MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805320542 · doi:10.1080/17408989.2018.1470615

Close encounters with critical pedagogy in socio-critically informed health education teacher education

2018· article· en· W2805320542 on OpenAlex
Karen Shelley, Louise McCuaig

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Education and Sport Pedagogy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical pedagogyPedagogySociologyCurriculumScholarshipEmpowermentTeacher educationCritical theoryPhysical educationVisionContext (archaeology)Power (physics)Political scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: An emerging body of Physical Education scholarship is addressing the challenge of preparing Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) students to enact a socio-critically informed Health Education [Leahy, D., and L. McCuaig. 2014. “Disrupting the Field: Teacher Education in Health Education.” In Health Education: Critical Perspectives, edited by K. Fitzpatrick, and R. Tinning, 220–232. Oxon: Routledge]. Researchers have identified the tensions faced by PETE educators whose students typically adopt an uncritical acceptance of socially unjust practices concerning the ‘healthy body’ [Tinning, R., and T. Glasby. 2002. “Pedagogical Work and the ‘Cult of the Body’: Considering the Role of HPE in the Context of the ‘New Public Health’.” Sport, Education and Society 7 (2): 109–119]. Although scholars have advocated the usefulness of critical pedagogies as a means of inspiring PETE students’ capacities to question ‘taken-for-granteds’ circulating within HPE, others such as Gore [1998. “On the Limits to Empowerment through Critical and Feminist Pedagogies.” In Power/Knowledge/Pedagogy, edited by D. Carlson, and M. Apple, 271–288. Westview], have argued that radical pedagogues have failed to name the specific alternative practices they employ. Indeed, little has changed since Gore (1998) challenged the profession to ‘translate their visions into practice’ (274). Purpose: In response to Gore’s challenge, this paper presents one contemporary PETE educator’s proclaimed use of critical pedagogy as a strategy to confront social justice and socio-cultural issues within an Australian HPETE programme. This analysis exposes the ‘hidden’ curriculum and pedagogy of higher education classrooms where practice is not routinely revealed, let alone shared. Following this, the authors explore the extent to which these pedagogical approaches were enacted as intended, in accordance with the tenets of critical pedagogy and, importantly, what students made of these endeavours. Design and analysis: The ethnographic doctoral study took place within the context of a PETE programme delivered at a large, prestigious Australian university. The participating group of 44 specialist PETE students were enrolled in EDU39 Educating for Better Health, and were commencing the third year of their teacher training course. Drawing on qualitative interview data and student assessment tasks, this paper documents the rationale behind, and enactment of, four pedagogical strategies delivered within the health education courses of this PETE programme. Comparison of pre-teaching interview data with the researcher's observation notes, revealed the compromises that ensued within the realities of a complex teacher education learning space. Conclusion: In seeking to make sense of this ‘pedagogical soup’ [Tinning, R. 1995. “We Have Ways of Making You Think, or Do We? Reflection on ‘Training’ in Reflective Teaching.” In Better Teaching in P. E.?: Think About It! Proceedings of the International Seminar on Training of Teachers in Reflective Practice in Physical Education, edited by C. Pare’. Quebec: Department des science de l'activite’ physique, Universite’ du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres], the paper argues that the approaches of social justice pedagogy offer a more nuanced rationale for, and appropriate alignment with, the pedagogical strategies employed. In light of this analysis, the authors suggest that challenging and disrupting PETE students’ values and knowledges through critical pedagogies continues to be an unpredictable and dangerous project, but still poses a valuable strategy for productive, albeit it modest, pedagogical work.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.486 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it