Tensions in enacting democratic approaches in physical education teacher education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the long history of the idea of democratic education, the articulation of how teacher educators enact democratic practices remains elusive. The purpose of this research was to examine how we understand and enact democratic principles in our physical education teacher education (PETE) practices. Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) methodology was used in this 18-month project. Four physical education teacher educators from different contexts examined their teaching practice and acted as critical friends to one another, generating transcripts from monthly meetings (10), individual written reflections (total of 122 pages) and diverse artifacts to question the enactment of democratic practices in PETE. Data were analysed inductively to identify turning points in how we understood democratic practices in PETE. Results indicated that our beliefs, values, and identities strongly shaped how we approached and understood democratic practice in our PETE practice. We came to see democratic practices existing on a spectrum from radical to conservative. Regardless of our individual position on this spectrum, the enactment of democratic practices is impacted by various policies, power structures, and political forces at play within our contexts. These findings illuminate several tensions teacher educators face when aiming to understand and enact democratic practices in PETE. We suggest that teacher educators may find it challenging to enact and model democratic pedagogies with pre-service teachers. However, instead of abandoning those practices, significant thought and strategising may be needed by individual teacher educators, their colleagues, and students to offer an authentic way to ‘live’ democratic pedagogies in the university in ways that align with their personal beliefs, values, and interpretations of democratic education.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".