Developing a video to support teacher education in health and physical 
education--an evaluation

Joan Fry & Carol Woodruff
Charles Sturt University


A paper presented at the 25th Annual Conference 
of the 
Australian Association for Research in Education
Hobart, November 30th, 1995.


Address for communication:
School of Teacher Education
Charles Sturt University
Bathurst NSW 2795
jfry@csu.edu.au

Developing a video to support teacher education in health and physical 
education--an evaluation

Background
In this paper we analyse our attempt to construct an alternate 
 discourse in physical education through developing videos (Fry & 
 Woodruff, in production a, in production b) for use in physical 
 education teacher education (PETE)1 curriculum studies subjects.  
 First, the dominant discourses of physical education (PE)2 which 
 conflict with the ideology of new school curriculum documents in health 
 and physical education are identified.  Second, we discuss the need to 
 challenge these, and some of our attempts at so doing in PETE.  Then, 
 we argue for using a video in a pedagogy that, while challenging 
 student-teacher assumptions about their chosen field helps bridge a 
 theory-practice gap perceived by these students.  Next, we evaluate 
 student responses to the video and analyse our attempts at creating an 
 alternative discourse for PE and, finally, we make recommendations for 
 using the video with ongoing evaluation as well as for developing 
 further audiovisual material of a similar nature.
"The force of much recent theorizing about cultural practices ... has 
 been the assertion that they cannot be accounted for in an 
 ideologically innocent way" (Freebody, 1993, p. 68).  Two of the 
 primary socialising agencies within physical activity contexts are 
 school sport and physical education.  The dominant discourses of 
 patriarchy, classism, able-bodiedism, heterosexuality, racism and the 
 technical is well documented in these contexts (Barton, 1993; Bryson, 
 1987; Chepyator-Thomson, 1994, 1995; Dewar, 1987; Flintoff, 1994; 
 Griffin, 1989; Kirk, 1988; Lenskyj, 1986; Scraton, 1990; Sherlock, 
 1987; Shilling, 1993; Sparks, 1994; Thomas, 1993; Tinning, 1990; 
 Tinning & Fitzclarence, 1992; Woods, 1992).  Our own experiences as a 
 participant, teacher and teacher educator, in physical activity 
 substantiate the need identified in literature, such as that referenced 
 above, to challenge the taken-for-granted structures that operate 
 within the profession of physical education.
Research into teacher socialisation suggests that, in spite of 
 professional preparation programs to the contrary, on graduation from 
 university most novice teachers fall back on views of teaching learnt 
 through an apprenticeship-of-observation as secondary school students 
 (Lortie, 1975; Schempp, 1989, 1995).  Indications are that, within PE, 
 the dominant instructional models are teacher oriented with discipline 
 mastery of skills and factual knowledge as main pupil learning outcomes 
 (Bain, 1988).  In order to break the replicative master-apprentice 
 cycle (Lortie, 1975), teacher education programs need to question 

 student teachers' conceptions of, and beliefs about, teaching and 
 engage them in learning activities which help construct alternate ways 
 of thinking and operating (Hellison & Templin, 1991; Pare, 1995; 
 Tinning, 1995; Tinning, Kirk & Evans, 1993).
National curriculum documents (Curriculum Corporation, 1994a, 1994b), 
 similarly new state syllabi (NSW Board of Studies, 1990, 1991), 
 integrate physical education with health.  In so doing, they challenge 
 long established beliefs and practices, particularly within the 
 physical education field (Macdonald & Brooker, 1993).  For example, 
 prior to implementation of the new syllabus in personal development, 
 health and physical education (PDHPE) these three disparate learning 
 areas have had different emphases in New South Wales schools and are 
 bound in traditions of contrasting content and teaching and learning 
 strategies.  The principles of social justice, diversity and supportive 
 environments which underlie the national curriculum statements and 
 profiles (Curriculum Corporation, 1994a, 1994b) are in concert with 
 those of equity, pluralism and the right of students to make their own 
 lifestyle decisions, while respecting those of others, as stated in the 
 new NSW PDHPE syllabus (Board of Studies, 1991).  Therefore considering 
 the existing culture of PE and the ethos of the new curricula, there is 
 a gap between old and desired new practice.  As well as deconstructing 
 students' assumptions about teaching, it is essential that university 
 teacher education programs provide graduates with models of desired 
 practice as well as opportunities to develop the required competencies, 
 in terms of knowledge, skills and values, to handle the demands of 
 implementing recommendations in new curriculum documents (Ministerial 
 Advisory Committee on the Quality of Teaching, 1994). 
Context
We have moved from secondary school physical education to physical 
 education teacher education (PETE) with the conscious purpose of 
 challenging the taken-for-granted of specific social practices elitism, 
 sexism, racism and teacher dominance of the teaching-learning process 
 of PE in schools; that is, our workplace is located in the discourses 
 of physical activity, more often specifically within physical 
 education.  Perhaps naive, we thought that by working with future 
 teachers in PETE there would be more chance of subverting the dominant 
 discourses of physical activity than if we were to continue working 
 within the context of our single schools.
However, over the few years that we have been in secondary PETE, we 
 have become frustrated with our attempts to raise student teachers' 
 awareness of the social construction of physical activity, sport and 
 PE, and how these social constructions can be self-perpetuating unless 
 teachers become self-conscious of their own beliefs and practices 
 (Hellison & Templin, 1991; Pare, 1995; Tinning, 1995; Tinning, Kirk & 
 Evans, 1993).  In our university teaching we have placed emphasis on 
 making values explicit, presenting theory as fiction rather than fact, 
 deconstructing assumptions about what constitutes good PE teaching, 
 particularly abobut it being a set of technical practices, as well as 
 challenging the hegemonies of elitism, sexism and racism within sport 
 and physical activity.  Through student responses in class and 
 reactions expressed in student evaluations of subjects, we have often 
 found that our aims contrast markedly with most students' expressed 
 need to learn how and about what to teach, to acquire content knowledge 
 and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987) -- to become engaged 
 in what Tinning (1988) called "the pedagogy of necessity".  The 
 aggression that sometimes develops is an expression of ideological 
 disputation (Ball, 1990), a conflict of interests between our purpose 
 and that of the students.  On the one hand, student teachers usually 
 want to operate in the technical paradigm of learning about pupil 
 management and activities to fill in lesson time:  they want access to 
 the technical culture of PE teaching in order to discipline and control 
 students (Foucault, 1982) to have them normalised into what constitutes 

 these student teachers' subjective warrants (Lortie, 1975), of what 
 constitutes students in effective classes -- students being "busy, 
 happy, and good" (Placek, 1983).  On the other hand, we try to operate 
 in the practical and critical of challenged assumptions and 
 justification for actions -- understanding and articulating why 
 (Tinning, 1995). 
In this paper we focus on the secondary teacher education program in 
 PDHPE at Charles Sturt University, Bathurst Campus; the Graduate 
 Diploma in Education (Secondary Education) (Grad. Dip. Ed.) has a PDHPE 
 stream, now in its fourth year of operation.  The students are required 
 to undertake a 20 day integrated and a six-week block practice teaching 
 experiences.  So that they can be supervised by university personnel, 
 these students are generally placed in rural western region schools 
 located within a 100 km radius of Bathurst.  Although there is some 
 variation of local conditions, these schools tend to be sited in major 
 rural centres with dominant white Australian student populations.  In 
 other words, the student teachers in this rural university are not 
 exposed to a variety of teaching contexts and as such some "did not 
 [feel] prepared for teaching in Sydney" (Fry, Hood, McLaughlin, & 
 Woodruff, 1994).  This is contrary to meeting their needs in the 
 contemporary climate of limited employment and promotion opportunities 
 where teachers need to be mobile and adaptive if they are to take up 
 positions in different school and social settings.  Moreover, such 
 placements also limit their perceptions of teaching and learning in 
 physical education. 
Need for a Video
After three years of challenging and at times frustrating encounters 
 with students, and varied teaching evaluations, we were looking at ways 
 to get students more immersed in subject content that would motivate 
 them toward using teaching and learning strategies alternate to 
 dominant models -- highly teacher-controlled methods of demonstration, 
 practice, lecture and note taking on which many relied during their 
 teaching practice sessions.  We thought of asking experienced teachers 
 and some PDHPE graduates to teach lessons which could video taped for 
 use in class; such provision of appropriate audiovisual material could 
 provide a stimulus for discussion and reflection on practice for use in 
 the professional preparation subjects (three PDHPE curriculum studies 
 subjects of the Grad. Dip. Ed.).  It could therefore help bridge the 
 gap between the students' purpose and our own.  A national report into 
 the status of teacher education indicated that, in many instances, 
 approaches to teacher education have been too narrow, reportedly many 
 teacher educators have become out of touch with what goes on in schools 
 (Schools Council, 1990).  Findings from our previous research (Fry, 
 Hood, McLaughlin, & Woodruff, 1994) bore out our suspicions that we are 
 sometimes perceived as not having relevant school-based knowledge that 
 has been tested in the field and that some students believe, 
 "University theory does not always apply to the real world".  
 Collecting material for an instructional video which illustrates 
 teaching and learning strategies that are both directed toward pupils' 
 achievement of competencies, as outlined in the national curriculum 
 documents, and grounded in researched theory of what constitutes 
 quality teaching in a variety of school contexts, would serve to inform 
 us in PETE as well as be a stimulus for reflection on experience by our 
 student teachers.  Consultation with others in the field of physical 
 education pedagogy indicated that there was a dearth of relevant 
 audiovisual material to support teaching in pre-service university 
 courses for teachers in this curriculum area.  Moreover, the use of 
 such material if modularised would enable both internal and distance 
 modes of university courses to be kept in closer parallel.  In order to 
 overcome perceived limitations in the rural location of the university, 
 footage needed to be collected in a variety of contexts.  Potential 
 sites for collection of video material included:  isolated, rural and 

 central schools, Koori populations, urban and suburban schools, 
 multiple ethnic and racial schools.
Along with John Merkel (an instructional designer with expertise in 
 video production, from the Open Learning Institute of Charles Sturt 
 University), we were successful in applying for a 1995 Committee for 
 the Advancement of University Teaching (CAUT) grant to produce a video 
 and print support material that aims to provide:
* models of desirable beginning teacher competencies for personal 
development, health and physical education teachers;
*examples of alternative models of teaching, those that move 
beyond teacher-centred to learner-centred teaching strategies;
* exemplar teaching-learning episodes that deal with the scope of 
content detailed in the National Curriculum Statement in Health 
and Physical Education for Australian Schools (Schools 
Corporation, 1994a, 1994b);
* possible solutions to classroom / gymnasium management problems 
that student and novice teachers report as confronting; and
* examples of teaching and learning in health and physical 
education presented in a variety of geographic, socioeconomic and 
cultural contexts.3

Production Process
Early in the year we identified several teachers through reputation 
 whom we thought might be willing to become involved in the project.  We 
 sought to have equal representation of female and male teachers with a 
 range of teaching experience who worked in the variety of schools 
 indicated in our grant application.  Following research guidelines, 
 which vary from region to region, laid down by the New South Wales 
 Department of School Education, we made approaches to a selection of 
 teachers and / or their principals.  The purpose of the project, as 
 outlined previously, was explained;  the type of teaching and learning 
 strategy was specified by us, but the lesson content and choice of 
 class was left open to the teachers who agreed to participate.  Between 
 April and September we were able to get footage in eight schools and 
 although the camera, technician and, at times, presence of the project 
 leaders in the vicinity impacted on the lesson, no conscious attempt 
 was made to orchestrate or stage the lesson.  At times this lack of 
 purposeful intervention adversely affected the quality of the shots and 
 the quantity of footage suitable for use in the video.  However, within 
 the constraints of camera and its operator being present the footage 
 was naturalistic.  In all nearly fourteen hours of lessons and 
 interviews with teachers were collected and which we have selectively 
 edited into two programs.
Analysis
Summary of Video Content
These videos, program one (Putting health and physical education in 
 context:  Strategies in context, Fry & Woodruff, in production a) and 
 program two (... Students in focus Fry & Woodruff, in production b), 
 are respectively 45 minutes and 42 minutes in length.  Program one 
 consists of an introduction, comprising a series of lively scenes with 
 a scripted voice-over in which we, the producers, argue for change in 
 health and PE teachers' practice, as well as for case studies of 
 different schools which could be used to challenge student teachers' 
 assumptions about good practice and introduce them to a variety of 
 teaching and learning strategies that are alternate to the 
 teacher-centred strategies which many would have experienced as pupils 
 in schools.  The narrator highlights the need to discuss what is 
 presented in the video in the light of personal beliefs about teaching 
 in the light of experience is highlighted.  The second program follows 
 a similar pattern, concentrating on student-centred physical education, 
 models of PE teaching and learning where control of the pedagogy is 
 more with students rather than with teachers (Mosston & Ashworth, 

 1986), it comprises an introduction, two parts, one emphasising peer 
 teaching and the other problem solving, which are divided into a number 
 of different school segments, a conclusion and credits.  In the 
 introduction, a series of action scenes from various lessons, covered 
 by lively music, again set the scene for further shots of physical 
 education lessons.  In conjunction with these, is a narration in which 
 we, the producers, argue for curriculum change in physical education, 
 create a need to break the master-apprentice cycle of teacher 
 development, and along with an interview of an experienced teacher 
 provide a rationale for student-centred physical education through peer 
 teaching and problem solving.  In the parts which focus on peer 
 teaching and problem solving, the body of the video, several teachers 
 of varied teaching experience engage their students in examples of 
 these two teaching and learning strategies that they have adapted for 
 their particular school context.  Sometimes these lesson segments are 
 either introduced or followed by a segment of our interview with the 
 teacher or student teacher involved.  The narration returns at various 
 times through the main part of the video and is brought up again for 
 the conclusion, where what has been seen and heard is revisited through 
 voice-overed scenes and an elusion to integrating physical education 
 and health is made.
Making a video is like constructing any social artefact:  it is 
 producing a discourse(s) that is open to multiple interpretations by 
 the viewers who will read the storyline (Davies, 1994) in ways that are 
 dependent on their own experiences.  Consequently, these 
 interpretations might not be seen as alternates to that of the 
 teacher-centred physical education that PE student-teachers would have 
 experienced in their own schooling.  So then, we asked the students in 
 Curriculum Studies 3 (PDHPE) to react to the video and in particular to 
 compare the nature of the teaching and learning strategies illustrated 
 to the nature of their own school health and physical education 
 experiences.
Weedon (1987) argues that poststructuralism provides a theory for not 
 only examining, but also challenging "social organisations and the 
 social meanings and values which guarantee or to contest" hegemonic 
 practices (p. 12) and so was applicable for our evaluation of the 
 discourses we created in the video and in using the video.  A small 
 group of physical education teacher educators, Clarke (1992), Gore, 
 (1990) Kirk (1992), Prain and Hickey (1995), Sparkes (1992), Tinning 
 (1990, 1991, 1995), and Wright (Wright & King, 1990), have used 
 poststructuralist discourse analysis to expose dominant ideologies 
 within our field with the purpose of challenging them in order to 
 displace the status quo.  Tinning (1995) examines in detail his own and 
 colleagues' work in critical pedagogy:  the difficulties and resentment 
 they encountered are similar to our own.  Their struggles have been 
 documented and provided insights into students' reactions to their 
 minds' being colonised by the discourses of critical pedagogy 
 (Fitzclarence, in Tinning, 1995, p. 39).
Student Responses
Having produced programs one and two of Putting health and physical 
 education in context to a preview stage in late October, we trialled 
 them among our out-going internal PDHPE Grad. Dip. Ed. students 
 immediately prior to their completion of their course.  Before the 
 students viewed program one, they responded individually in writing to 
 the question, "What sort of physical education and health experiences 
 did you have at school?"  They then viewed the introduction discussed 
 and responded in twos or threes, and repeated this process with the 
 first case study which was of a young female teacher using a 
 cooperative problem solving strategy with a class at a culturally 
 diverse outer Sydney suburban school.  For the case study they were 
 also asked to compare the lesson with the type of physical education 
 they had had at school and for their reactions.

Our students' recalled experiences in PE coincided with those indicated 
 in the literature discussed earlier.  Endorsement of the ways that 
 schooling is replicative rather than regenerative comes from one of the 
 PETE student's comment that school physical education consisted of 
 doing "sports that the teachers liked, the more traditional sports".  
 "As for P.E. encouragement was plentiful but we were restricted to 
 sports of Basketball, Soccer, football, Netball and volleyball.  These 
 were repeated often through out the years."  However, from school to 
 school these sport emphases varied and a few students reported having 
 had PE that included "elements of gymnastics and dance".  The 
 discipline mastery of emphasis of developing physical skills is 
 exemplified in the words of one student teacher for whom PE at school 
 was "learning the different skills of various team and individual 
 sports".  Furthermore, this focus of skill acquisition was carried 
 through to the extent that "there was a lot of encouragement for people 
 who participated at a higher level of sport outside school" and so some 
 identified the elitist emphasis in the PE of their school days.  The 
 dominance of the ideology of the practical over the theoretical was 
 experienced in "PE classes that were always practical" and "no theory 
 was given except when raining."  In some instances, where theoretical 
 aspects were touched on, these studies were undertaken in ways did not 
 integrate, but dichotomised, theory and practice.  The gendered nature 
 of physical activity was clear from the categorisation of "'masculine' 
 and 'feminine' classified sports" in one student's school experiences.  

In contrast to PE, health had been hardly stressed at all in the 
 students' school days; for example, one student who commented 
 expansively about the nature of PE which "covered all areas of sports, 
 [in] mixed and segregated classes" had gained "not much knowledge about 
 safe sex, drugs, aids education".  Other students also testified to the 
 lack of school background in health education:  "[I had] limited health 
 studies - eg. about 1 lesson on safe sex and 1 lesson on drugs [sic]".  
 Another said, "As for PD [personal development]/Health, I had virtually 
 none except for the occasional 'girls' days on contraception ... this 
 wasn't a big emphasis."  "Health wasn't really incorporated ..."  Even 
 even when touched on it had a limited focus, such as, "when health was 
 covered it was mainly on diet and nutirition".  Moreover, from their 
 school experiences these PETE students had gained no idea about the 
 integral relationship between health and physical education now 
 articulated in curriculum documents.  "Health - very little.  If we did 
 it, it was not in relation to PE at all.  [It was a] separate subject 
 and we had a doctor come in & [sic] talk."
Our focus now turns to program one and the student teachers' responses 
 to the first case study in the video, a cooperative learning strategy 
 introduced through segments of an interview with the teacher.  Again 
 the students' comments reinforced the idea that their own school 
 experiences focussed on sports and were individualistic - ("P.E. at 
 school was more individual ... more in pairs, practicing [sic] skills" 
 and replicative - [we] "never had these experiences, [but] straight 
 skills and they were mandatory".  The cooperative problem solving 
 teaching and learning strategies shown in the video contrasted 
 dramatically with one student teacher's PE lessons.  "None of these 
 [group problems] were familiar in relation to the school that I 
 attended."  Comments such as these open up ways for exploring the 
 social practices that hold PE in the replicative master-apprentice 
 cycle.
In the first case study of Strategies in action, the pupils were set 
 closed and open communication problems by their teacher who then acted 
 as facilitator, rather than a commander of her pupils' engagement in 
 the tasks.  The method of teaching and the type of learning strategy 
 challenged our student-teachers' background of teacher-centred PE 
 lessons.  Groups of students reported that they had had "no lessons in 

 communication, problem solving, [or] goal setting", and that PE of 
 their school experiences had "never really focused on group dynamics".  
 Many commented to the effect that "the only time we did 'group work', 
 when at school ... was when we formed teams to play a game".  And 
 significantly, "There wasn't this relaxed lesson that we saw."  Again, 
 using the videos in seminars over the couse of a full year's study 
 would provide ongoing opportunities to probe the students' meanings and 
 increase their understanding of the historical and social context in 
 which physical education operates.
Production delays limited our trialling Students in focus, yet student 
 reponses also indicate that it will be useful in repositioning our 
 students in relation their school experiences in PE.  "From the point 
 of view as a former school student, I feel cheated and disadvantaged 
 that I was not given all those options."  An initial viewing of this 
 video which focuses on redefining PE as student-centred physical 
 education, through peer teaching and problem solving teaching and 
 learning strategies stimulated the rider to the previous comment about 
 feeling cheated, "also not to have a say in what we were doing".  At 
 first impression the student was "surprised at the number of diverse 
 strategies that ... can actually be used in a P.E. class.  Although we 
 have gone through this in theory, it was excellent to see it visually". 

Although we trialled the videos in somewhat contrived situations, at 
 the end rather than the beginning of the Grad. Dip. Ed. year, we have 
 been encouraged by the students' favourable reactions to their content. 
  To them, the videos were relevant and up to date and showed a wide 
 range of teaching experiences (the case studies of teachers ranged from 
 student teachers to one who had been teaching for twenty years).  They 
 said, "we saw that it was effective--not just what [our italics] you 
 can do".  "It was good to know that this type of strategy actually 
 works."  One group of students thought that it was "an extremely good 
 resource for students as well as [had relevance for] beginning and 
 experienced teachers."  Moreover, "exposure to this strategy gives a 
 real life look at textbook work."  These student comments also indicate 
 that if used over the full year's course the videos along with 
 reflection on students' own teaching experiences and critique of 
 relevant literature on effective student-centred teaching will help 
 break down entrenched values about teaching and increase the perceived 
 relevance of pedagogical knowledge.  It was "good to see that 
 strategies can be adapted in different situations and that they work."  
 The case studies were real and relevant:  "we will come across this".  
 Another student commented, "During the course when we discussed 
 strategies, it was hard to establish what to actually do with the 
 strategy and when to use it.  This video will provide an excellent 
 reference to use in class to actually show the strategies at work and 
 in what situation to use it."
Overall, their initial reactions suggest that using the videos will 
 assist them in seeing the relevance of school context in steering the 
 direction of the curriculum.  They reported "you realise how little the 
 students know" and gaining "knowledge that kids don't no [sic] as much 
 as you think they might."  From their viewing the videos, the 
 student-teachers gleaned insights into the significance of their future 
 pupils' prior experience in the teaching-learning process.  "I think 
 discussion is important, it really gives students a chance to express 
 their ideas."  Moreover, the video presented possibilities of breaking 
 out of the teaching-as-usual mode of working with PE content that 
 focuses on dominant sports; for example, one group commented that it is 
 a "good idea to get the students to develop their own game - to help 
 relieve boredom of doing the same all the time eg basketball, 
 volleyball, soccer...".
Although there are some indications that these video programs could 
 help bridge the theory-practice gap, the students' responses also 

 caution us about how the video may be surface read as entertainment, as 
 being "interesting" or "not boring", and interpreted by the students as 
 a "string of ideas", or a "bag of ideas" approach to teaching.  "I've 
 gained many ideas."  It "gave me some new ideas".  "Good to have ideas 
 of activities ... before we go out teaching - will only help."  Again 
 without reflective activities we could be privileging the practical 
 over the theoretical rather than encouraging a dialogue between the 
 two.  Some students were caught up in what appears to us to be the 
 obvious about linking one lesson to another; for example "(it was an) 
 excellent idea to have an activity to do inside a room and then follow 
 up outside".
Recommendations
We also asked for reactions from a small, but varied range of 
 colleagues working in the field of PETE -- two pedagogy lecturers from 
 other universities, an experienced and a beginning teacher who 
 supervise student teachers on practicum, and the regional PDHPE 
 consultant for the New South Wales Department of School Education.  
 Their responses varied.  Many were similar to those of our students, in 
 that strategies in focus provided a broader range of health and 
 physical education than that which most of our students would have 
 experienced as students.  They provided the teachers with ideas; for 
 example, one teacher said, "Oh, I've never thought of doing it that 
 way".  However, one member of our consultative panel was concerned that 
 the deconstruction of PE as shown in the video should be begun through 
 the scripted narrations.  We were reluctant to pull apart other 
 people's work publically in the video recording as we believed that it 
 would violate the relationships that we have with the teachers who 
 contributed part of their professional lives by allowing us in their 
 "space" to collect video footage.  It is our intention to engage our 
 students in discussion in ways that recognise the need for sensitivity 
 critiquing other people's work.  To that extent, the videos do not 
 stand alone as PETE curriculum.  While indicating that Strategies in 
 action would be very useful for experienced teachers, the consultant 
 thought Students in focus did not go far enough in constructing a 
 concept of student centred physical education.  A useful idea for 
 future videos came in the suggestion that the videos "lacked a student 
 voice".  We have plans for a third program to address integrating 
 health and physical education and a fourth to address many of the 
 organisational and management issues that many student-teachers find 
 confronting.  If approval is given by the appropriate authorities and 
 school pupils, and where necessary their parents/guardians, we plan to 
 interview groups of students following the lessons to hear their 
 reactions to the teaching-learning strategies.
Our intention is to undertake research on our ongoing work with the 
 videos in the Grad. Dip. Ed. course at Charles Sturt University through 
 analysing the discourses of the pedagogy in PDHPE curriculum studies 
 subjects.  Part of this process will be laying open for students' 
 examination a preliminary discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1989, 1992) 
 of our own text in Putting health and physical education in context.  
 Aspects of this analysis are included in Appendix A, A Subverting or 
 Supporting Discourse?.
Endnote
One day while on the road collecting video footage, one of us was 
 extremely annoyed, if not to say affronted, by the video technician who 
 said something to the effect that, "You'll have an easy time now, all 
 you'll have to do is put on a video for the students to watch and sit 
 back."  Although we have produced a discourse here with the videos, it 
 will be in the ways that they position students and they position 
 themselves in relation to it, them, us and others in group seminars 
 that will determine how they will adopt or reject its purpose.  It is 
 the extent to which the students, through reflections on their own 
 practice and deconstructing their subject positions as past students in 

 PE and as PETE student teachers, embody this alternate discourse for 
 physical education and health that will attest to their worth.  "To be 
 effective, they [discourses] require activation through the agency of 
 the individuals whom they constitute and govern, in particular ways, as 
 embodied subjects" (Weedon, 1987, p. 112).

References 

Bain, L. L. (1988). Curriculum for critical reflection in physical 
education. In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), Content of the curriculum (pp. 
133-148). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum 
Development.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Introducing Monsieur Foucault. In S. J. Ball (Ed.), 
Foucault and education:  Disciplines and knowledge (pp. 1-10). London: 
Routledge.
Barton, L. (1993). Disability, empowerment and physical education. In 
J. Evans (Ed.), Equality, education and physical education (pp. 43-54). 
London: Falmer.
Board of Studies. (1990). Personal development, health and physical 
education syllabus:  Years 11-12 2 unit course. North Sydney: Board of 
Studies NSW.
Board of Studies. (1991). Personal development, health and physical 
education syllabus:  Years 7-10. North Sydney: Board of Studies NSW.
Bryson, L. (1983). Sport and the oppression of women. Australian and 
New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 19, 413-426.
Bryson, L. (1987). Sport and the maintenance of masculine hegemony. 
Women's Studies International Forum, 10, 349-360.
Chepyator-Thomson, J. R. (1994). Multicultural education:  Culturally 
responsive teaching. JOPERD, November-December, 31-32.
Chepyator-Thomson, J. R. (1995). Multicultural considerations in 
physical education:  An introduction. Quest, 47, 1-6.
Clarke, G. (1992). Learning the language:  Discourse analysis in 
physical education. In A. C. Sparkes (Ed.), Research in physical 
education and sport:  Exploring alternate visions (pp. 146-166). 
London: Falmer.
Curriculum Corporation. (1994a). A statement on health and physical 
education for Australian schools. Carlton, Vic.: Curriculum 
Corporation.
Curriculum Corporation. (1994b). Health and physical education -- a 
curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton, Vic.: Curriculum 
Corporation.
Dewar, A. M. (1987). The social construction of gender in physical 
education. Women's Studies International Forum, 10, 453-466.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power (pp. 109-139). London: 
Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). The appropriacy of 'appropriateness'. In N. 
Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 33-55). London: 
Longman.
Foucault, M. (1982). Afterword:  The subject and power. In H. L. Drefus 
& P Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics 
(pp. 208-226). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Flintoff, A. (1994). Sexism and homophobia in Physical Education:  The 
challenge for teacher educators. Physical Education Review, 17, 97-105.
Freebody, P. (1993). Social class and reading. In A. Luke & P. Gilbert 
(Eds.), Literacy in contexts:  Australian perspectives and issues (pp. 
68-84). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Fry, J., & Woodruff, C. (Producers). (in production a). Putting health 
and physical education in context:  Strategies in action [videotape]. 
Bathurst, NSW: Open Learning Institute, Charles Sturt University.
Fry, J., & Woodruff, C. (Producers). (in production b). Putting health 
and physical education in context:  Students in focus [videotape]. 
Bathurst, NSW: Open Learning Institute, Charles Sturt University.

Fry, J., Hood, J., McLaughlin, A., & Woodruff, C. (1994). 
School-university partnership:  A case study of professional renewal. A 
paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association 
for Research in Education. Newcastle, November.
Gore, J. M. (1990). Pedagogy as text in physical education teacher 
education:  Beyond the preferred reading. In D. Kirk & R. Tinning 
(Eds.), Physical education, curriculum and culture:  Critical issues in 
the contemporary crisis (pp. 101-138). London: Falmer Press.
Gore, J. M. (1992). Struggles for the pedagogies: Critical and feminist 
discourses as regimes of truth. New York: Routledge.
Griffin, P. (1989). Gender as a socializing agent in physical 
education. In T. J. Templin & P. Schempp (Eds.), Socialization into 
physical education:  Learning to teach (pp. 219-234). Indianapolis: 
Benchmark Press.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum:  Product or praxis. New York: Falmer 
Press.
Hellison, D.R., & Templin, T.J. (1991). A reflective approach to 
teaching in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Kirk, D. (1988). Physical education and curriculum study:  A critical 
introduction. New York: Croom Helm.
Kirk, D. (1992). Physical education, discourse, and ideology:  Bringing 
the hidden curriculum into view. Quest, 44, 35-56.
Lenskyj, H. (1986). Out of bounds:  Women, sport and sexuality. 
Toronto: The Women's Press.
Lenskyj, H. (1994). Girl friendly sport and female values. Women in 
Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 3, 35-46.
Locke, L. F. (1992). Changing secondary school physical education. 
Quest, 44, 361-372.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher:  A sociological study. Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press.
Macdonald, D. & Brooker, R. (1993). Contextualising physical education 
and the national curriculum. The ACHPER National Journal, Spring, 8-10.
Ministerial Advisory Committee on the Quality of Teaching. (1994). 
Attributes of beginning teachers. 
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching physical education (3rd 
ed.). Columbus: Merrill.
Pare, C. (Ed.). (1995). Better teaching in physical education?  Think 
about it! Proceedings of the International Seminar on Training of 
Teachers in Reflective Practice in Physical Education. July, 1993.  
Placek, J. H. (1983). Conceptions of success in teaching:  Busy, happy 
and good? In T. J. Templin & J. K. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical 
education. Big Ten Body of Knowledge Symposium Series, Vol. 14 (pp. 
46-56). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.
Prain, V., & Hickey, C. (1995). Using discourse analysis to change 
physical education. Quest, 47, 76-90.
Schempp, P. G. (1988). Apprenticeship-of-observation and the 
development of physical education teachers. In Thomas J. Templin & Paul 
G. Schempp (Eds.), Socialization into physical education:  Learning to 
teach (pp. 13-38). Indianapolis: Benchmark Press.
Schempp, P. G. (1995). In-coming physical education students' 
presocialization and preconceptions. In C. Pare (Ed.), Better teaching 
in physical education?  Think about it! (pp. 53-64). Proceedings of the 
International Seminar on Training of Teachers in Reflective Practice in 
Physical Education. July, 1993.  
Schools Council. (1990). Australia's teachers:  An agenda for the next 
decade. A paper prepared by the Schools Council for the National Board 
of Employment, Education and Training. Canberra: Australian Government 
Publishing Service.
Scraton, S. (1990). Gender and physical education. Deakin University, 
Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.
Scraton, S. (1992). Shaping up to womanhood:  Gender and girls' 
physical education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Scraton, S. (1993). Equality, coeducation and physical education in 
secondary schooling. In J. Evans (Ed.), Equality, education and 
physical education (pp. 139-153). London: Falmer Press.
Sherlock, J. (1987). Issues of masculinity and femininity in British 
physical education. Women's Studies International Forum, 10, 443-451.
Shilling, C. (1993). The body, class and social inequities. In J. Evans 
(Ed.), Equality, education and physical education (pp. 55-73). London: 
Falmer.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching:  Foundations of the New 
Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Sparkes, A. C. (1992). Introduction. In A. C. Sparkes (Ed.), Research 
in physical education and sport:  Exploring alternate visions (pp. 
1-7). London: Falmer.
Sparks, W. G. (1994). Culturally responsive pedagogy:  A framework for 
addressing multicultural issues. JOPERD, November-December, 33-36, 61.
Thomas, S. (1993). Education reform:  Juggling the concepts of equality 
and elitism. In J. Evans (Ed.), Equality, education and physical 
education (pp. 105-124). London: Falmer.
Tinning, R. (1990). Ideology and physical education:  Opening Pandora's 
box. Deakin University, Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.
Tinning, R. (1991). Teacher education pedagogy:  Dominant discourse in 
the process of problem setting. Journal of Teaching in Physical 
Education, 11, 1-20.
Tinning, R. (1995). We have ways of making you think. In Claude Pare 
(Ed.), Better teaching in physical education?  Think about it! (pp. 
21-52). Proceedings of the International Seminar on Training of 
Teachers in Reflective Practice in Physical Education. July, 1993.  
Tinning, R. I. (1988). Student teaching and the pedagogy of necessity. 
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 82-89.
Tinning, R., & Fitzclarence, L. (1992). Postmodern youth culture and 
the crisis in Australian secondary school physical education. Quest, 
44, 287-303.
Tinning, R., Kirk, D., & Evans, J. (1993). Learning to teach physical 
education. Sydney: Prentice-Hall.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (pp. 
12-42). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Woods, S. E. (1992). Describing the experience of lesbian physical 
educators:  A phenomenological study. In A. C. Sparkes (Ed.), Research 
in physical education and sport:  Exploring alternate visions (pp. 
90-117). London: Falmer.
Wright, J., & King, R. C. (1990). "I say what I mean," said Alice:  An 
analysis of gendered discourse in physical education. Journal of 
Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 210-225.

Appendix A
A Subverting or Supporting Discourse?
In the videos, Putting health and physical education in context 
 (Programs one and two) a discourse of change is created through the 
 text where beginning teachers are called to identify with, and 
 themselves so positioned as, experts who are active agents in this 
 process through "... meeting the needs of their particular students", 
 and "... using various teaching strategies ... ".  Similarly,in program 
 two individual teachers are positioned as "able to increase student 
 motivation" and "can build on the multiple benefits of peer feedback" 
 and are named, and so constructed as experts, such as "experienced 
 health and physical education teacher X, who is highly successful in 
 her teaching".  Later in the video, student teachers are further 
 recruited to the notion of being able to teach using alternative 
 strategies, through hearing and seeing a first year out teacher and two 
 of their student teacher peers, one of whom in an interview segment 
 denied the need for expertise, "You don't have to be an expert, I'm 
 certainly not," and so brings student-centred teaching into the rhelm 

 of all student-teachers' possibilities.
Although we have made a concerted effort to construct the need for 
 change as uncontested, the over wording of the introduction signals 
 that the need for change is indeed questioned.  "Discourses represent 
 political interests and in consequence are vying for status and power" 
 (Weedon, 1987, p. 41).  PETE is a site of ideological struggle such as 
 the frustration discussed earlier in this paper contends.  There is an 
 indication in the video that student-teachers could be caught in the 
 master-apprentice cycle of learning how to control and discipline 
 pupils through teacher-centred strategies such as command and practice 
 (Mosston & Ashworth, 1986).  Without reflection on students' 
 experiences as school students and practice with their examination of 
 what they value in physical education, these videos naturalise 
 student-centred physical education rather than identify it too as a 
 social construct.  This is done through the processes which attempt to 
 create student-centred physical education as an alternative discourse.  
 Within Strategies in action  and Students in focus there are 
 contradictory discourses.  The student-centred line, the dominant 
 discourse of the pedagogy of the videos, contrasts with pupils "acting 
 as teacher", and as "squad captains", such as in the volleyball lesson 
 where year 7 students control their peers and regulate their actions so 
 co-opting them into a culture of pupil compliance where docile and 
 disciplined bodies (Foucault, 1982), as seen in their queuing and 
 squatting in lines are the norm.  And as such, if the strategies are 
 naturalised into future PE teachers' practice was well as school 
 pupils' constructions of what constitutes physical education, they will 
 contribute to the replicative cycle through the conscious consignment 
 of pupils to the categories of demonstrator, expositor, fount of 
 knowledge, as well as those of leader and disciple in the team captains 
 and team members.  Although it intends to be student-centred the 
 pupils' lack of voice and the construction of the generic pupil, 
 normalise school students as collectives rather than individuals and 
 unless PETE students' consciousness is raised about such anonymity, 
 these programs may well have the opposite of our intention.