (a) general-subject content, typically teacher-initiated and involving planning and evaluation; (b) subject-specific content, largely student-initiated and encompassing the adoption, appreciation, exploration, understanding, and grasping of movement qualities; and (c) persona-developing content, focusing on character development through persisting and daring. A discussion of the findings using Categorical Bildung is presented, illustrating the added value the enacted content may bring students in terms of their Bildung. The study highlights the diversity of content engagement and the fluidity between content categories. This diversity also introduces a challenge in the changing relationship between content and teaching. The organising centre for PE and its relation to content are discussed. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research.

Background: Despite increasing support for models in physical education, ambiguity exists concerning the role of teachers in the implementation of models. Very generally, some scholarship seems to suggest that teachers should work as technicians and use models in an instrumental manner. Other scholarship suggests that teachers should use models in ways that are responsive to the contexts in which they are working. This suggestion positions teachers more as craftspeople. Ambiguity is problematic given that teachers have been identified as 'key players' when it comes to the implementation of models. How teachers are positioned in research may have a significant impact on further research and pedagogical practices.

Purpose: This paper has two specific aims. First, we aim to provide a detailed map of how scholars have positioned teachers within physical education models literature. Second, we aim to provide a reinterpretation of our findings using Deweyan theory.

Data production: The scoping review conducted here is based on the framework provided by Arksey and O'Malley [2005. "Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 (1): 19-32]. It involved: (1) the development of a research question which was: in which ways does PE models literature position teachers? (2) the identification of potentially relevant literature through searches of the Web of Science, SPORT Discus and Google Scholar databases. The search terms used were: 'Physical education' AND 'Models-based practice;' OR; 'Pedagogical model;' OR; 'Instructional model;' OR; 'Curriculum model;' OR; 'Model;' OR; 'Teacher,' and literature needed to be published between 2010 and 2021 in English, (3) the selection of literature for the review. This occurred as an iterative process that involved going back and forth between the potentially relevant literature and our research question, (4) charting of the literature, done through inductive thematic analysis. This involved a close inspection of the included texts and the identification of recurring types of positioning in the corpus, and (5) a theoretical reinterpretation of teacher positioning achieved in models scholarship.

Findings: In the physical education scholarship on pedagogical models, teachers are positioned as: (1) resistant to using models; (2) incapable of using models correctly; (3) mechanical reproducers of models; (4) struggling implementers of models; (5) needing models to change their ordinary practices; (6) capable of using models correctly with support; (7) adapters of models, and (8) collaborators with researchers when implementing models.

Discussion: Three issues are raised for discussion. The first relates to the potential disempowerment of teachers achieved by models. The second relates to the relationship between teachers and researchers. The third relates to how models themselves are conceived.

Conclusion: The paper is concluded with two general reflections that follow from the issues raised in the discussion.