Ethics, politics and bio-pedagogy in physical education teacher education: easing the tension between the self and the group

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that reflecting upon our personal experiences and the origins of our ethical and political beliefs can be useful to see that, as much as society has a strong influence on us, each of us has the capacity to influence society. Also we suggest that there exist intimate links between personhood and pedagogy. As such, through the use of bio-pedagogical passages, we examine the process of coming to the realisation of the need to develop ethical principles that enable us to contribute to society in universally beneficial ways through our teaching. Moreover, we explain that, as they try to help prospective educators understand their future role in society, physical education teacher educators (PETEs) ought to start with clear ethical principles, not just merely technical (or even scientific) ones. These principles, in turn, can serve as a guide for all pedagogical (read political) actions, both inside and outside the classroom. We close this paper offering viable guidelines as to how this can be done.

Keywords:

• Ethics
• Politics
• Teaching
• Critical pedagogy
• Physical education
• Teacher Education

Notes

1. The personal bio-pedagogical accounts of the second author can be found in Armour & Fernández-Balboa (2001) and Fernández-Balboa (1998a).

2. When I talk about constructions, I am not only thinking about the raw materials with which they are made, but also the subtle network of rules and relationships that give meaning to our existence and the way we live together. These constructions have inevitable consequences for us all.

3. These areas of activity were: athletic activities, dance, games, gymnastic activities, outdoor adventurous activities and swimming.

4. A variation on a story taken from an article by David Owen entitled ‘The teacher who taught how to think’, Reader's Digest Magazine, 1990.

5. As pointed out by H. Arendt (1959), the ‘public’ not only is what can be seen and heard by all, but also includes what is common to all. Members of a group, therefore, have common access to a whole range of things, but sometimes those things can divide and unite them at the same time.

6. In this regard, Noddings (2002) manages to distinguish between dialogue and debate. Although there may be periods of debate within a dialogue, the intention is not to win the argument, but for the participants to become aware of one another and find and reach a common purpose. During a dialogue, people look after each other and, despite the fact that there may be major ideological differences between them, try to connect and work together to find mutually beneficial solutions.

7. For the justification and implementation of ‘dialogical pedagogy,’ see Fernández-Balboa and Marshall (1994).