Developing a socially-just teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR) approach: a pedagogy for social justice for physical education (teacher education)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Social justice as a concept and a pedagogy has (and is) gaining traction in physical education teacher education [Walton-Fisette, J. L., and S. Sutherland. 2018. “Moving Forward with Social Justice Education in Physical Education Teacher Education”. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 23 (5): 461–468] and school physical education [Philpot, R., G. Gerdin, W. Smith, S. Linnér, K. Schenker, K. Westlie, K. M. Moen, and L. Larsson. 2021. “Taking Action for Social Justice in HPE Classrooms Through Explicit Critical Pedagogies.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 26 (6): 662–674]. Despite this growing body of research, there seems to be a lack of understanding around the ‘how’ question; ‘how’ can we teach about, through, and for social justice (pedagogies) in PETE (in preparing pre-service teachers) and in school physical education? Reflecting on a number of papers as part of a Special Issue in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, [Flory, S. B., and D. Landi. 2020. “Equity and Diversity in Health, Physical Activity, and Education: Connecting the Past, Mapping the Present, and Exploring the Future.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 25 (3): 213–224, 221] suggest the need to re-think and re-imagine physical education curriculum, practice and policy by making new connections and relationships between models-based practices and sociocultural theories.Purpose Guided by asking ‘What is worth doing?’ and ‘Is it working?’ [Hellison, D. 2011. Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Through Physical Activity. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics], we explore, re-conceptualise, and re-imagine the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) model as an approach to teach about, through, and for social justice (pedagogies).Discussion A Figure, consisting of three strands, was constructed to visualise the socially-just TPSR approach. As part of this, we have reconceptualised the TPSR levels to ‘spaces’. As spaces, students can start in different (and multiple) spaces and move between spaces throughout the lesson. The first two strands of the Figure (social justice topic and the TPSR spaces) inform the pedagogical approaches (strand three) and the pedagogical approaches are underpinned by the teaching about (social justice topic – strand one) and through (TPSR spaces – strand two) social justice. The alignment of the three strands can therefore lead to meaningful, informed, and socially-just learning experiences.Conclusion The need for social justice education is clear. And yet, teachers and teacher educators remain uncertain about how to implement social justice content and pedagogies into physical education contexts such as the field and gymnasium. Honouring Hellison’s forty years of (re)developing the theory of TPSR based on what is learned in practice, we suggest this socially-just TPSR approach may open possibilities and potentialities in which educators (i.e. teacher educators, in-service teachers, and pre-service teachers) can learn to teach about, through and for social justice (pedagogies). We have used the litmus test of ‘What is worth doing?’ to guide us. We truly believe providing educators with a socially-just TPSR approach which may enhance the teaching about, through, and for social justice (pedagogies) is worth doing.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».