Enacting democratisation of health and physical education teacher education: examining two teacher educators’ experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite several benefits identified in the literature, the democratisation of health and physical education teacher education (HPETE) involves a complex interplay of theoretical foundations, practical implementation, and contextual challenges. Framed by Loughran’s (Citation2006) conceptualisation of a pedagogy of teacher education, we used collaborative self-study of teacher education practice (S-STEP) methodology to examine the experiences of two HPE teacher educators who engaged in a process of democratising HPETE. Individual reflections, meetings with critical friends and artifacts were considered data sources. We present the results as cases, using within – and cross-case analysis to examine similarities and differences in the participants’ experiences. Results demonstrate that both teacher educators understood democratisation as a journey requiring gradual effort and formed by a series of practical and intentional decisions. Reflection was used to deal with self-doubt; this was the biggest tension faced during this process. The diverse positionalities of the teacher educators led to the identification of differences in the two teacher educators' experiences. For example, in case 1 (with first-year pre-service teachers (PSTs), implicitly modelling democratic practices was a way to support PSTs and promote their empowerment. In case 2 (with fourth-year PSTs), it was as crucial to be explicit in explaining the reasons behind pedagogical decisions as it was to model democratic practices. Whereas the latter case demonstrates concerns about PSTs’ knowledge transfer and application of democratic practices to a social level (e.g. political views and actions), case 1 highlights the importance of the individual and their experience of a democratic approach (e.g. spaces for PSTs’ decisions and choices). In this study, democratisation of HPETE became a reflective and continuing process. In this journey, S-STEP supported the teacher educators to teach about democratisation as one way to be a teacher, and to make their implicit values explicit to PSTs and themselves.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".