Developments of theories as professionalism and a structure of curriculum in

I will now explain the development from inadequate to adequate theories as professionalism in terms of sport pedagogy. I analyzed the change of contents through class syllabuses, interviews (lecturers, student teachers, and teachers). Units of professional knowledge have been developed as two types.

First, theories for professional knowledge have developed from 1978 to 2008. The purpose of Teaching Methods in Physical Education is as follows.

Student teachers learn the meaning of instruction of teaching, necessity and theories to teach physical education in school based on a sense of duty of teacher (the purpose of Teaching Methods in Physical Education in the syllabus from 2000 to 2008, see appendix 2 in chapter 6).

This lecture was helpful to prepare teachers. However, checking syllabuses from 2000 to 2008 in this unit, the contents were not reflected the development of study of sport pedagogy such as spectrum of teaching style, Curriculum models etc. this unit contained a part of theories of education such as principles of instruction of learning, teaching ways, etc because the professor who taught this unit did not study sport pedagogy. He was a kind of professor who just taught physical activities. One professor and teacher who joined in this unit in 1982 and 1999 mentioned as follows.

I think that we learned whole learning method and part learning method in Teaching Methods in Physical Education and we did not learn about teaching theories (in the second interview by e-mail). (Previous student4 Seoul National University from 1979 to 1983 and present Professor1 Inha University who joined in this unit in 1982)

It was very difficult to remember the content in that unit because there were no contents in there. ……Even if his consideration for student teachers was good, I think that the professor stressed maintenance of order in his unit (Teacher2 Seoul National University who joined in this unit in 1999).

139

Student teachers’ memory who joined in that unit in 1982 and 1999 were similar to each other. They mentioned that they did not learn specific contents for theories or real situations in school because professors at that time did not have specific theories in physical education.

Meanwhile, Principles of Physical Education were different to compare Teaching Methods in Physical Education because the professor who taught this unit and retired in 2008 had completed his PhD studying sport pedagogy in the USA from 1973 to 1977. He was one of the first people to introduce school sports, PETE and sport pedagogy from the USA to Korea. He was a professor in this university from 1979 to 2008. For about 30 years, he had affected many areas in this country. Before explaining his unit, I show the situation in the 1970s and 1980s in Korea because the period was difficult to educate student teachers in Korea. When he was hired in this university, the Korean political situation was so bad. One student at that time mentioned as follows.

When I was a first year student in 1979 in this university, our president was assassinated. Because of that, it was issued the closing of school. There were too many riot policemen, soldiers on campus. We submitted our assignments by post-mail services and received our scores by assignments because we could not go to school. One professor who taught ‘unit of camp’ mentioned that we were unique students who received the score by assignments. It was so dark periods in Korea. Next year (1980) was more severe because military government seized power in this country. Many students went on the demo in May. So did I. At that time, if someone joined in the classes in the university, many people blamed then as an anti-nationalist or an egoist. Moreover, many friends got caught by the police and were tortured in there. It was very difficult to study it even if I wanted because of these situations. (Previous student4 Seoul National University from 1979 to 1983 and present professor Inha University)

It was difficult to teach students at that time. However, the professor who taught Principles of Physical Education gradually developed his class. The professor who taught this unit from 1979 to 2008 explained his development of unit as follows.

At the early of 1980s, I taught my class based on behaviourism. There were related to books such as Siedentop’s book. And I considered how

140

could I teach the contents which were produced from the result or theories of quantitative researches in my class. For example, how could the result apply the Korean situation? How could the result put to practical situation? How could I organize students in school? How could I increase the compensation effect? In the 1990s, there was a limitation to teach the unit of Principles of Physical Education with perspective of behaviourism. Let’s try to change the paradigm. It was a qualitative study. I tried to teach my class based on the result of qualitative studies. For example, I tried to teach student teachers students’ personal order or favour in school, the difference between disable students and normal students. This means that the teaching paradigm was changed from teacher-centred learning to student-centred learning. Of course, I taught the contents of behaviourism with new contents in the 1990s. …… However, there was a little insufficient Korean context in my class (Previous course leader and professor from 1979 to 2008 Seoul National University).

He explained the change of his class in this interview. The development of these contents in this unit was similar to the development of sport pedagogy in the USA supplementing some Korean situation. He mentioned that first of all he tried to develop his work based on studies from the USA. It was his first priority because there were no backgrounds for school sports, PETE and contents of sport pedagogy in Korea. Even if there were good studies of education studies in Korea, they were not enough to develop our own physical education. He also admitted that there were limits to develop physical education in his unit. His mention appeared in his book.

“Searching research trends in sport pedagogy in Korea, the direction of study for sport pedagogy in Korea followed the trend of sport pedagogy in the USA such as JTPE, JOPEDRD and QUEST copying methods, themes of research etc. Checking latest articles and books related to sport pedagogy in Korea, the level of contents has been still in the level of translation of noted foreign scholar’s book.” (Kang, 2010, p.28, written by Korean language)

This means that, although there have been big developments of sport pedagogy, Korean’s have had to make a big effort to develop our own study. Following this trend, his unit was similar to this trend. His unit has mainly introduced the theories of sport pedagogy. But it was a little bit weak delivering practices to students because even if the theories of this unit have been polished as time goes

141

by, the actual practice for students were slightly weak.

Developments of a structure of curriculum in terms of sport pedagogy

Kirk et al’s framework, which I used, was different in the original structure of curriculum in Seoul National University. For example, the Philosophy of Physical Education belonged to an official professional unit as a compulsory unit by 2008. Even if the unit was not directly related to PETE, why did this unit belong to this area? One professor who joined in the meeting where this unit became a compulsory unit in 1985 mentioned as follows.

In 1985, the Ministry of Education wanted to strength TE programmes. They gave us directions. We had to make at least three units for PETE. First, we adopted Teaching Methods in Physical Education and Curriculum in Physical Education. While discussing the final unit in that meeting, one professor who was teaching philosophy of physical education eagerly asked that his unit was suitable for PETE. Even if it was not directly related to PETE, it was difficult to handle the situation. It was the process. Might be other PETE course in other universities just imitated our wrong decision. As you know, the professor did not teach the unit in terms of sport pedagogy or PETE. He taught his unit same as previous ways (Previous course leader from 1979 to 2008 Seoul National University).

He explained the process that Philosophy of Physical Education belonged to the essential professional units showing that the decision was not views of PETE. Many student teachers who joined in this unit also recollected that this unit was not related to PETE. This is strong evidence showing that units in terms of academic development of sport pedagogy and political powers in that group were inadequate in the 1980s. The title of this unit was changed to Principles of Physical Education in 2009 meaning that this unit became a proper unit for PETE (see table 7). Considering the periods, it took nearly 24 years to become proper units. Although the development and influence were slow, we could confirm that the structure of PETE curriculum has been gradually appropriated in the PETE course in Korea.

142

6.3.2.2. The inadequate delivery of theories for students as a practice