Close encounters with critical pedagogy in socio-critically informed health education teacher education

ABSTRACT

Background: An emerging body of Physical Education scholarship is addressing the challenge of preparing Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) students to enact a socio-critically informed Health Education [Leahy, D., and L. McCuaig. 2014. “Disrupting the Field: Teacher Education in Health Education.” In Health Education: Critical Perspectives, edited by K. Fitzpatrick, and R. Tinning, 220–232. Oxon: Routledge]. Researchers have identified the tensions faced by PETE educators whose students typically adopt an uncritical acceptance of socially unjust practices concerning the ‘healthy body’ [Tinning, R., and T. Glasby. 2002. “Pedagogical Work and the ‘Cult of the Body’: Considering the Role of HPE in the Context of the ‘New Public Health’.” Sport, Education and Society 7 (2): 109–119]. Although scholars have advocated the usefulness of critical pedagogies as a means of inspiring PETE students’ capacities to question ‘taken-for-granteds’ circulating within HPE, others such as Gore [1998. “On the Limits to Empowerment through Critical and Feminist Pedagogies.” In Power/Knowledge/Pedagogy, edited by D. Carlson, and M. Apple, 271–288. Westview], have argued that radical pedagogues have failed to name the specific alternative practices they employ. Indeed, little has changed since Gore (1998) challenged the profession to ‘translate their visions into practice’ (274). Purpose: In response to Gore’s challenge, this paper presents one contemporary PETE educator’s proclaimed use of critical pedagogy as a strategy to confront social justice and socio-cultural issues within an Australian HPETE programme. This analysis exposes the ‘hidden’ curriculum and pedagogy of higher education classrooms where practice is not routinely revealed, let alone shared. Following this, the authors explore the extent to which these pedagogical approaches were enacted as intended, in accordance with the tenets of critical pedagogy and, importantly, what students made of these endeavours. Design and analysis: The ethnographic doctoral study took place within the context of a PETE programme delivered at a large, prestigious Australian university. The participating group of 44 specialist PETE students were enrolled in EDU39 Educating for Better Health, and were commencing the third year of their teacher training course. Drawing on qualitative interview data and student assessment tasks, this paper documents the rationale behind, and enactment of, four pedagogical strategies delivered within the health education courses of this PETE programme. Comparison of pre-teaching interview data with the researcher's observation notes, revealed the compromises that ensued within the realities of a complex teacher education learning space. Conclusion: In seeking to make sense of this ‘pedagogical soup’ [Tinning, R. 1995. “We Have Ways of Making You Think, or Do We? Reflection on ‘Training’ in Reflective Teaching.” In Better Teaching in P. E.?: Think About It! Proceedings of the International Seminar on Training of Teachers in Reflective Practice in Physical Education, edited by C. Pare’. Quebec: Department des science de l'activite’ physique, Universite’ du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres], the paper argues that the approaches of social justice pedagogy offer a more nuanced rationale for, and appropriate alignment with, the pedagogical strategies employed. In light of this analysis, the authors suggest that challenging and disrupting PETE students’ values and knowledges through critical pedagogies continues to be an unpredictable and dangerous project, but still poses a valuable strategy for productive, albeit it modest, pedagogical work.

KEYWORDS:

• Health education
• critical pedagogy
• health and physical education teacher education
• social justice pedagogy
• privilege

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.