Interpretation and enactment of Senior Secondary Physical Education: pedagogic realities and the expression of Arnoldian dimensions of movement

ABSTRACT

Background: New curriculum developments present opportunities for established thinking and practice in physical education to be reaffirmed or challenged in government, professional and institutional arenas. The introduction of a new official text for the Victorian Certificate of Education Physical Education [VCEPE] in 2011 provided a prompt for renewed debate about the ways in which ‘multiple ways of knowing' could prospectively find expression in senior secondary physical education. Previous analysis of the new VCEPE official text and associated assessment requirements led to a prediction that a theoretical–practical binary may well be reaffirmed amidst implementation of the new course in schools, such that senior secondary physical education (SSPE) in Victorian schools may remain an essentially propositional/theoretical subject.

Purpose: This paper reports on research that has pursued this prediction and specifically explored the expression of Arnold's three dimensions of education in, through and about movement, in teachers’ interpretation and enactment of the new VCEPE Study Design. The research sought to pursue the potential for originality and creativity in SSPE amidst the introduction of a new official curriculum text, examine factors facilitating or limiting this and document the ‘pedagogic realities’ of SSPE in Victorian schools.

Methodology: The study used a case study approach, involving two government and two independent secondary schools in Victoria, Australia. Data gathered from teacher interviews, classroom observations and documentary sources in 2012–2013 are reported. Analysis pursued internal and external factors framing the curriculum and pedagogical practices prominent in enactment of the new course in the case study schools, and the individual and collective representation of Arnold's three dimensions of movement in the schools’ curriculum and teachers’ pedagogical practices.

Findings: The findings reveal complexities and tensions associated with the representation of new curriculum policy in school curriculum and teachers’ pedagogic practices. Attention is drawn to ways in which the interplay between official texts, accompanying assessment requirements, other professional texts and the wider educational context variously shape the ‘pedagogic realities’ of the VCEPE in practice. The discussion explains how this interplay influences (and limits) the expression of Arnold's dimensions in VCEPE.

Implications: This paper reaffirms previous work in SSPE that has highlighted the need for conceptual coherence between curriculum texts and assessment frameworks. This research directs attention to opportunities for development of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, through both official and professional channels, in ways that facilitate teachers’ professional learning about the potential expression of Arnold's dimensions in VCEPE. It also calls for curriculum authorities, professional learning associations and teacher education institutions to work more coherently to be at the fore of thinking about pedagogic possibilities in senior secondary physical education.

KEYWORDS:

• Physical education
• examination PE
• curriculum
• assessment
• pedagogy
• senior secondary physical education (SSPE)
• Arnold

Introduction

New curriculum or syllabus developments in any subject area and any jurisdiction signal a range of possibilities for schools, and more specifically the sorts of learning opportunities and experiences that will be provided to students. As authors within and beyond the field of physical education have identified, achieving conceptual and curriculum coherence amidst processes that are characterised by complexity and negotiation is far from easy. Curriculum ‘settlements’ are ultimately achieved in schools and classrooms amidst various requirements, expectations and pragmatic considerations (Penney 2013a; Luke, Woods, and Weir 2013; Thorburn 2007). Work in the field of education policy sociology has repeatedly identified that there will always be a mix of constraints and possibilities amidst the interpretation and implementation of new official texts. This dynamic is captured in Ball et al.’s (2012) description of policy as ‘diversely and repeatedly contested and/or subject to different “interpretations” as it is enacted (rather than implemented) in original and creative ways within institutions and classrooms … but in ways that are limited by the possibilities of discourse' (2–3). Following Ball et al. (2012), the purpose of this research was twofold. Firstly, our research centred specifically on what we term the pedagogic realities of interpretation and enactment of a new (i.e. revised) official text for the Victorian Certificate of Education Physical Education [VCEPE] (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority 2010).¹ In pursuing the notion of pedagogic realities, we sought to foreground both the complexities associated with interpretation and enactment, and teachers’ prospective creativity. We thus acknowledged the multiple factors (and dimensions of context identified by Ball et al. (2012)) prospectively shaping interpretations and enactment in specific school settings. Simultaneously we endeavoured to critically engage with data arising from our research to extend commentary on the pedagogic possibilities associated with the new official text. Below we explain these two concepts that were central to our research. Firstly, we provide necessary background on VCEPE and introduce important theoretical reference points for the analysis and discussion.

Each Australian state and territory possesses an independent curriculum authority that is responsible for the curriculum and assessment in senior secondary education. In Victoria this body is known as the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). The VCEPE is a high-stakes course normally completed by students in the final two years of their secondary education (typically aged 16–18 years) in schools across Victoria. It features external examination and school-based assessment requirements and is particular to Victoria, reflecting that curriculum offerings and assessment frameworks relating to senior secondary education are different across Australia. As we explain further below, the VCEPE brings to the fore challenges and tensions that have been a focus of interest internationally, most notably relating to considerations of worthwhile knowledge and the place of physical activity within an academic subject (Fitzclarence and Tinning 1990). This has often manifested itself as the academicisation (Green 2005) of physical education, and shaped how theoretical and practical dimensions of physical education are represented in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. The following section reflects that Arnold's (1979) work has been prominent internationally amidst developments in senior secondary physical education. It outlines the theoretical perspectives underpinning our research and relates these to key features of the VCEPE.

Arnoldian dimensions

In contemporary research and practice, including that at the Senior Secondary Physical Education (SSPE) level, Stolz and Thorburn (2015) state that the Arnoldian dimensions of education ‘in, through and about’ movement are seen as a ‘gold standard’ justification for the subject. This is reflected in Kirk's (1988) writing that Arnold's framework is ‘ … useful for theorising the form and content of physical education in relation to its educational status in schools’ (71). In SSPE, the Arnoldian dimensions inform curriculum development either explicitly in the case of the Queensland Senior Secondary Syllabus (Queensland Studies Association 2010) or implicitly such as in the Welsh Joint Examinations Committee (WJEC 2008) A and AS specification. According to Fitzclarence and Tinning (1990), several ongoing perennial issues pervade in SSPE, namely (i) worthwhile knowledge; (ii) the educational status of the subject and (iii) place of physical activity within an examinable subject. When expressed independently and interdependently, the Arnoldian dimensions directly engage with and challenge these issues by providing the profession with a lens that is commensurate with holistic understandings via different ‘ways of knowing and doing’ (Brown and Penney 2013).

Elsewhere we have presented the new VCEPE as a catalyst for renewed debate about the prospective expression of Arnold's (1979) notions of education ‘in, through and about movement’ in physical education and specifically, SSPE (Brown 2013a; Brown & Penney 2013). In examining the pedagogic intent and possibilities associated with the new VCEPE Study Design, we drew attention to Arnold's emphasis that the three dimensions (education ‘in, through and about’ movement) are interrelated, overlapping and interdependent and should not be seen in isolation (Brown and Penney 2013). To recap, ‘education about movement’ is concerned with the learning that occurs as a form of rational movement knowledge. It is most often expressed as theoretical/propositional knowledge of the sub-disciplines of physical education that variously feature in SSPE courses, namely anatomy, exercise physiology, biomechanics and sociology. According to Arnold (1979) ‘ … apart from studying movement as a theoretical body knowledge that is of interest in its own right it can be studied in order to apply it to practical situations' (169). ‘Education through movement’ refers to learning through the physical, with Arnold (1979, 171) explaining that it is conceived of in instrumental terms and, hence, associated with purposes such as becoming more skilled, more fit and developing a stronger sense of self and well-being. This dimension thus refers to ‘the educational process that develops extrinsic learning objectives in areas such as the physical, cognitive, social and emotional aspects of the individual through participation in physical activity' (Brown 2013b, 26). The third dimension, ‘education in movement’ directs attention to the inherent value of movement examined from the individual perspective, focusing on the intrinsic worth of movement experiences and the embodied learning that is associated with and inseparable from the experience.

We identify Arnold's dimensions with ‘multiple ways of knowing’ and contend that collectively they provide a productive analytical framework for analysing the pedagogical intent, realities and possibilities arising from a new course such as the reform of the VCEPE. Importantly, this paper is not intended as a theoretical or conceptual analysis of the Arnoldian dimensions per se.² Rather, the intent is to examine the understandings of contemporary SSPE classes that Arnold's framework can generate, and therefore, how the dimensions individually and collectively are represented in the ‘pedagogic realities’ of SSPE, and the further possibilities for pedagogic practice that they serve to illuminate.

Pedagogic realities and possibilities

While our previous work has focused on notions of pedagogic intent and possibility (Brown and Penney 2013), as indicated above, this study specifically sought to pursue what we term the ‘pedagogic realities’ of the new VCEPE as enacted in schools. Our use of the term pedagogic realities aligns with Penney and Waring (2000) conceptualisation of pedagogy (drawing on Watkins and Mortimore 1999) in emphasising an intention to enhance learning, which by definition encompasses decisions, planning and action associated with curriculum and assessment. We see similarities between this view and Tinning's (2008) definition of pedagogical work. Tinning stated that ‘ … for pedagogy to have occurred there must be a purposeful encounter between teacher, learner, and subject matter, and the purpose is to (re)produce knowledge' (416). Whilst Tinning foregrounded ‘the consequences of pedagogy rather than practices or intentions' (416), we turn attention firmly back to pedagogic practices. Our view is that how teachers read, interpret and enact curricula; consider the school context; focus on student engagement and deal with day-to-day logistical issues (e.g. timetabling, student absence and interruptions) must all be considered as pedagogical practice(s), alongside what is understood by the learner as a result of the pedagogic encounter. As Penney (2013b) has written

How policy documents or announcements are read, received, and understood, what the reactions and responses to policy and curriculum developments are in any given political, social, school and community context – that is where ‘the rubber hits the road’. (4)

Our consideration of pedagogic realities thus embraces the interconnectedness of pedagogy, curriculum and assessment and directs attention to learning.

Our parallel concern with pedagogic possibilities is by its very nature positive and optimistic, reflecting the hope that the policy actors associated with curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in SSPE (e.g. teachers, teacher educators, researchers, policy-makers and bureaucrats) see opportunity in curriculum and policy development as a mechanism for ‘making a difference’ (Penney 2013b). It is a concept that therefore prompts exploration of the potential for strategic appropriation of discourses amidst interpretation and enactment of official texts, in order to extend pedagogic practice in SSPE. We specifically explore what discourses of education about, through and in movement can prospectively offer in this regard.

In the sections that follow we draw on data gathered from case study research undertaken in 2012–2013 in four schools to examine teachers’ enactment of the new VCEPE Study Design. Our analysis explores the individual and collective representation of Arnold's three dimensions in teachers’ pedagogical texts and pursues the interplay between official curriculum texts, other professional texts and the wider contexts within which teachers are working. We direct attention to the complexities associated with the representation of new curriculum policy in practice and in the light of findings, and revisit the pedagogic possibilities that may be associated with SSPE in Victoria and comparable courses elsewhere.

The VCEPE: opportunities to learn in, through and about movement?

The VCAA writes, publishes and administers the curriculum for senior secondary. The current VCEPE Study Design is in the fifth iteration since the introduction of the course in 1992. The VCEPE comprises four discrete units, each associated with 50 hours in school curricula. There are no prerequisites for students for entry into Units 1, 2 or 3; however, a student must have successfully completed Unit 3 prior to enrolling in Unit 4. See Table 1 for further information on units, areas of study and key knowledge. Through school-based assessment, students are graded as satisfactory/unsatisfactory in Units 1 and 2. In each of Units 3 and 4, students complete school-assessed coursework that contributes 25% of their total grade for VCEPE, called a Study score. The other 50% of the Study score is generated from an external written examination, which comprises multiple choice and short answer questions addressing content covered in both Units 3 and 4.

Table 1. VCEPE Study design (accreditation period 2011–2016).

Unit	Title of unit	Areas of study	Outcomes of core study	Key knowledge
1	Bodies in motion	AOS 1 – Body systems and human movement* AOS 2 – Biomechanical movement principles* AOS 3.1 – Technological advancements from a biomechanical perspective OR AOS 3.2 – Injury prevention and rehabilitation	AOS 1 – To explain how the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular and respiratory systems function, and how the aerobic and anaerobic pathways interact with the systems to enable human movement AOS 2 – How to develop and refine movement in a variety of sporting actions through the application of biomechanical principles	AOS 1 – Bones of the human body, major muscles and muscle structure, classification of joints and joint action, characteristics of aerobic and anaerobic pathways (with or without oxygen) and their contribution to movement; AOS 2 – Newton's Laws of motion, components of levers, the principles of conservation and transfer of momentum
2	Sports coaching and physically active lifestyles	AOS 1 – Effective coaching practices* AOS 2 – Physically active lifestyles* AOS 3.1 – Decision-making in sport OR AOS 3.2 – Promoting active living	AOS 1 – The skills and behaviours of an exemplary coach, and explain the application of a range of skill learning principles used by a coach AOS 2 – Individual and population levels of participation in physical activity, and sedentary behaviour, and create and implement strategies that promote adherence to the National Physical Activity Guidelines	AOS 1 – Roles, responsibilities, skills, behaviours of the coach, codes of conduct, coaching methods and techniques, skill learning principles; AOS 2 – Concepts of physical activity, inactivity and sedentary behaviour, benefits of regular participation in physical activity, factors and barriers (demographic, social and environmental) to participation in physical activity
3	Physical Activity participation and physiological performance	AOS 1 – Monitoring and promotion of physical activity* AOS 2 – Physiological responses to physical activity*	AOS 1 – To analyse individual and population levels of sedentary behaviour and participation in physical activity and evaluate initiatives and strategies that promote adherence to the National Physical Activity Guidelines AOS 2 – To analyse how the major body and energy systems work together to enable movements to occur, and explain fatigue mechanisms and recovery strategies	AOS 1 – Subjective and objective methods of assessing physical activity and sedentary behaviour, social-ecological models, role of government and non-government organisations in promoting adherence to physical activity; AOS 2 – Mechanisms responsible for the acute responses to exercise, characteristics and interplay of the three energy systems, fuels (both chemical and food) passive and active recovery methods
4	Enhancing performance	AOS 1 – Planning, implementing and evaluating a training programme* AOS 2 – Performance enhancement and recovery practices*	AOS 1 – Plan, implement and evaluate training programmes to enhance specific fitness components AOS 2 – To analyse and evaluate strategies designed to enhance performance or promote recovery	AOS 1 – Fitness components, assessment of fitness, fitness training principles and methods, chronic adaptations; AOS 2 – Nutritional strategies, hydration techniques, physiological strategies, psychological strategies, benefits and potential harms to the athlete of legal and illegal substances, anti-doping codes

Note: Those units marked with an asterisk * are core units in VCEPE Study Design.

Our analysis as researchers and as participants in SSPE curriculum development³ is that the VCEPE content is primarily developed on the basis of the bio-scientific disciplines as applied to contexts such as physical activity for health and training and performance. This is evidenced from the Title of the Unit, Areas of Study, Outcomes and Key Knowledge and Key Skills in Table 1.

The scope and focus of the new VCEPE are described as focusing on ‘the interrelationship between motor learning and psychological, biomechanical, physiological and sociological factors that influence physical performances, and participation in physical activity' (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority 2010, 7). It is stated that engagement with VCEPE enables students to ‘ … integrate theoretical knowledge with practical application in physical activities' (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority 2010, 7). In relation to this latter point, teachers are provided written guidance within the Study Design to ensure that students undertake, as a guide, 10–15 hours of practical work across each of the four units within the course, representing approximately 30% of total class time. In considering the prospective interpretation and enactment of the VCEPE amidst this guidance, it is also important to acknowledge accompanying assessment arrangements. As others have discussed, assessment is fundamental amidst endeavours to promote greater integration between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge and furthermore, to ensuring practically based learning experiences and ‘ways of knowing’ are legitimated (Hay and Penney 2013; Penney et al. 2012; Hay 2006; Thorburn 2008). As indicated above, 50% of a student's study score arises from the external written examination. For Units 3 and 4 teachers are asked to select from a variety of assessment tasks (e.g. a written report; a practical laboratory report; a case study analysis; data analysis; test or critically reflective folio/diary of participation in practical activities) to reflect key knowledge and skills being assessed, and to cater for students with different learning abilities.

In considering the ways in which teachers are likely to interpret and enact curriculum and assessment requirements in SSPE, current research literature highlights three often interconnected issues: (i) development of science-focussed PE degree programmes; (ii) teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and (iii) subject status and teacher/workplace socialisation. Green (2001) identifies the advent of more scientifically informed university degree programmes in physical education and sports science as contributing to tendencies for teachers to favour the value of theoretical knowledge and examinations in SSPE. As a result university graduates develop strong attachments to the particular ‘ways of knowing’ that their programmes have privileged. The second point of note is related to SSPE teacher's PCK. Tinning's work is particularly important here, for he found that (2002) while teachers may know and understand the theories of sub-disciplines, their ability to engage pedagogically with them may be compromised due to limited work in this space during university courses. In other research, a seemingly opposing view was reported by MacPhail (2004) who found that teachers perceived they possessed sufficient expertise to teach Higher Grade Physical Education in the Scottish context. Finally, Green (2005) has presented the concept of ‘professionalisation’, where the image, and therefore perception of subject as demanding theoretically will serve to garner status amongst peers within the subject profession as well as those outside it. Arguably this view has been conveyed by the formal assessment requirements associated with the VCEPE for many years, and is evident to varying degrees in senior secondary and examination course and assessment requirements in other jurisdictions nationally and internationally.

The New VCEPE: destined to be ‘theory-driven’?

Research in Australia and internationally has repeatedly pointed to the theoretical dimension of course developments and/or assessment arrangements as essentially in tension with parallel agendas to ensure that physical education clearly retains an overt practical orientation and accords status to learning ‘in, through, and about’ movement (Hay and Penney 2013; Brown 2013a, 2013b; Thorburn and Collins 2006). Historically and philosophically, there are several justifications for SSPE to remain an essentially theory-driven subject in Victoria and elsewhere. According to Green (2001), one of the several reasons that could explain an ongoing dominant theoretical orientation is an acceptance by the profession at large, whereby the nature and purposes of the subject are seen as academically rigorous (read here theoretical/proposition knowledge of anatomy, exercise physiology and biomechanics) as other subjects in the VCE, for example, Biology, Chemistry and so on. Fitzclarence and Tinning (1990) highlighted such ‘academicisation’ (Green 2005) in Victoria, which displayed many similarities to Reid's (1996a) commentary on examinable physical education at both the GCSE and ‘A’ levels.

Our analysis of the new official VCEPE text led us to present some contrasting perspectives. We suggested that the course presented a basis from which pluralistic ways of knowing and doing could be promoted in SSPE, with opportunities created for students to come to understand movement and physical activity – a notion/concept that has often been written about in the literature over the past two decades (Loland 2006; Tinning 1998) and more recently within the field (Brown and Payne 2009; Whitehead 2010). We specifically identified scope for interpretation of the Study Design to foreground (a) the role of sociocultural and phenomenological approaches to movement and (b) tasks (e.g. assessable activities; work requirements and tests) that are more frequent and formative and considerate of ‘multiple ways of knowing’. Aligning with Fahlberg and Fahlberg (1994), we directed attention to the scope for VCEPE learning experiences, assessment tasks and methods to draw out qualities, feelings, emotions and bodily processes that make meaning possible associated with participation in some movement form (Brown et al. 2009; Shusterman 2008). This next phase of research sought to pursue whether the possibilities we had identified were being explored in practice.

Research approach and methodology

In 2012 approval was obtained from both the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee and the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) to approach School Principals to ask if they would be willing to allow their teachers of VCEPE to participate in this study. The study employed a purposeful case Study design utilising a typical case sampling approach (Patton 2002). This approach is designed to describe and illustrate what is typical – for the purposes of this study, the pedagogic realities and possibilities of SSPE teachers and their teaching and learning of VCEPE classes located in varied school contexts.

Teachers from four schools (two government secondary colleges and two independent/private secondary colleges) with one VCEPE teacher (teaching Units 3 and 4) in each school agreed to participate in this study. The teachers in government secondary colleges were one male [James] and one female [Deborah] and those in independent/private secondary colleges were both males [Cleve and Matthew]. Teaching experience varied from 8 to 29 years, with two teachers having taught VCEPE or its precursor (Higher School Certificate [HSC] PE) as part of their teaching allotment from their first year of teaching.

Data collection occurred between Term 2, 2012 and the end of Term 1, 2013 (subject to teacher and researcher availability). This involved semi-structured interviews with each of the teachers, collection of classroom artefacts including curriculum and unit plans for year 12 VCEPE, and classroom observations of year 12 classes in each school. The semi-structured teacher interviews were 60–75 minutes in duration. Interview questions were open ended and designed to promote conversations about participants’ teaching experiences of SSPE, their knowledge and interpretation of the key knowledge and key skills incorporated in the VCEPE, and to invite teachers to provide examples of their pedagogic practices featuring in their enactment of the new Study Design. Probing sought to pursue the various factors and understandings shaping the pedagogic realities (see above) of SSPE for students in these schools. All interviews were recorded using a digital audio device and were later transcribed. Artefacts utilised by the teachers as part of their ongoing classroom pedagogies were also collected and analysed. These included, but were not limited to, PowerPoint or other presentations (e.g. overheads), worksheets, handouts, trial exam questions and other teaching and learning materials (e.g. task cards).

Teachers determined the classroom context for observation – either theory or practical classes⁴ and informed the research team prior to their arrival. Classroom observations were conducted on one theory and one practical lesson in two schools and two theory and one practical lessons in the other two schools. The majority of the observations were undertaken by the lead author, acting as an ‘external’ observer to the class. When both authors were present for an observation, each author independently collected field notes. Our fieldwork was loosely guided by Patton's (2002) description of observation methods and points of reference including the physical setting, human/social environment, (un)planned programmatic descriptions, observing non-verbal communication as well as descriptions of what was not happening. Throughout data collection we sought to remain aware of the many influences prospectively informing our observation, interpretation and recording of classroom experiences, and acknowledged that ‘ … insights, ideas, inspirations-and yes, judgments, too- will occur while making observations and recording field notes' (Patton 2002, 304).

Analysis

The intent of analysis was that it should generate insights pertaining to but not constrained by the issues and predictions we have articulated and that underpinned the research. Hence, a concern was to remain open to findings and interpretations that went beyond the issues and that prospectively countered our predictions. The initial step was to undertake a reconnaissance of the data, through careful reading and rereading. Long-table analysis was used allowing the transcripts to be independently coded by each author⁵ using thematic analysis (Patton 2002). Each theme was given a working code that was assigned to the transcribed text as they occur and then later recalled for analysis. Subsequently, content analysis followed the interpretive methods advocated by Strauss (1987) was used to collapse working codes into useable themes. Coded themes included examination as curriculum, examination as pedagogy, practical activity, factors influencing interpretation and enactment. Utilising a similar approach to the interview transcripts, field notes taken as a result of classroom observation were compiled into a Word document and placed into secure online file accessible only by the two authors. Coding of the field notes followed protocols above (see endnote 5). Using constant comparative analysis, we looked for recurrent themes or regularities that became categories for focus throughout the collection and analysis.

Findings and discussion

As indicated above, we approached this study having identified the new VCEPE Study Design as a curriculum text that presented teachers with pedagogical possibilities commensurate with Arnold's three dimensions both exclusively and interdependently. In this current study we acknowledge that a somewhat narrowly conceptualised set of areas of study, outcomes, key knowledge and key skills; the arrangements for assessment of VCEPE and/or other factors may limit teachers’ exploration of these opportunities. We understand the inherent difficulty in presenting original data independently from a variety of sources. As such our discussion as a whole is framed around themes that came through as particularly prominent in analysis. In reading it appears as if interview transcripts are the only data source; however, we have worked diligently to ensure that interview extracts are therefore blended with discussion that draws on field notes and refers to artefacts. Our data provided an acute reminder that (as is invariably the case with official curriculum texts) the VCEPE Study Design represents a framework for unit design, the design of learning experiences and assessment tasks that will feature in the VCEPE in individual schools. In many respects it is a non-prescriptive text, such that teaching and learning can be responsive to individual school contexts and groups of students. Our data need to therefore be recognised as illustrative of teachers exploring the gaps and possibilities that the official text presents to them in relation to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment matters associated with the VCEPE, including

• the particular learning contexts utilised in teaching VCEPE;

• the ways in which learning about key concepts can be approached pedagogically;

• how, when and in what ways students are encouraged to develop and extend their skills, knowledge and understandings in an integrated sense;

• the sorts of tasks students will be presented with to demonstrate and extend their skills, knowledge and understandings and

• the resources used to support student learning.

The data also need to be acknowledged as reflective of the ‘limits of discourse’ (Ball et al. 2012). In this regard we emphasise that talk of ‘exploration’ of gaps and possibilities in official texts needs to recognise agency and constraint in interpretations and actions. The sections that follow attempt to reflect the complex dynamics at play in this regard, as we specifically draw out issues and factors across the four case study schools that were identified as critical influences on teachers’ ‘translation and enactment’ (Ball et al. 2012) of the new Study Design and within this, expression of Arnold's dimensions. Our data illustrate matters of context, history and perceptions about necessity (Ball et al. 2012), shaping teachers’ interpretation and enactment of VCEPE, and reaffirms that to understand enactment, there is a need ‘to consider a set of objective conditions in relation to a set of subjective “interpretational” dynamics' (21). Each of the sections that follow illustrate these dynamics at play.

Physical activity and learning in, through and about movement in the VCEPE

The major rationale for Arnold's seminal publication Meaning in Movement, Sport and Physical Education was ‘ … an exploration of the concept of movement, especially that dimension which is to do with the person as agent engaged in movement' (162). Further he emphasised that the three dimensions of movement must be conceived of as ‘ … overlapping and interdependent' (168). We seek therefore to present how each of the VCEPE teachers come to understand and enact each of the dimensions initially independently and subsequently interdependently.

The dispositions of the VCEPE teachers in this study as evidenced from interviews, classroom observations, teaching behaviours and informal conversations pointed to a subject that privileges theoretical/propositional knowledge over practical activity – a point we have noted above with reference to the final examination. This is exemplified by Deborah when discussing the change of focus between compulsory PE and post-compulsory PE:

Then they hit the theoretical side of VCE and they are challenged by it. It is not what we were hoping, ‘where's all the prac, because it was supposed to be five periods a week apparently’.

This juxtaposition between the pedagogical intent and enactment of compulsory and post-compulsory PE has been reported elsewhere in the literature (Reid 1996a, 1996b). Furthermore, in some respects it is not in keeping with the desired intentions of the Arnoldian dimension ‘about’ movement. The pedagogies utilised by teachers, guided by the content of the Study Design, highlight the privileged position of theoretical content knowledge, perhaps at the expense of physical activity for no other purpose than for intellectualist superiority. In fact some teachers warned us of the emerging academic discourse of a subject without physical activity:

I had students come in and they had been to other schools and they saw me doing prac and they couldn't believe I was doing prac because at their secondary schools they did no prac in VCE phys ed.

Clearly this is not the pedagogical intention of the Study Design. ‘Education about movement’, Arnold wrote (1979, 168), ‘ … can be looked upon as a rational form of enquiry … as a subject to be studied [his italics]'. For example, this is exemplified by Deborah who said of physical activity within SSPE: ‘It's always, always got to point back to the theory'. Despite statements being commensurate with what Arnold wrote ‘about movement’ that ‘ … it can be studied in order to apply it to practical situations' (169), it may in fact be counterintuitive to the development of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in SSPE. Firstly, the language exemplified in the previous quote by Deborah highlights the continued privileging of intellectual knowledge. Secondly, physical activity simply becomes another site for where propositional knowledge is to be developed and thirdly, it devalues the concept that physical activity in and of itself is an opportunity where intelligent performance can develop (Kirk 1983, 1988). Somewhat paradoxically the teachers in the study highlighted that what was missing during some of the ‘theory’ classes was the meaningful and authentic connection of the experiences of physical activity and how these contributed to learning the theoretical/propositional knowledge. These ‘tensions’ are highlighted by James, a teacher of SSPE, for over 20 years:

In a nutshell the frustration is that physical education should be about movement, not kids sitting in your classroom doing a bit of theory work in a way that's not balanced by how much opportunity they get to do practical. I don't think we've got that balance right still, so that's a bit of a frustration.

According to Arnold (1979), the dimension most easily associated with physical education is that of education ‘through’ movement, conceived of as learning through movement to achieve another purpose, for example, skill development, fitness or content knowledge. When the importance of physical activity within VCEPE was broached either formally or informally, participants expressed they were caught in a ‘bind’ between their core philosophies that physical activity is the ‘ … nuts and bolts of what we are about … ' and the guidance from the official text that the subject should offer only 10–15 hours of practical activity during each unit. Deborah expressed concern in designing and developing appropriate practical activities in some units: ‘I reckon we run out of prac ideas when we get more into sports psychology at that end'. Conversely, others, such as Matthew, were very focussed on the importance of using practical activity in their classes and therefore followed Arnold's original conceptualisation for the ‘through’ dimension: ‘I would say three-quarters would have a learning outcome', adding: ‘ … Any time you get the chance to link the prac to the theory I think really reinforces what we talked about at the start (here referring to key knowledge and skills)'. Arnold notes that when physical education is pursued with this instrumental purpose in mind, it ‘may be worthy of inclusion in the curriculum if it can be shown that they are a good means in the promotion of other ends that are considered worthwhile' (171). We would argue that this form of pedagogical practice of practical activity is the norm in SSPE, especially when the key knowledge and the key skills being met by teachers are underpinned by the sub-disciplinary knowledge of exercise physiology – in either the training or participation discourse (Tinning 1997).

The third dimension, education in movement is concerned with values that are inherent in activities themselves; they are in and of themselves worthwhile. Past research has suggested that this dimension is not well understood by teachers (Brown 2011) or is esoteric and not considered measurable (Personal Communication, Whitehead 2012). Previously we suggested that this dimension was not adequately expressed in sufficient depth via the official VCEPE text. Data from the teachers suggest that there exists, however, a superficial appreciation of the philosophical underpinnings of this dimension, as evidenced from several quotes which point directly to an individual's intelligent performance of movement (Kirk 1983, 1988). An example comment from Matthew that: ‘ … Kids are kinaesthetic learners in PE largely', uses language of embodied and intelligent performance; however, when teachers attempted to articulate such discourses more cogently and coherently, their language tended to utilise more global terms, for example, love for physical activity, fun to be involved. As evidenced by Cleve:

… At VCE they've chosen to be here and I just want them to carry on with that love of physical activity and take it out into the world for themselves and those people around them so that they're going to be physically active.

What we have presented is each of the dimensions of movement as ‘conceptually discrete' (Arnold 1979, 177). Illustrations consistent with Arnold's intentions for the dimensions to be considered as ‘functionally related', ‘mutually reinforcing' and ‘inter-dependent' (177) were not common in our data. As indicated, the overly theoretical nature of the subject, the expected range and depth of the content to be taught and marginalisation of practical activity appear to give rise to this situation. Nevertheless, the enactment associated with the school-assessment coursework of training programme⁶ deserves acknowledgement, whereby teachers and students exhibited from our perspective two of the three Arnoldian dimensions (education ‘about and through’ movement) as it developed over the course of the unit. This was consistent with the physiological content knowledge of fitness components, principles of training, fitness testing and training methods. These were presented in the classroom both as lectures, notes and handouts (education about movement) and as practical experiences via either teacher or student direction, with a focus on consolidating this knowledge (education through movement). As with the discrete example of ‘education in movement’ above, there was little if any presentation or opportunity to analyse the training programme from ‘ … a participatory perspective of the moving agent' (Arnold 1979, 176).

The VCEPE examination: de facto curriculum and ‘examination as pedagogy’

As explained, an external written examination accounts for 50% of a student's VCEPE study score. Given this weighting, it is not surprising that the format and content of this examination were a key point of reference for teachers’ thinking about the content and nature of learning experiences and formative assessment tasks. Writing about SSPE in Scotland, MacPhail (2007) similarly expressed the view that ‘ … the end product is deemed to be more important than the learning process (56)'. Field notes collected from our classroom observation highlighted that past exams and specific questions from them were fundamentally important in shaping teachers’ enactment of the new VCEPE and to guide students in developing required process and product knowledge. In this section we thus direct attention to specific ways in which teachers were turning to texts directly associated with the written examination to variously inform their decisions about curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in their VCEPE teaching. The effects of this in relation to perceptions about legitimate and/or valued knowledge in SSPE, and specifically the expression of Arnold's dimensions are examined.

The texts we are referring to at this point include the formal specifications for the VCEPE examination, previous examinations that are publicly available⁷ and examination reports prepared by the Chief Assessor that provide feedback on student performance in past examinations. Past examinations in particular were shown to be a powerful source of insight for teachers seeking more detail about teaching and learning content and expectations than is provided in the Study Design. In essence, the examination texts were seen as an authoritative source for further understanding course expectations. For example, Matthew explained:

Because the study design isn't explicit enough or implicit enough but I don't know how else it could be. The dot point just says ‘Fatigue and recovery mechanisms’ but how much should a study design set out so how does a new teacher learn that without going to PD and looking at past exams.

From a curriculum perspective therefore, past examination texts served to ‘fill gaps’ in the official course text relating to, in particular, the depth with which concepts such as characteristics and interplay of energy systems and chronic and acute adaptations to exercise should be explored. They were also clearly influential in teachers’ engagement with particular concepts and with specific related terminology. Explicit teaching about the use of particular terminology was observed as a notable element of teaching, where students' ability to read and interpret figures and tables was considered as important as the learning of the content knowledge of particular types of fitness components, their principles and methods for training.

If we return to our interest in Arnold's dimensions, the issue here is the influence that the form of examination, the weighting it is accorded and the specific detail of past questions collectively have on, firstly, approaches to ‘learning about movement’ and, secondly, on teachers’ prospective linking of the three dimensions in practice. The written format and the nature of the questions featuring in the examination appeared to be encouraging a privileging of ‘learning about’ in teaching and simultaneously, limiting pedagogical approaches that would connect this dimension with others. Questions in the VCEPE examination arguably point to expectations for specific factual recall about course content. While some questions are associated with particular contextual information (about, for example, an athlete's training or performance), direct prompts to foreground an applied perspective in approaching the issues that questions are seeking to engage with are limited. For example, Deborah, a senior female teacher in one of the government schools, explained the extent to which her pedagogy was being directed towards the examination context.

 … you are working towards performance in an exam. Unfortunately that's the way we tend to be headed and you do have to understand how to have these skills, so constantly test and understand there is a lot of testing involved.

Matthew had developed an examination ‘book’ that consisted of all previous published and released examinations over the previous decade, stating that: ‘my kids would've done 15 exams probably even up to 20 exams by the exam'. In other instances when covering topics such as fitness training principles and methods, teachers were routinely cutting and pasting exam questions from previous exams to provide to students as part of their pedagogical practices in the classroom. Cleve similarly reported that ‘a lot of practice exams and their summaries and questioning each other’ outlined the way in which the final examination scope and sequence of learning occurred ‘ … leading up to exams we sat down and did a six week plan leading up to exams of what we were going to cover when and what was expected to be done in preparation for the final exam'. Such findings echo Casey and O'Donovan's (2015) observations that exam results are the central rationale for improving teaching practices – further emphasising the concept of a ‘performativity agenda’ present in SSPE pedagogy.

Also influential in shaping pedagogic practice is the knowledge that teachers have of past students’ performance in the examination. Deborah explained that she can then reflect on results and consider adjustments to her teaching: ‘Yeah, because we analyse the exam from last year and we know when we're really doing well and when we're not doing okay … '. This comment was made specifically to the area of study on Physiological responses to physical activity, where key knowledge and key skills of the three energy systems (adenosine triphosphate – phosphate creatine, anaerobic glycolysis and aerobic system) (24) were considered important due to its integrated content throughout this section of the Study Design.

Finally, we saw teachers recognising that taking up the role of an assessor for the examination could give them further and arguably privileged insight into course expectations at this point of summative assessment. As Penney and Hay (2008) and Hay and Penney (2013) have highlighted, equity issues arise in relation to both teacher knowledge and understanding of VCEPE and the consequential differential positioning of students enrolled in the course in various schools. James explained:

The other thing that I also realised very early on was that there were a couple of ways in which I could enhance my understanding to the benefit of students and that was to get involved in marking exam papers. I did that relatively early into my teaching career because that gave me a terrific insight into the way in which students were responding and also what other teachers were doing in terms of how they taught and how they interpreted the material. Advice that I'd have to any aspiring teacher would be, particularly if you are teaching at the senior level, is to avail yourself of opportunities to do that.

Resources: reaffirming dominant knowledge and ways of knowing

Alongside examination texts, other resources such as commercial textbooks and workbooks were seen to be a key influence on teachers’ understandings of the pedagogic possibilities associated with the VCEPE and their enactment of it. Consistent with findings from MacPhail (2007) in Scotland during the Higher Grade Physical Education course development, teachers questioned the level of prescription in the curricula and wished for a more prescriptive document. As a mechanism to develop certainty in the curricula, teachers in this study established teaching resources which were turned to (i) as a source of further insight into areas of content encompassed in the course; (ii) to inform the content and organisation of teaching in terms of scope and sequence of units of work and/or specific learning activities and (iii) to ensure that teaching appropriately prepared students for the written examination. Each of these points listed above can be seen as important for the prospective expression of each of Arnold's dimensions and similarly, for the likelihood that their interrelated nature will come to the fore in teaching and learning. What teachers regard as the ‘authoritative texts’ for SSPE in Victoria thus becomes crucial and in this regard it is important to acknowledge that in Australia, texts are produced and recognised as appropriate for particular State contexts.

There are three textbooks produced by different publishers that teachers are able to select from as resource material for teaching the Study Design. All three textbooks are presented similarly in layout to one another, with content knowledge related to the key knowledge and key skills comprising the majority of the chapter, supported by student engagement activities (e.g. case studies, web searches and exam questions) with example practical activities presented towards the end of each chapter. Three-quarters of the teachers prescribed one textbook for their students whilst acknowledging the importance of them possessing all texts in their pedagogical preparation of classes. In some regards, the ‘preferred’ text was selected due to the range of additional accompanying resources (e.g. Student notes, workbooks, revision study card and workshops by authors) also able to be purchased and utilised by teachers and students. According to Deborah:

In nuts and bolts terms, every chapter of their textbook they have to summarise and they're given, because they come to us with a lack of ability to summarise so they're given dot points of what they have to include in the summary and they do that summary. They're then tested so they're given clear indicators of right, we are currently teaching this chapter, we are now finished this chapter.

The utilisation and dominance of one text may result in a narrowing of forms of pedagogy delivered by senior teachers when the text becomes a dominant component of teaching. As highlighted by Cleve when referring to other teachers that he has seen teaching the Study Design:

I've seen PE teachers go in and they sit in a chair behind a desk and basically read through the textbooks with their kids for the entire year and you just know the kids aren't taking it in because they're not that way inclined.

In addition to textbooks, we also explored other resources that teachers utilise and produce in their teaching, for example, use of workbooks and PowerPoint presentations. PowerPoint presentations were utilised by all teachers in varying degrees as a means to deliver knowledge about a topic. This entrenched pedagogy is highlighted by Deborah:

So yeah, a lot of PowerPoint but not to the point of death by PowerPoint. So if I feel that they're getting bored with PowerPoint then I'll change another tactic and we might do a handout conversation or we'll do a circle session where we're quizzing each other. So try to get as much variety in there as I can but at unit 3 and 4 especially I think that you need to make sure that it's getting covered.

This is consistent with what Bowes (2010) has highlighted in the teaching of SSPE in New Zealand. Workbooks published by the same companies as those responsible for textbooks were also consistently observed as part of normal classroom pedagogical practice. Cleve highlights how the use of workbooks occur during his teaching of the Study Design:

With the textbook I use, there's the homework or workbook manual as well and I use that as a chapter summary for them. So each time we finish a chapter I expect them to have completed the workbook chapter that goes with that and I think that's a good summary ready for them to move on.

It could be said that the plausible shift consistent to classes where utilisation of PowerPoint and workbooks is common actually mimics classroom structures that occur in contemporary university degree programmes that offer Physical Education or Exercise Science degrees, namely lectures and tutorials. As highlighted by James:

Within the course of a normal week, there would be one lesson that's usually, if I can use the term, a more ‘lecture' style presentation. The lecture style presentation involves the presentation of contents material, in other words knowledge based material.

This is followed later by a tutorial style of teaching ‘ … where the focus is on student activities that are based upon what's been presented in the lecture that might have gone before’. This ‘pedagogical turn’ once again reinforces the ‘academicisation’ of the subject (Fitzclarence and Tinning 1990; Green 2005), that being that the worthwhileness of the subject is only achieved via (i) teachers having studied sports science at university and subsequently development of an affinity with the subject content knowledge; and (ii) the continued desire of the profession to be considered as important as other academic subjects.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to extend our understanding of the issues relating to the interplay of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in the interpretation and enactment of SSPE, in the state of Victoria, Australia. Specifically, we explored the expression of Arnold's dimensions of movement arising in the school curriculum and associated teachers’ practices – their pedagogic realities and possibilities. The data presented have illustrated that while the official text may present notable opportunities for the pedagogic expression of Arnold's dimensions, several factors can currently be seen as limiting this expression. Most obviously, some tension exists between external assessment arrangements and prospects of the dimensions being enacted in ways that reflect their interrelated nature. Debates that have existed for the past 30 years, especially here in Victoria (see Fitzclarence and Tinning 1990), pertaining primarily to ‘ … the place of physical activity within an examinable “academic” subject’ (p. 169) appear to remain unresolved. Furthermore, our study suggests that the move towards academicisation (Green 2005) of the subject has developed through two independent streams, namely (i) reduction (and/or removal) of physical activity from the Study Design and (ii) the role of the examination as curriculum and pedagogy. In examining these streams, it is pertinent to draw readers’ attention to likely consequences if physical activity is further reduced amidst enactment of the Study Design, with SSPE prospectively becoming a ‘ … disembodied academic pursuit' (Arnold 1979, 177). This point is reflected in Kirk's (2010) suggestion that it is more appropriate to call SSPE in the UK ‘Sport, Exercise and Active Leisure or even Kinesiology or Physical Culture' (136) as its focus has been almost exclusively the ‘about’ dimension as proposed by Arnold.

Our study has demonstrated that the opportunity for teachers to exhibit original and creative responses amidst the introduction of a new official curriculum text has seemingly been compromised by multiple factors, including overt tensions in the pedagogical possibilities signalled by the curriculum text and those arising from the assessment framework for VCEPE. We nevertheless remain optimistic about the future of SSPE in Victoria and elsewhere. In our view the seminal philosophical framework presented by Arnold still offers a sound basis for extending pedagogical practices and furthermore, student learning in physical education. The inter-relatedness of dimensions of education ‘in, through and about’ movement is arguably critical to such advancement. Further, we point to teacher education, teacher educators, researchers and professional associations as all having a vital role to play in the creative bridging of policy and professional gaps to extend understanding and application of Arnold's dimensions in SSPE.

Disclosure Statement

Neither author wishes to declare any conflict of interest with regard to this paper.

Additional information

Funding

For this work occurred via a Monash University, Faculty of Education, Internal seeding grant. We thank the Faculty and University for their support.

Notes

1. The new (i.e. revised) official text for the VCEPE was published in 2010 and is accredited for the period of 2011–2016. It replaced the previous version accredited for 2006–2010.

2. Should readers wish to engage with further theoretical analyses between the Arnoldian dimensions and issues related to practical–theoretical dualisms, they would be advised to read papers by Brown (2013a, 2013b) and Brown and Penney (2013).

3. The lead author has been involved as an external assessor/writer of material for the VCEPE examination. The second author has also been involved as curriculum writer and developer in SSPE in a state other than Victoria.

4. Teachers in Victoria refer to classes as either ‘theory’ or ‘prac' –a reference to the clothes students are to wear, in addition to the implicit requirements of learning which takes place.

5. At the time of the analysis, one author was residing in another country, so critical incidents and experiences that presented from these data were discussed via email and subsequent Skype meetings. During these exchanges, we compared our coded data and sought to clarify each other's position they had identified and felt were significant

6. Developing a training programme is part of outcome 1 of unit 4 -– Outcome 1 Plan, implement and evaluate training programmes to enhance specific fitness components.

7. Electronic copies of past examinations are available from http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Pages/vce/studies/physicaledu/exams.aspx