Till Örebro universitet

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.

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.