Professional teaching practice

This research highlighted that mentor teachers capable of providing critical and constructive feedback about the application of TGfU and/or SE elements during a PETE-PS teachers‘ lesson is central to the further development of PETE-PS teachers‘ understanding of the application of the principles of sport literacy as progressive sport teaching. School experiences are influential in the continual shaping of the PETE-PS teacher. Perry and Power (2004) explained that PTP is where PETE-PS front up to the practical, pragmatic and contextual challenges of in- the-momentteaching. Furthermore, school PTP experiences provide pre-service teachers with the opportunity to evaluate their capabilities (Capa Aydin & Woolfolk Hoy, 2005). Exposure toTGfU and SE principles in action in school settings

emerged as an enabling factor in PETE-PS teacher understanding of the application of sport literacy pedagogical strategies across the diverse range of students that comprise the fabric of the teaching experience. The opportunity to observe the behaviour of others is significant in the development of teacher efficacy. Gibbs (2002) indicated that it is particularly valuable for there to be in place deliberate strategies to encourage the observer to self-reflect on their personal beliefs about competence and capability in similar situations.This is consistent with one area of in-

159

school experience foregrounded during this study, namely, the experience and knowledge of the mentor teacher.

University course work can refine PETE-PS teachers‘ curriculum pedagogical skills, knowledge and understanding (Lounsbery & Sharpe, 1999). However, the continued and contextual development continued through the PTP experiences of PETE-PS teachers‘ curriculum and pedagogical content knowledge and

understanding was found to be important in coming to know and appreciate the practical application of a sport literacy curriculum framing. This importance existed in 3 areas: 1. Meeting the learning needs of the students; 2. Understanding the expectations of the curriculum for the student achievement of curriculum benchmark levels; and 3. Understanding what is realistically possible given the constraints of individual school curricula.

The value of school based mentors who positively assist in the process of bridging theory into practice so that PETE-PS teachers‘ curriculum and pedagogical content knowledge and understanding development continued was suggested by this research. The PETE-PS teachers interviewed for this research desired

supportive and knowledgeable school mentors who would advance their learning and expand their understanding of the planning and enactment of the type of sport curriculum advocated by the sport literacy approach encountered in course topic work. Unsupportive mentors, who favoured design and enactment of curriculum in a manner inconsistent with the theoretical and practical propositions encountered in PETE course topic work, could in a sense ‗prevail‘ in as much as PETE-PS teachers may become dissuaded from pedagogically progressive sport teaching.

Opportunities to see evidence of planning TGfU and/or SE pedagogy in school physical education curriculum documents and observation of teachers enacting sport

160

teaching using TGfU, Game Sense or SE were also on the PETE-PS teachers list of desirable PTP experiences.

Overall, the results from this study indicated that the pre-service and

practicum experience was not complementary, but rather, presented tensions and dilemmas in relation to physical education curriculum and pedagogy. In their

university course work the PETE-PS teachers experienced theory and practical work that promoted the use of a twinned TGfU and SE framework to deliver sport literacy as the product of quality sport teaching. TGfU and SE were not, however, apparent as curriculum models informing the design construction and enactment of the sport teaching and learning of teachers in schools. The lack of a complimentary

relationship between course work and PTP experience exposed PETE-PS teachers to mixed messagesabout the design and enactment of appropriate and effective sport teaching in physical education to meet the curriculum expectations.

Grossman (1991) concluded that ―portraits of the probable‖ (p. 345) emerging from thoughtful teacher education programs frequently fail to serve as strong

interventions for improved pedagogical practice in schools. Failure may occur because the ideas are met with an inherent conservatism in schools that are resistant to change (Clennett & Brooker, 2006). Innovations, even when aligned to the benchmark standard outcomes required of the mandated curriculum (Eg. SACSA), do not appear to be intuitively received by teachers in the field as

sufficiently worthwhile to alter entrenched practice. This raises the question of how PETE can play a role in curriculum and pedagogical renewal and could be seen to call somewhat into question the ―strong case‖ that PETE can be a catalyst for curriculum and pedagogical innovation (Kinchin et al., 2005, p.219).

161

I agree with Clandinin (2000), who argued that pre-service teachers will be better assisted in interpreting and integrating their new knowledge with their prior experiences when contextual observations of teaching models are combined with the experiences of a course work. As research suggests that both the mentor teacher and PTP school placement are dominant influences in the development of teacher understanding about their role and function as professionals (Wright, 2001), this study indicated that combining course work observations of ‗portraits of the possible‘ with contextual observations of teaching is an issue that requires further attention if PETE is to be transformative (Pill & Brown, 2007). Coherence between PETE pre- service coursework and the PTP experience and a path towards linking the two are themes picked up in the conclusion (Chapter 8).