argued to be a teacher’s limited content knowledge (Capel, 2007; Herold and Waring, 2009, 2011; Sloan, 2007). This is particularly weak amongst PE pre- service teachers (Chen, 2004) and often results in a sense of fear (Docherty, 2008; Luke, 2003) and a concern over their own teaching competence. An empirical study by Sloan (2007) was conducted on the premise that PE pre- service teachers feared the teaching of gymnastics and therefore aimed to
22 investigate their perceived levels of content knowledge in this area. Whilst Sloan’s study had limitations in terms of number of participants (one case study of 30 trainees), it reinforced some important points. Firstly, 52% of PE pre- service teachers in Sloan’s study felt unnerved by the thought of teaching gymnastics on placement, due to their own content knowledge deficits, and it was found that limited or negative experiences of gymnastics contributed to these apprehensions. Additionally, most of the PE pre-service teachers found that their content knowledge improved over the course of the PETE programme, yet for some, delivering advanced skills and using the apparatus still warranted further development. Sloan’s study was contextual, focusing specifically on gymnastics, and whilst the findings show the influence of content knowledge on teaching confidence in gymnastics, it is consistent with other PETE research, where content knowledge has been identified as a major priority for PE pre-service teachers in all activities as they progress through their PETE training (Hayes, Capel, Katene and Cook, 2008; Sloan, 2007).
It was Shulman (1987, p. 9) who identified content knowledge as “the first source of the knowledge bases” and defined it as “the specific subject matter knowledge, understanding and skills that are to be learned by school children”. Shulman’s framework, although dated, is still used widely by educational researchers who agree that content knowledge is the main ingredient for expert teaching and should be the foundation of all knowledge bases, (see Cale et al., 2011; Capel, 2007; Capel and Katene, 2000; Herold and Waring, 2009, 2011, 2017; Siedentop, 2002; Tinning, 2002a). Ball, Thames and Phelps (2008) in their model categorise content matter into common content knowledge (CCK), which they describe as being able to perform a skill, and specialised content knowledge (SCK), which refers to the knowledge required to effectively teach that skill. Ward (2009) further and more explicitly breaks content knowledge into four domains. These include, knowledge of the rules, knowledge of technique, knowledge of the errors and knowledge of the instructional tasks. Here the content is not just confined to knowing the skills but understanding which tasks can be used to reveal the content in the most beneficial way.
23 To qualify as a teacher of PE in the UK, PE pre-service teachers are expected to gain competencies, which are graded by both subject and professional mentors. The QTS standards, which were updated in 2013 by the Department for Education (DfE, 2013, p. 11), require pre-service teachers to “Demonstrate good subject and curriculum knowledge”. Encompassed within this competency are several components related to secure knowledge, the promotion of high standards, and the ability to critically develop learners. For example:
“3a. have a secure knowledge of the relevant subject(s) and curriculum areas, foster and maintain pupils’ interest in the subject, and address misunderstandings” (DfE, 2013, p. 11).
However, ambiguity arises when examining the terminology used by the DfE in relation to subject knowledge and the subsequent interpretations of this by PE pre-service teachers and subject mentors. There is a lack of consistency when using subject knowledge and content knowledge, as they tend to be used interchangeably, causing persistent debate in the PE literature (Herold and Waring, 2009). For example, the DfE (2011b) conceptualise subject knowledge using Shulman’s (1987) work, which encompasses the knowledge and understanding that enables pre-service teachers to deliver their subject area accurately and with confidence. However, it is often the case that PE pre- service teachers and subject mentors conceptualise subject knowledge as content knowledge (Hayes et al., 2008), and, in doing this, it is the content matter of specific activities that are prioritised to successfully meet this standard (Capel, 2007).
The adverse effect of this for PE pre-service teachers is that they become more concerned about their own content knowledge development to pass the standard/competency rather than critically thinking about the purpose of content knowledge in their teaching. Hayes et al. (2008) discussed the importance of content knowledge from the PE pre-service teachers’ perspectives and found that the content was most likely to expose them as incompetent if they failed to possess sufficient knowledge of the rules, skills, tactics and tasks. For example, it is the pupils who are more likely to ask questions related to a teacher’s content knowledge and highly unlikely to ask
24 them questions related to delivery style. Thus, it was only later in a teacher’s career that the significance of content knowledge for individual pupil learning and development was, if at all, considered. Content knowledge deficits then become problematic for PE pre-service teachers, particularly those who come from non-sports related degree programmes (Capel, 2007; Siedentop, 2002) where there has been very little attention to sport, PE and or physical activity. This problem has recently been accentuated through the new teacher training system that saw movement away from university-based training with the introduction of The Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP)7F
8 and School Direct 8F 9 courses, amongst other similar programmes of study (Hayes et al., 2008; Herold and Waring, 2017). This system has resulted in less time spent on campus to deal with the content knowledge deficits (Capel and Katene, 2000), and, little known about how to improve them (Sinelnikov, Insook, Ward, Curtner-Smith and Weidong, 2016). Several theorists over the years including Hoffman (1987), Sloan (2007) and Ward (2009) agree that PETE courses are not offering enough training on content knowledge development. This is perhaps why recruitment of PE pre-service teachers onto PETE programmes require candidates to hold a strong physical activity profile, which credits sporting experience, performance levels and success to cope with the demands (Moore, 2012; Stidder and Hayes, 2006).
Still, the actual value of content knowledge in PE remains unclear (Herold and Waring, 2009). Siedentop (2002) believes that PE pre-service teachers hold very little hope of teaching effectively without the foundations of content knowledge being established. However, an overemphasis on activity-specific content (Hayes et al., 2008) can, according to Capel (2007) and Hayes et al. (2008), lead to a curriculum that values performance goals, contradicting the very nature of the type of PETE that the Association for Physical Education (AfPE) in their 2008 manifesto proposed; where pupils and pupil learning should take priority. Similarly, it can restrict the promotion of the more pupil- centred pedagogies including models on Co-operative Learning (Dyson and
8 GTP is for teachers who want to enter the teaching profession, whilst working. 9 School Direct is a school-led route into initial teacher training (ITT) (DfE, 2014a).
25 Casey, 2012; Goodyear and Casey, 2015) and that of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU, see, Kirk, 2005) and Sport Education (Siedentop, 1964; Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2010). According to Herold and Waring (2011), teaching is a dynamic process and knowledge of the content alone is not sufficient to facilitate effective teaching. Thus, it is important to recognise the role of content knowledge in supporting the other knowledge bases (Herold and Waring, 2009; Moore, 2012; Siedentop, 2002, 2009). Similarly, Ayvazo, Ward and Stuhr (2010) argue that knowing the content and being able to perform the content is not effective if one does not know how to deliver that content. Other researchers including Capel (2007), Amade-Escot (2005) and Amade-Escot and O’Sullivan (2007) believe that content knowledge should be co-constructed between learners and the teacher, so rather than envisaging content as a rigid set of skills, rules and tasks to be transmitted from teacher to learner, it is the collaborations between people that together construct what is to be learned in that particular context with those people at that time. These ideas have been derived from Shulman’s early seminal work, where he argues that teachers should “not only understand that something is so” but should “understand why it is so” (1986, p. 9), thus, introducing the concept of pedagogical content knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge, according to Shulman is:
“the special amalgam that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding. It represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organised for instruction” (1987, p. 8).
Simplified, it is the ability to transform the knowledge into teaching (Rovegno, Chen and Todorovich, 2003), yet, You (2011) and Ward and Ayvazo (2016) believe that there needs to be more clarity on what pedagogical content knowledge is, as teachers/practitioners often use it to explain any mode of praxis (Amade-Escot, 2000). What is clear is that pedagogical content knowledge cannot be explored without the parameters of content knowledge being identified (Shulman, 1986; Siedentop, 2009), and whilst content knowledge undoubtedly improves pedagogical content knowledge (Ayvazo, Ward and Stuhr, 2010; Chen 2004; Rovegno, 2003; Ward and Ayvazo, 2016), the qualitative studies undertaken to date have not established any definitive or
26 empirical links. For example, Ayvazo, Ward and Stuhr (2010) discussed differences in the quality of teaching as a direct result of good content knowledge levels, with teachers more able to facilitate learning by addressing and responding to problems efficiently. Herold and Waring (2009) focused on PE pre-service teachers’ perceptions of content knowledge and explored the relationship between acquiring content knowledge and becoming a confident practitioner who can, as a result, teach more effectively. Highlighted in this study were the apprehensions that came with limited content knowledge and, as such, PE pre-service teachers sought opportunities to gain extra qualifications, plan more thoroughly and seek advice from professionals.
To address the lack of clarity around the relationship between content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, recent researchers including Iserbyt, Ward and Weidong (2017) and Sinelnikov et al. (2016) have conducted quantitative studies using control groups. Sinelnikov’s statistical study focused on newly qualified teachers content knowledge levels and the effects it had on pupil learning and found that limited content knowledge results in poor pedagogical content knowledge. Like Siedentop (2002), the main reasons discussed were in relation to teachers finding it difficult to extend tasks and advance pupil learning and an inability to identify common errors in skills. Sinelnikov et al. (2016) conceptualised this in line with Ball, Thames and Phelps (2008) who argue that teachers who can perform skills will have an improved ability to teach. Following on from this study, Iserbyt, Ward and Weidong (2017) similarly used quantitative data to establish a relationship between SCK (see list of Abbreviations, v) and pedagogical content knowledge. It was found that improving SCK had a positive impact on task presentation and task appropriateness. Whilst this is a very positivistic way of looking at data of this kind, it is useful in that it supports previous literature by Kirk (2010), Rink (1994) and Tinning (2010) who argue that demonstrations are key for task understanding and Ayvazo and Ward (2011) who have reported on expert teachers delivering fewer inappropriate tasks compared to weaker teachers.
In the next section of literature, it is useful to offer a justification of how learning theories inform practice and how they may underpin PE pre-service teachers’
27 and teacher educators’ pedagogical praxis as part of the gymnastics module on the PETE course.