Reflecting on the first year of the journal as the renamed Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education provides a sense of satisfaction. While the metrics will take a bit of time to flow through all of the indicators that we put in place around the change are on track. I particularly want to acknowledge the Journal Executive team for the planning and preparation that went into making the transition such a smooth one. As we move into our second year of operation we are taking the opportunity to revisit and expand the composition of our Editorial Executive and Board. I thank everyone who is involved for their energy and enthusiasm for the Journal and their shared commitment to seeing it establish itself as an attractive outlet for authors whose work connects with our broad focus on curriculum studies in health and physical education. I encourage potential contributors to visit the Journal website to familiarise themselves with the guidelines for authors.
The first paper in this edition focuses on the use of technology in physical education. Located against a backdrop of rapid engagement across the education spectrum Wyant and Baek explore the seeming reluctance of physical education teachers to engage with technology in the delivery of the subject, as a curriculum practice in schools. In this article they explore some of the factors that influence teachers’ engagement and non engagement with technology, and contemplate strategies that might encourage meaningful adoption. Following this, Hyland and colleagues report on a study into the student perceptions of Ability and Worth in physical education. Using qualitative methods they explore the factors that influence the level of satisfaction and engagement that students have with physical education. Rather than see perceived Ability and Worth as attributes that individuals simply possess, they challenge teachers to consider the ways their practices might increase knowledge, skills and understanding during HPE classes to positively influence student perceptions of Ability and Worth.
In the third paper SueSee and Barker interrogate the place of pedagogy in the translation of curriculum goals. Focusing on the Swedish National Physical Education curriculum the authors use Mosoton and Ashworth’s teaching spectrum to interrogate how different pedagogies might be used to advance curriculum aspirations associated with creativity, problem solving, personal responsibility and independence. Through a qualitative investigation they conclude that despite teachers’ intentions to develop a range of learning outcomes their conformity around a particular ‘cluster of pedagogies’ renders it difficult for them to achieve these ends. They believe that professional learning is needed to take teachers away from the known and familiar and expose them to a wider array of pedagogic possibilities more capable of facilitating particular learning outcomes. In the following paper, Pavao and colleages explore the utility of Hellison’s Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Model in a preschool context. Set in Portugal the authors explore the experiences of 24 children and the program leader as they set about implementing aspects of the TPSR model in ways that are respectful of the learning context. While being measured in the generalisability of the Invetigation, their findings provide robust optimism that the TPSR model can be used with children at a young age to foster social and emotional learning.
In the fifth paper in this collection Scanlon and colleagues report on recent developments in Ireland to introduce an examinable Physical Education curriculum in the final years of schooling. To corroborate their desktop analysis of the construction of the new curriculum they conduct interviews with members of the Curriculum Development Group. Here, they explore the competing interests and contestations that existed among the Group and the consequent debates and compromises that emerged as they sought to establish agreed curriculum content and assessment. Using Elias’s (1978) Game Model they explore the complexity of the curriculum construction process and the propensity for unintended consequences to emerge. In the final paper, Vinson and Parker engage in a socio culturally informed analysis of contemporary sports coaching through the theoretical tools of Vygotsky. Using a case study methodology, involving observations and interviews, they explore the practices and perceptions of six coaches who believe that they are innovative and ‘non-traditional’ in their approach. The accounts of their practices provide rich insights into the ways social, cultural and historical understandings of coach and athlete in particular fields/sports exist to constrain understandings of effective curriculum and pedagogy. They conclude that the work of Vygotsky can provide a valuable framework for helping coaches to realise the limits of ‘blanket frameworks’ for developing learning and amplify the potential value for more bespoke scaffolds to facilitate individualised learning opportunities.
I hope that you enjoy the collection of papers presented in this edition of Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education and I look forward to sharing more of the outstanding scholarship that is going on around the world in upcoming editions.