How physical education teachers are positioned in models scholarship: a scoping review

ABSTRACT

Background:

Despite increasing support for models in physical education, ambiguity exists concerning the role of teachers in the implementation of models. Very generally, some scholarship seems to suggest that teachers should work as technicians and use models in an instrumental manner. Other scholarship suggests that teachers should use models in ways that are responsive to the contexts in which they are working. This suggestion positions teachers more as craftspeople. Ambiguity is problematic given that teachers have been identified as ‘key players’ when it comes to the implementation of models. How teachers are positioned in research may have a significant impact on further research and pedagogical practices.

Purpose:

This paper has two specific aims. First, we aim to provide a detailed map of how scholars have positioned teachers within physical education models literature. Second, we aim to provide a reinterpretation of our findings using Deweyan theory.

Data production:

The scoping review conducted here is based on the framework provided by Arksey and O’Malley [2005. “Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 (1): 19–32]. It involved: (1) the development of a research question which was: in which ways does PE models literature position teachers? (2) the identification of potentially relevant literature through searches of the Web of Science, SPORT Discus and Google Scholar databases. The search terms used were: ‘Physical education’ AND ‘Models-based practice;’ OR; ‘Pedagogical model;’ OR; ‘Instructional model;’ OR; ‘Curriculum model;’ OR; ‘Model;’ OR; ‘Teacher,’ and literature needed to be published between 2010 and 2021 in English, (3) the selection of literature for the review. This occurred as an iterative process that involved going back and forth between the potentially relevant literature and our research question, (4) charting of the literature, done through inductive thematic analysis. This involved a close inspection of the included texts and the identification of recurring types of positioning in the corpus, and (5) a theoretical reinterpretation of teacher positioning achieved in models scholarship.

Findings:

In the physical education scholarship on pedagogical models, teachers are positioned as: (1) resistant to using models; (2) incapable of using models correctly; (3) mechanical reproducers of models; (4) struggling implementers of models; (5) needing models to change their ordinary practices; (6) capable of using models correctly with support; (7) adapters of models, and (8) collaborators with researchers when implementing models.

Discussion:

Three issues are raised for discussion. The first relates to the potential disempowerment of teachers achieved by models. The second relates to the relationship between teachers and researchers. The third relates to how models themselves are conceived.

Conclusion:

The paper is concluded with two general reflections that follow from the issues raised in the discussion.

KEYWORDS:

• Models
• physical education
• teacher positioning
• teacher autonomy
• review

Introduction

The use of models in physical education (PE) has gained popularity over the last two decades (Araújo, Mesquita, and Hastie 2014; Casey and Quennerstedt 2020; Dyson 2001; Harvey and Jarrett 2014; Oslin 2002; Silva, Farias, and Mesquita 2021). Increased popularity is at least in part due to the capacity of models to provide pedagogical responses to problems that have traditionally challenged physical educators (Kirk 2010). Models can for example, allow teachers to focus on learning (Aggerholm et al. 2018), provide a framework for integrating learning objectives, activities, and assessment (Kirk 2013), and present teachers with convincing educational justifications for their work (Dyson, Kulinna, and Metzler 2016). Despite considerable support for models, ambiguity exists concerning the role of teachers in the implementation of models. On one hand, some scholarship suggests that teachers should use models in an instrumental manner. Terms like model ‘fidelity’ (Hastie and Casey 2014), ‘non-negotiable features’ (Hastie and Casey 2014; Kirk 2013), and ‘benchmarks’ (Metzler 2017) position teachers as technicians in relation to models. On the other hand, scholars have proposed that teachers should use models as inspiration for practice. In this latter sense, teachers should use models in ways that are responsive to the contexts in which they are working. This contention positions teachers as independent craftspeople with respect to models (Casey 2014; Landi, Fitzpatrick, and McGlashan 2016; Metzler 2017).

In this review paper, we take a closer look at the ways literature on models in PE positions teachers. Such an examination is necessary because teachers are ‘key players’ when it comes to the implementation of models (Casey and Kirk 2020). How teachers are positioned by researchers may have a significant impact on research and pedagogical practices (Casey et al. 2021; Silva, Farias, and Mesquita 2021). The specific aim of the paper is twofold. First, we aim to provide a detailed map of how scholars have positioned teachers in relation to models within physical education literature. To achieve this aim, we present the results of a scoping review of models literature. Second, we aim to provide a reinterpretation of the findings using Deweyan theory. The reinterpretation should be considered as a problematization of the findings.

Methodology

In this article, we present the results of a scoping review (Arksey and O’Malley 2005; Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien 2010). The methodological process of a scoping review is systematic and involves reviewing various types of texts which can include empirical studies, conceptual articles, and reviews (Munn et al. 2018; Göransson et al. 2017). This scoping review is based on the five-stage framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005):

• (1) Identifying initial research questions. We first identified parameters that covered the breadth of our focus area but that did not generate an unmanageable amount of literature. This resulted in the development of one specific research question: in which ways does PE models literature position teachers?

• (2) Identifying potentially relevant literature. In identifying potentially relevant literature, we made several decisions. We decided that a 12-year span would yield sufficient literature, and since it was important for us to examine current ways of discussing the positioning of teachers, we included literature from 2010 to 2021. We limited ourselves to texts published in English and in line with scoping review procedures (Munn et al. 2018), considered different kinds of texts (for example, books, theses, and reviews) as eligible for review. Four database searches were conducted using Web of Science, SPORT Discus, and Google Scholar between October 2020 and November 2021. Potentially relevant texts were identified, marked, and downloaded. The search terms used in the fields of title, abstract, and keywords were: ‘Physical education’ AND ‘Models-based practice;’ OR; ‘Pedagogical model;’ OR; ‘Instructional model;’ OR; ‘Curriculum model;’ OR; ‘Model;’ OR; ‘Teacher.’ All literature that positioned teachers – mainly through discussions of their role in models implementation or through practitioner recommendations – were identified as potentially relevant and stored using EndNote (see the Appendix, for literature selection flow chart [based on Munn et al. 2018]).

• (3) Selecting the literature. Selection of literature for inclusion in the review was an iterative process that involved going back and forth between the potentially relevant literature and our research question (Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien 2010). The first author conducted readings of the literature. All three authors met regularly to discuss the specific inclusion criteria that should be used. During these meetings, we agreed that to be included in the review, texts needed to have: (1) an explicit focus on in-service teachers given that pre-service teachers might be positioned differently in relation to models (see Silva, Farias, and Mesquita 2021), and (2) an extended discussion on the relationship between teachers and models. We defined an extended discussion as approximately one page or more of description/discussion on teachers. All literature selected for review is included in Table 1.

• (4) Charting the data. The literature was read to obtain an overview of the content. Inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) was undertaken based on a close inspection of the included texts, where we identified recurring types of positioning in the corpus. As various types of positioning were identified, they were compared with one another. During this process, some types were judged sufficiently similar to warrant merging them. Other types were sufficiently different to warrant dividing them into two. In the end, eight types of positioning were identified (see Table 2, under Findings).

• (5) Reinterpreting the positioning of teacher. This final stage of our review encompassed a reinterpretation of the findings (Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien 2010). Reinterpretation of the texts involved abductive analysis, where we moved between the themes and a theory to create new meaning (Dubois and Gadde 2002; Tavory and Timmermans 2014). We chose ideas taken from educational philosopher John Dewey for our theoretical standpoint.

Table 1. Corpus of literature for the scoping review.

Study nr	Author	Location	Type
1	Bjørke, Standal, and Mordal Moen (2021)	Norway	Empirical
2	Bähr and Wibowo (2012)	Germany	Empirical
3	Calderón and Tannehill (2021)	Ireland	Empirical
4	Casey (2010)	UK	Thesis
5	Casey (2014)	UK	Review
6	Casey and Kirk (2020)	UK	Book
7	Casey and MacPhail (2018)	UK and Ireland	Empirical
8	Casey et al. (2021)	UK and Sweden	Conceptual
9	Casey and Quennerstedt (2020)	UK and Sweden	Conceptual
10	Chen, Sinelnikov, and Hastie (2013)	Taiwan and USA	Empirical
11	Curtner-Smith et al. (2021)	USA and UK	Empirical
12	Dyson, Colby, and Barratt (2016)	New Zealand	Empirical
13	Dyson, Linehan, and Hastie (2010)	New Zealand and USA	Empirical
14	Fernandez-Rio and Casey (2021)	Spain and UK	Empirical
15	Fernandez-Rio and Menendez-Santurio (2017)	Spain	Empirical
16	García-López et al. (2019)	Spain and USA	Empirical
17	Gil-Arias et al. (2021)	Spain and USA	Empirical
18	Goodyear (2013)	UK	Thesis
19	Goodyear (2017)	UK	Empirical
20	Goodyear and Casey (2015)	UK	Empirical
21	Goodyear and Dudley (2015)	UK and Australia	Conceptual
22	Gordon (2020)	New Zealand	Conceptual
23	Gubacs-Collins and Olsen (2010)	USA	Empirical
24	Gurvitch and Metzler (2013)	USA	Conceptual
25	Gutiérrez et al. (2022)	Spain and USA	Empirical
26	Haerens et al. (2011)	Belgium and UK	Conceptual
27	Harvey and Jarrett (2014)	UK	Review
28	Harvey and Pill (2016)	UK and Australia	Empirical
29	Harvey et al. (2020)	USA and Australia	Empirical
30	Hastie and Casey (2014)	UK/ Ireland and USA	Conceptual
31	Hastie et al. (2015)	USA, UK and Spain	Conceptual
32	Jarrett and Light (2021)	UK and New Zealand	Empirical
33	Kloeppel et al. (2013)	USA	Empirical
34	Kloeppel, Stylianou, and Kulinna (2014)	USA	Empirical
35	Landi, Fitzpatrick, and McGlashan (2016)	New Zealand	Conceptual
36	Metzler (2017)	USA	Book
37	Miller et al. (2017)	Australia and UK	Empirical
38	O’Leary N (2014)	UK	Empirical
39	O’Leary (2016)	UK	Empirical
40	Pascual et al. (2011)	Spain and USA	Empirical
41	Pill, Swabey, and Penney (2017)	Australia	Empirical
42	Richards and Gordon (2017)	USA and New Zealand	Empirical
43	Sammon (2019)	UK	Thesis
44	Stolz and Pill (2016)	Australia	Conceptual
45	Storey and Butler (2013)	Canada	Conceptual
46	SueSee et al. (2021)	Australia	Conceptual
47	Wallhead et al. (2021)	USA and Australia	Empirical
48	Williams and Wainwright (2016)	UK	Conceptual

Table 2. Mapping of teachers positioning in models scholarship.

Over-arching theme	The variety of how PE teachers are positioned in relation to models
Theme: The teachers;	1. Are resistant to using models	2. Are incapable of using models correctly	3. Are mechanical reproducers of models	4. Are struggling implementers of models	5. Are needing models to change their ordinary practices	6. Are capable of using models with support	7. Are adapters of models	8. Are collaborators with researchers when implementing models
Study nr.
1.	X	x	x		x		x	X
2.		x	X		X	x		x
3.					x	X		x
4.	x	x	x		X	x	x	x
5.	x	x		x	x	x	x	x
6.			x	X	x	x	x	x
7.		x		x	X	x	x
8.			x				X
9.							X
10.		x			x	x	x	x
11.			x			x	X
12.		x			x	x	x
13.			x		x	x
14.				x	x	x
15.			x			x	x
16.	X	x			x		x	x
17.			x	x	x	x		x
18.	x	x	x	x	x	x		x
19.			x		x	x	x	x
20.	x	x		X	x	x		x
21.					X
22.					x
23.	x	x		x	x		x	x
24.			x
25.	x	x	x				X
26.			x	X	x	x
27.		x				x
28.		x	x	x	x		x
29.	x	X			x	x	X
30.		x		x		x
31.	x	X	x		x	x		x
32.	x	x		x		x		x
33.		x	x		x	X
34.		x	x			x	x
35.			X		x		x
36.			x	X	x		x
37.		X	X
38.	x	X	x
39.	x	x	x		x	X
40.		X	x		x	x		x
41.	x	X	x	x
42.	x	x	x	x	x	x
43.	x	x	x		x	x	x	x
44.	x	x					x
45.					X		x
46.	x	x	x		x		X
47.	x	x	x		x	x	x	x
48.			x		x	x	x

Dewey is well-known for critiquing the theory–practice dichotomy in education (Wrenn and Wrenn 2009). Dewey considered theory and practice as an intertwined process. From Dewey’s pragmatist perspective, individuals can use theory to deal with problems they may experience in their daily lives (Lundgren, Säljö, and Liberg 2017). Teacher autonomy was a central part of Dewey’s educational beliefs. On several occasions, Dewey stressed his opposition to top–down approaches to education where teachers are expected to use prescribed solutions to pedagogical questions (Dewey 1916). Dewey asked,

if teachers are incapable of the intellectual responsibility which goes with the determination of the methods they are to use in teaching, how can they employ methods when dictated by others, in other than a mechanical, capricious, and clumsy manner? (Dewey 1903, 173)

This position is consistent with Dewey’s views on democratic societies (see, for example, Dewey 1939).

Dewey’s (1916) advocacy of teachers’ autonomy was a result of his view that teachers need intellectual freedom to align students’ experiences with the subject matter. He suggested that a lack of trust in teachers would impact students’ learning as they too would be restrained in specific ways of responding. For Dewey (1916), the risk of prescriptions was that they do not allow educators to acknowledge the unique characteristics of each learner (Dewey 1916). Dewey maintained that ‘[u]ntil the democratic criterion of the intrinsic significance of every growing experience is recognized, we shall be intellectually confused by the demand for adaptation to external aims’ (Dewey 1916, 160). Dewey asserted that teachers have a key role to play in the educational process precisely because they have decisions to make (Dewey 1916). He noted that ‘nothing has brought pedagogical theory into greater disrepute than the belief that it is identified with handing out to teachers recipes and models to be followed in teaching’ (Dewey 1916, 249).

In adopting a Deweyan perspective and accepting Dewey’s critique of ‘recipes and models,’ we are setting out to encourage discussion and problematization of the positioning of teachers in models literature in PE. The critical stance of Dewey on teaching prescriptions, in general, provides us with a vantage point from which we can view the positions of teachers achieved in contemporary models scholarship. We believe that Dewey’s ideas create a useful avenue for furthering the scholarly discussion on the positioning of teachers in the development and implementation of models in PE (e.g. Curtner-Smith, Hastie, and Kinchin 2008).

Findings

In this section, we first present a ‘map’ of the eight types of positioning achieved in models scholarship mentioned earlier (see Table 2). Second, we examine these types of positions in detail with a view to elucidating their qualitative aspects. It is important to note that in the literature presented, scholars at times describe teacher positioning, which they oppose. Reference to a text in either Table 2 or in the thematic analysis does not necessarily mean that the authors advocated such positioning. Landi, Fitzpatrick, and McGlashan (2016, [32]) for example, discuss the possibility of teachers working as both ‘mechanical reproducers of models’ and as ‘adapters of models.’ Further, while all texts include extended discussions of the relation between teachers and models, the bold, uppercase X is used in Table 2 to indicate an emphasis on a specific positioning and a lowercase x is used to indicate a briefer or less emphasized discussion of a specific positioning.

Qualitative descriptions of the types of positioning

In this section, the types of positioning from above are described in detail. Specifically, we consider how scholars have positioned teachers as: (1) resistant to using models; (2) incapable of using models correctly; (3) mechanical reproducers of models; (4) struggling implementers of models; (5) needing models to change their ordinary practices; (6) capable of using models with support; (7) adapters of models, and (8) collaborators with researchers when implementing models. For economy of space, texts are referred to by their assigned numbers in Table 1.

Teachers as resistant to using models

The first type of positioning running through the scholarship is that teachers are unwilling to use models. It has been proposed that teachers’ educational philosophies sometimes conflict with the philosophy of the respective models and that philosophical incongruity can lead to significant divergence between the intent of the model and pedagogical practice. ^{16, 29, 33, 41} This divergence could explain some scholars’ frustration at teachers’ lack of enthusiasm for models. ^{20, 23, 28, 30, 32, 39, 44}

Discussions of teachers’ unwillingness to engage in models-based practices frequently co-occur with discussions of their inability to implement models. A significant amount of the scholarship that positions teachers as resistant to models also positions teachers as incapable or in need of support. ^{1, 4, 5, 16, 23, 32, 38, 41–44, 46, 47} For instance, scholars have claimed that teachers’ ‘challenging experiences of applying GBA [Games Based Approaches] and a lack of understanding are contributing to retarding the uptake and development of GBA across the globe’ (Jarrett and Light 2021, [32] 119).

Several scholars also contend that teachers are willing to experiment with models but are unwilling to make models a part of their everyday practices. ^{1, 5, 18, 20, 43, 47} Bjørke’s field notes provide an apt illustration:

I noted several times in my reflective diary my frustration from what I experienced as a lack of engagement and initiative from the teachers: I felt that they expected me to present solutions on how to do things and that they perceived their role to be passive receivers of knowledge. (Bjørke, Standal, and Mordal Moen 2021, [1] p. 8)

In Bjørke’s example, teachers are – initially at least – positioned as resistant, disengaged, and passive.

Several reasons for resistance have been raised. Some authors ascribe perceived resistance to teachers’ preference for traditional approaches ^{1, 5, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 29, 38, 41, 42, 44, 48} and a reluctance to develop new teaching practices. ^{23, 33} This explanation is supported by contentions that: (1) implementing models is challenging and requires a considerable investment of time and energy on the part of teachers ^{1, 5, 16, 18, 38, 41–43, 47} (2) teachers fear losing control of the teaching situation when they use models ^{10, 25, 38, 46, 47} and are particularly likely to abandon models teaching when they are stressed, under time constraints, or feeling uncomfortable ^{38, 42} (3) some teachers are only prepared to use models while they receive external support, and; (4) some teachers fail to see the distinctiveness of models and their key elements. ^{16, 29, 38, 39, 42, 44}

Teachers as incapable of using models correctly

A great deal of models literature raises the possibility that teachers lack the necessary knowledge to use models correctly. One example, is when scholars contend that a ‘formidable impediment to implementing the TGA [Tactical Games Approach] pertains to the teacher’s level of content knowledge’ (Gubacs-Collins and Olsen 2010, [23] 40). Some research suggests that teachers make narrow interpretations of curricula and that this constrains their ability to interpret models. ^{25, 29, 41, 47} A greater number of studies, however, suggest that teachers fail to understand the underlying philosophies of specific models. ^{1, 2, 4, 18, 27, 29, 32, 38–41, 43, 44, 46} Casey (2014, [5] 29), for example, comments that ‘it appears inevitable that teachers will “bastardise” any model that they use.’ The incapacity of teachers to grasp models’ core principles is a recurring way of positioning teachers in games sense literature and many researchers maintain that teachers have insufficient knowledge to modify games teaching correctly. ^{4, 7, 12, 16, 23, 27, 28, 30, 38, 41, 46, 47}

The main suggestion for why teachers lack the capability to implement models correctly is lack of experience and lack of familiarity. A recurring claim in models scholarship is that teachers have limited experience of models-based teaching. ^{2, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17, 26, 27, 31, 32} But even increased familiarity with models does not appear to guarantee knowledge of models. Some scholars note that teachers often gain experience of implementation but do not get to design or plan models. In the short-term, one-sided involvement can impede teachers’ ability to implement models successfully, but in the longer term, it is seen to prevent teachers from developing a thorough understanding of models. ^{19, 31, 37} The positioning of teachers as incapable of implementing models correctly is somewhat concerning given that it is also widely claimed that PE teachers lack the capacity to meet official objectives that are made for the school subject. ^{6, 7, 18, 20, 26, 28, 36, 41, 42, 46} This criticism is largely leveled at multi-activity, teacher-led practices rather than at teachers ^{5, 6, 15, 18, 20, 28, 36, 41} – see ‘Teachers as needing models to change their ordinary practices’ below.

Teachers as mechanical reproducers of models

Some scholarship positions teachers as mechanical reproducers of models. Teachers are positioned as reproducers when scholars claim that teachers should ‘remain true’ and implement models ‘as intended by their designers,’ in a ‘full version’ and not in ‘unverified ways.’ ^{2, 4, 11, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35-37, 39, 40, 42, 43} Often, this claim is expressed in terminology such as ‘non-negotiable features,’ ‘fidelity,’ and ‘blueprints’ which imply model rigidity. ^{2, 8, 11, 18, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 44, 48} Haerens et al. (2011 [26]) refer to Metzler’s (2005) early work in this regard,

… Metzler’s (2005, 47) key point [is] that some aspects of a pedagogical model cannot be modified, for to do so would be to fail to implement the particular model. In the case of a pedagogical model for HBPE [Health Based Physical Education], the non-negotiable aspects relate to the key learning outcomes, the assumptions about learning and teaching, and the domain priorities. (Haerens et al. 2011, [26] 332)

Rigidity of models and the reproductive positioning of teachers is related to how scholars describe the implementation. When scholars suggest, for instance, that teachers need to complete courses to ensure that model content will be learned correctly ⁴⁰ or discuss whether models have been implemented with fidelity, ^{11, 13, 15, 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 34, 36–43, 48} there is a strong suggestion that teachers should adhere to the specific designs of models, not just their general ideas. This assertion has been critiqued and a number of researchers maintain that using models in a recipe-like manner allows teachers (and students) ‘little or no room to manoeuvre’ (Casey et al. 2021, [8] 6), see also. ^{2, 6, 35, 37, 46} At the same time, scholars have noted that some teachers appreciate the instructional nature of models and sometimes want more prescription and ready-to-use lesson plans. ^{1, 11, 42}

Teachers as struggling implementers of models

The notion that teachers struggle when they implement models is relatively common. The ‘struggling teacher’ is portrayed as one who makes mistakes, feels like a beginner, and is uncertain or frustrated when implementing models. ^{7, 10, 12, 18, 19} The struggling implementer positioning occurs with teachers who are new to teaching and highly experienced teachers but is usually associated with teachers who are attempting to implement the model correctly. The struggling implementer position is often part of a success narrative: after investing significant time and effort and experiencing challenges, the teacher finally manages to overcome difficulties, experience success, and be persuaded of the benefits that models present. ^{4, 5, 10, 12, 18, 19, 23} For instance, ‘[f]inally, Justin’s overall beliefs and attitudes were changed as he experienced the successful implementation of the season’ (Chen, Sinelnikov, and Hastie 2013, [10] 14). In several cases, scholars contend that improvement is gradual, and claim that struggle over time is necessary. At the same time, they also suggest that overcoming challenges can have a profound impact on the teacher. ^{4, 10, 19, 23} The term ‘pedagogical fluency’ has been used to describe the conditions in which teachers – and sometimes students – stop struggling and become accustomed to a model and the language inherent in the specific model. ^{4, 7}

Teachers as needing models to change their ordinary practices

A significant amount of scholarship positions teachers as in need of changing their ordinary practices in order to implement models successfully. ^{1–7, 10, 12, 16–18, 20, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 43, 45, 48} A common claim is that ordinary practices are teacher-centered and outdated, and do not meet current standards of effective teaching. ^{3, 4, 6, 31, 46} Models can help teachers work in more learner-centered, progressive ways. ^{1, 3, 6, 7, 17, 18, 21, 26, 36, 39, 43, 45, 46, 48} One example, is when scholars suggest that ‘teachers at this end of the spectrum view themselves not as authorities but as facilitators of student learning, placing students, not themselves, at the center of the learning process’ (Metzler 2017, [36] 32). Recommendations for teachers to engage in learner-centered pedagogies have been made for all teachers, regardless of training or level of experience, the implication being that teachers ordinarily rely on teacher-centered approaches. ^{4, 6, 14, 16, 22, 23, 28, 31, 39, 47, 48} Research further suggests that many teachers struggle with the shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered pedagogies that models implementation involves. ^{4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 18, 20, 42, 47} Some scholars note that learning to implement models is time-consuming and can be uncomfortable. ^{1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 42} One scholar maintains that for teachers, shifting to models-based practices,

… is not just ‘business as usual’ or indeed experiencing a few ‘hard times’ or inconveniences. It is a gut-wrenching change. It is a conceptual shift. It is a move away from the normality of teaching towards a state in which we, as learners in our own right, seek to challenge ourselves and our practice. (Casey 2010, [4] 253)

Abandoning traditional practices means relinquishing control and providing students with autonomy, ^{3, 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 19, 26, 40, 42} even if it is not always clear what this entails. ^{2, 17, 21} Some scholars use the notion of ‘facilitation’ to capture the idea of a different relationship – and therefore different positions – between pupils and teachers. Facilitating involves using open-ended inquiries, encouraging students to set their own challenges, and being guided by the readiness of the students. ^{3, 4, 7, 48} The degree to which teachers should intervene in students’ learning has been debated with several stances emerging. Some researchers suggest that teachers should not interfere in students’ work. ² Others suggest that teachers should only intervene when students get stuck. ^{2, 36} Still other scholars suggest that teachers should intervene whenever they deem it necessary, advocating an activator role for teachers who do more than facilitate. ^{21, 43, 45}

Teachers as capable of using models with support

Scholars have emphasized that with initial and ongoing support, teachers may be able to implement models successfully. ^{3, 11, 18, 30, 40, 42} One example, is from scholars who suggest that although models are viewed as a highly effective way of teaching PE, implementation is ‘difficult for teachers without the necessary support from model-makers and university researchers’ (Fernandez-Rio and Menendez-Santurio 2017, [15] 185). There is no shortage of research suggesting that teachers who receive support tend to be more successful in the implementation of models. ^{3, 5, 11, 29, 30, 34, 39} Some researchers like Fernandez-Rio and Menendez-Santurio (2017, [15]) point to the significance of researcher support ^{1, 5, 7, 18, 20, 43, 47} while others point to the importance of support from administrators and factors such as peer and professional socialization, collaboration, scheduled time, facilities, and equipment. ^{3, 4, 11, 29, 31, 34, 35, 41}

Recommendations on how teachers should be supported when implementing models are common. ^{5, 6, 10, 14, 18, 28, 31, 33, 39, 40, 47, 48} Scholars have for example, recommended training sessions prior to implementation, workshops, instructional videos, and coursework.^{3, 10, 13–15, 18, 20, 27, 31, 42, 43} Sustained support through ongoing discussions with researchers as ‘critical friends,’ or researcher consultation regarding issues such as lesson structures have also been noted as valuable. ^{5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 29, 31, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43} Scholars have also claimed though, that competent colleagues can provide support. ^{3, 11, 19, 20, 39, 42, 43, 47, 48} For instance, scholars suggest that sustained support is ‘a key mechanism for teachers to make sense of their ongoing experiences’ (Goodyear 2017, [19] 93), and that the support of other teachers who can challenge traditional practices and offer direction for further learning is essential. In this respect, teachers have also been positioned as providers of support. ^{3, 19}

Teachers as adapters of models

Scholars have proposed that some teachers are capable of applying a ‘full version’ of models ^{2, 5, 10, 15, 18–20, 23–25, 27, 39, 42} but position teachers as adapters, who tailor their use of models to the curriculum, their students, their own teaching style, the school, available equipment, and/or facilities. ^{4, 6–9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 29, 36, 44–46, 48} Indeed, adaptation is a persistent theme in models literature. ^{5, 6, 8–14, 18–20, 22–26, 28–33, 36–48} A number of scholars advocate adaptation and teacher choice, ^{8, 9, 25, 28, 35, 46} and suggest that teachers should determine how they implement models in practice. ^{7–9, 12, 35, 44–46, 48} Some scholars suggest, for example, that

… some aspects of the model will need to be modified for a range of legitimate reasons appropriate to specific contexts, including the age and readiness to learn of students, specific learning outcomes, the complexity of information and tasks, and available facilities and equipment. (Haerens et al. 2011, [26] 333).

In several cases, advocacy of model adaptation is embedded within critiques of reproduction approaches to models, largely on the basis that the latter are seen to disempower teachers. ^{28, 35} In many more cases though, notions of reproduction are still present but are softened in different ways. ^{4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, 17–19, 25–31, 33, 34, 40, 42, 43} Teachers should, for example, adapt models to an extent and scholars frequently recommend that teachers should implement ‘all or most of the key principles of the approach.’

Worth mentioning here is that Casey (2010, [4]) provides an alternative understanding of models when he suggests that models provide a theoretical framework or lens rather than a recipe or prescription. In this approach to models, it is perhaps less logical to think of models as something that can be adapted (as one might a recipe). In the lens metaphor, implementing models is about the way one understands one’s practices (Casey 2010, [4] 254).

Teachers as collaborators with researchers when implementing models

A final type of positioning concerns collaboration and specifically collaboration with researchers. ^{1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 18–20, 43} In many texts, researchers describe teachers’ and researchers’ tasks in similar ways. ^{1, 4–6, 16–18, 20, 23, 31, 42, 43} ‘Partnerships’ and ‘joint decisions’ between teacher and researcher ⁴⁰ are emphasized and scholars emphasize teacher voice in the teaching, and sometimes planning, stages of implementation. ^{1, 3, 17–20, 23, 31, 40} Some scholars have for example, claimed that:

As the project progressed, the teachers began to act more as full members of the PAR [Participatory Action Research] community by sharing their reflections, frustrations, ideas and perspectives instead of expecting me to provide all the answers. (Bjørke, Standal, and Mordal Moen 2021, [1] 8)

Few texts, however, describe in detail what, when and how collaborating teachers contribute. ¹ Some scholars maintain that if teachers are collaborating with researchers, they are more likely to implement models with a higher degree of fidelity. ^{20, 32} It has also been claimed that a collaborative approach should be taken when developing new models. ⁶ Some questions can be raised if the project is referred to as a collaboration, but the teachers are not responsible for planning how it will be implemented. ²

Discussion

So far, we have presented eight types of teacher positioning in PE models literature. At the risk of sounding repetitive, we want to stress that scholars at times discuss teacher positions which they oppose and refer to multiple potential positions in the same text. Indeed, only texts 9 and 20 are associated with a single position. In this section, we want to reinterpret these types of teacher positioning using a Deweyan theoretical framework. We do this with reference to three issues. First, models literature positions teachers in ways that are, at first glance at least, problematic. The idea that teachers might be incapable of using models (Harvey et al. 2020; Hastie et al. 2015), in need of support to engage in models-based practice (Casey and Kirk 2020; Casey and MacPhail 2018), as unreflective reproducers of models (Bähr and Wibowo 2012; Miller et al. 2017), or that they are proponents of outdated, teacher-centered practices (Goodyear and Casey 2015; Goodyear and Dudley 2015) is entirely at odds with Dewey’s (1903) assertion that teachers have the intellectual capacity and responsibility to determine the teaching methods that they use. In fact, it is somewhat of a paradox that in the process of helping teachers to empower their students, models scholars describe potentially disempowering positions for teachers. Nonetheless, there are several points that need to be considered here. One is that models were not developed with the aim of increasing teacher autonomy. Another is that models literature simultaneously includes autonomous positions for teachers since they might resist models (Bjørke, Standal, and Mordal Moen 2021; García-López et al. 2019), adapt models (Casey and Quennerstedt 2020), and work as collaborators with researchers (Sammon 2019; Wallhead et al. 2021). In other words, models literature presents multiple and conflicting positions for teachers. While multiplicity could be seen as contradictory or confusing, it is an acceptable and unavoidable feature of what Dewey (1939) referred to as a democratic way of life. While Dewey (1939) strongly criticized the use of teaching recipes, he condemned homogenous, totalitarian societies. From a Deweyan perspective, the fact that eight types of teacher positioning have been identified in this review as opposed to simply a technician position (Hastie and Casey 2014; Kirk 2013) or a reflective practitioner position (Casey 2014; Landi, Fitzpatrick, and McGlashan 2016; Metzler 2017) is encouraging. Also, worth considering here is the recurring claim that today’s teachers are not working in student-centered ways (Haerens et al. 2011; Metzler 2017). This claim in many cases provides the justification for developing models-based practices in the first place. Yet evidence indicating that PE teachers in the 2020s still rely on teacher-centered pedagogies is scarce. In fact, constructivist, learner-centered approaches to physical education have been advocated in PE and PETE contexts for at least two decades (Chen and Rovegno 2000; Rovegno 1998), and papers from the last decade report teachers either using (Barker and Quennerstedt 2017) or promoting (Stylianou et al. 2013) student-centered teaching methods in PE. From the outset, it may be necessary to reconsider accounts of ‘current’ teaching practices and the ways that teachers are positioned by them before considering new teaching methods.

Second, positioning teachers as mechanical reproducers (Landi, Fitzpatrick, and McGlashan 2016; Miller et al. 2017) and incapable users of models (Pascual et al. 2011; Pill, Swabey, and Penney 2017) strongly suggests that experts simply hand over models for teaching to teachers. This suggestion implies a clear-cut positioning of researchers and teachers, who fall neatly on opposite sides of a theory–practice dualism that Dewey claimed influenced much educational thinking (Dewey 1903). In reality, the positions of researchers and teachers are often more ambiguous. PE researchers frequently work as teachers in PETE contexts and/or have spent considerable time working as PE teachers in schools (Standal and Moe 2013). They cannot (and should not) be considered purely as theoreticians or academics, even if they work in academia. Similarly, teachers in schools make hypotheses about their teaching, experiment with different methods, draw conclusions from their experiences and sometimes contribute with research (e.g. Casey and Dyson 2009; Lindgren and Barker 2019). In other words, the notion that research and teaching comprise two distinct activities where models constitute a connection between one theoretically-oriented group and one practically-oriented group is a misleading way of thinking about what takes place when models are implemented. This is a point to which we return in our conclusion.

Finally, we want to propose that the positioning achieved in models literature is to a large part dependent on the way that models themselves are conceived and developed. When models are conceived and developed as methods of action then teachers can only be positioned as for example, reproducers, resisters, and so forth. Casey (2010) has suggested that models can be understood as a lens or a way of understanding practice. This is, however, not generally how models have been presented in PE scholarship (Aggerholm et al. 2018). For models to be employed in a lens-like manner to view PE practice consistent with Casey’s (2010) suggestion, they would need to be described not as activities with specific examples and objectives but in looser and less literal ways. There are plenty of examples of lenses being used in educational scholarship and researchers manage to use these lenses to make sense of practices (see Barker et al. 2017). Similar kinds of lenses could be used in a teleological manner by teachers in schools. Whether ‘models’ would then be the best term to describe such descriptions is open for discussion. Indeed, it is at this point that we might acknowledge that while models discourse opens avenues for consideration and practice, it simultaneously closes down others.

Concluding thoughts

If John Dewey was to glance through PE journals today, he might be disheartened with scholars’ preoccupation with instructional/curricular/pedagogical models. In several respects, models are inconsistent with Dewey’s (1903, 1916) notion of democratic education and his emphasis on teacher autonomy. After some consideration, he might appreciate the capacity of models to create room for different teacher positioning. He might also recognize that oftentimes, research experts who are developing models are also teachers, and conversely the teachers implementing models in schools also work as experts. In this last respect, instances of model implementation are relatively explicit examples of the inseparability of theory–practice, which Dewey emphasized.

We have acknowledged some limitations of our methodological approach, but we would like to acknowledge two more. The first is that our review provides a snapshot of the current literature. In this sense, it fails to capture dynamic aspects and how the positioning of teachers might be changing over time. Given the rapid development of models literature, we believe there is a need to examine how scholarship is changing and potentially providing new positions for teachers. Second, we recognize that we have painted with broad brushstrokes and have failed to capture some of the nuances that are evident in the literature. We understand that by presenting examples from particular studies to illustrate certain positions, we truncated or simplified scholars’ discussions. At the same time, our intention was not to provide a review where certain positions could be assigned to certain authors or investigations but instead to offer an accessible synthesis of potential positioning offered in the literature.

Finally, we want to finish with a couple of brief reflections on the relation between researcher and teacher since we imagine that practically all readers will count themselves as researchers and teachers to greater or lesser degrees. First, we suggested that while models scholarship offers various positioning for teachers, it does frame the relation between researchers and teachers in a narrow way. Models scholarship has in many cases contributed to a deficit narrative in which individuals working in schools are in need of researchers’ help and guidance. Within this narrative, researchers are positioned as benevolent experts and it is understandable that they might want to provide teachers specifically with models: models are clear and explicit, and in some cases, teachers appear to welcome having instructions (Bjørke, Standal, and Mordal Moen 2021; Richards and Gordon 2017). Nonetheless, a less ameliorative narrative about researchers’ work with teachers and school PE could help re-frame this relation. It may be useful for researchers for example, to consider how else they can work with teachers, especially if teachers are already engaged in progressive, innovative, (and learner-centered) teaching. In this vein, we cannot help but think that teachers’ practices are shaped by a wide range of impressions. Professional insights are gleaned from various sources, including experiences, anecdotes, statistics, relationships with other professionals, and so forth. Perhaps people working at universities can continue to work with people working in schools without necessarily providing instruments for teaching.

Second and related, the results of this review have made us somewhat uneasy when it comes to the term ‘models.’ When teachers are positioned as mechanical reproducers, we would agree with Casey et al. (2021) when they suggest that the term ‘models’ sets teachers and researchers off in a potentially problematic direction. The term model is metaphoric and certainly works to construct relations between stakeholders in particular ways. If PE is to continue to evolve, or be revitalized (Kirk 2010), there is a need to develop curricular/instructional/pedagogical lenses in order to see PE in different ways. Alternatively, we might develop curricular/instructional/pedagogical seeds in order to grow different ways of doing PE in schools. Dissemination with its concomitant ideas of spreading, maturation, flourishing, and thriving is, in our view, a generative way of thinking about the ways researchers and teachers can work together to cultivate educational practices.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Research in Sport, Health and Physical Education (ReShape) group at Örebro University for positive and constructive comments during the writing of this review.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix

Figure A1. Flow chart of the selection of texts.