FULL REPORT OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS

NB: This report has been written in a readable format without academic references. Allreferences are provided in the nominated outputs and an additional paper from a conferencepresentation (full access web reference provided).

Background

This research was proposed at a time when continuing professional development (CPD) forteachers was being recognised as essential for the successful delivery of government-led schoolimprovement/effectiveness policies. Although essential, however, it was also recognised thatmuch existing CPD provision was inadequate in supporting teachers to learn throughout theircareers. Moreover, the complexity of the process of teacher learning and its links to impactsupon pupil learning were also being highlighted in the research literature. Notwithstanding this,government policy documents at the time were characterised by a tone of optimism and seemedto be underpinned by a belief that CPD for teachers could cure many of the ills of education.

Within this context, PE-CPD provided an interesting case for study. The limited availableevidence, both published and from a pilot study undertaken by the principal applicant,suggested that many PE teachers were unlikely to be engaging in ‘effective’ CPD that was, forexample, varied or challenging. This suggestion was supported by a preliminary analysis of PE-CPD providers, the topics they tended to address, and the ways in which they commonlystructured the learning process for teachers. Certainly it could be concluded that one-day, sport-specific update courses were likely to be a major feature on PE teachers’ CPD profiles, and thatfew of the available CPD opportunities met the criteria for effective CPD that were emergingfrom international CPD research. This project was designed, therefore, to analyse existingforms of PE-CPD from the perspective of practising PE teachers and to propose more effectiveCPD strategies and processes for the future. (See nominated output 1 for full details and allreferences.)

Objectives

Aims and objectives of the research.NB: these are unchanged from the original proposal:

Aim: to seek to understand how to provide effective continuing professional developmentopportunities for physical education teachers.

Objectives:1. To find out, from existing literature, the range of CPD opportunities that has

traditionally been available to physical education teachers and the reasons foundfor low levels of engagement

Objective met, however, little specific PE-CPD literature available.The literature focussing specifically upon PE-CPD was sparse. However, the literature onCPD more generally is vast (and growing) and there is a body of literature on PE teachers’lives and careers, from which CPD information could be gleaned. Moreover, there isinternational evidence to suggest that despite numerous changes to the PE curriculum at thelevel of policy, relatively little has changed in practice. It was possible to ascertain,therefore, that as is the case for teachers of other curriculum areas, access to CPD was likelyto be difficult for PE teachers (time, cost, location, availability of supply cover) and therange of activities was limited. What also became clear at an early stage in the research is

that, like many other areas of the curriculum, we have very little systematic, research-basedevidence on the impact of teachers’ learning upon pupils’ learning in PE and, in addition, weknow remarkably little about PE-CPD providers. (See nominated output 1 for full details.)

2. To ascertain, from open-ended questionnaires to experienced physical educationteachers, key strengths and weaknesses of their CPD opportunities and activities todate

Objective met.The questionnaires were designed as ‘profile questionnaires’ inviting teachers to outlinetheir PE-CPD profiles, comment on ‘effectiveness’ from their point of view, identify PE-CPD plans for the future, offer advice to PE-CPD policy-makers, and identify the outcomefrom PE that they considered to be most important in their schools. The findings point to amismatch between the PE outcomes teachers’ valued and the PE-CPD that might supportthem to deliver such outcomes, identified sport-specific update courses as the most commonform of CPD, confirmed that ‘effectiveness’ for PE teachers matches closely the findingsfrom other CPD research, and suggests that funding, cost and quality of supply cover, time,workload and location were all problematic CPD issues for these teachers. Importantly,there was little or no progression or coherence between the various CPD activities identifiedon teachers’ profiles, and PE teachers’ very different learning needs were not being met bythe available provision. (See nominated output 2 for full details plus references.)

3. To draw upon case studies of physical education teachers engaged in differentforms of CPD to understand: their reasons for selection, their evaluation of theexperience as it progresses, and their analyses of the possibilities for impact uponpractice

Objective met (further publications in preparation).This was the main body of the research. The data are still being analysed and prepared forpublication, however, preliminary analysis points to enduring problems with existing formsof CPD and, as a key finding that needs further analysis, teachers’ need/desire to learn withand from selected colleagues. This has led to a conference presentation (BERA, 2003)focussing on exploring the notion of developing professional learning communities in PE,including the suggestions that CPD providers need to change their traditional practices if PEteachers are to learn effectively, that inhospitable school structures are a key barrier toeffective teacher learning, and pointing to a need for PE teachers to be more pro-active inthe management of their own learning such that it is more closely focused upon ‘my kids’and ‘our problems’. (See http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003181.htm. forfull paper and references.)

4. To contribute towards the broader theoretical and empirical knowledge base aboutCPD and teachers.

Objective met (further publications in preparation).A theoretical analysis of CPD underpinned the early stages of the research and formed thebasis of the fieldwork in schools with teachers. There are two areas where this research cancontribute to the broader CPD literature: the first is in linking different elements of the CPDliterature together in the context of PE teachers’ experiences in order to imagine new, moreeffective forms of CPD. Thus, it has been proposed that a combined model underpinned byschool-based CPD (classroom ethnography), collaborative professional learning and basedupon a new curriculum and pedagogy for learning in PE could result in more effectiveteacher and pupil learning. In this scenario, teacher learning is underpinned by real pupillearning, generating different types of knowledge and locating teachers in a different

position to knowledge. The second area in which this research can make a widercontribution is in the development of subject departments as professional learningcommunities. This work is underpinned by social constructivist learning theories and buildsupon Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher change.(See nominated output 1 and the BERA2003 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003181.htm paper for furtherdetails).

Methods

Three main research approaches were used: pilot interviews, open ended profile questionnaires,and case studies (within which a range of methods were employed). The three research methodswere sequential and interlinked, with interviews informing the design of the profilequestionnaires, and teachers selected as in-depth case studies from the information provided onprofile questionnaires.

• Pilot Interviews In the preparatory phase for this project, the principal applicant undertook in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 20 experienced PE teachers in twelve schools in England. Theinterviews lasted between one and two hours, generating 34 hours of interview data. In eachinterview, teachers were engaged in a wide-ranging and open discussion about the variousCPD experiences they could recall and about ‘effectiveness’ from their point of view. Theinterview transcripts were analysed both as individual case studies and also collectivelylooking at patterns of experience and recurring themes (for example, the difficultiesassociated with cost and supply cover). • Profile questionnaires The findings from the interviews were used to inform the design of an open-ended profilequestionnaire. Although it was recognised that open ended questionnaires can be difficultand time-consuming to complete, it was felt that the advantage of allowing teachers the timeand space to consider their careers and to comment on their deliberations outweighed thebenefits of a shorter, more easily completed but less personal research instrument. Theinterviews had identified some clear similarities in PE teachers’ CPD histories, but it wasfelt that more evidence was needed about teachers’ profiles. Moreover, the interviewssignalled a need to understand more about the ways in which teachers’ philosophies aboutand aspirations for PE were linked to their CPD profiles. Another issue to explore furtherwas the notion of CPD ‘effectiveness’ – and the authors were keen to offer teachers theopportunity to define this in their own terms. The decision was taken, therefore, to acceptthat profile questionnaire returns would be difficult to secure and that the data would bemessy to analyse, but to pursue the potential richness, detail and individuality of data usingthis approach. It was also accepted at the outset that these teachers could not be regarded asrepresentative of the whole PE profession in England. On the other hand it soon becameclear that, as was the case in the interviews, even though these teachers were at differentstages in their careers, and had different career experiences from initial training and beyond,there were some remarkable similarities in their profiles. Thus, although they cannot beregarded as representative, it is probably accurate to view their experiences as illustrativeand informative; a view that is supported further when the nature and range of the key PE-CPD providers is taken into account; in short, teachers can only access what is available andmuch of this falls into a relatively limited range of categories and providers.

The goal was to collect 80-100 completed profiles in order to illustrate something of therange of CPD profiles within PE. A covering letter outlining the rationale and purpose of

the research, three copies of the questionnaire and accompanying pre-paid return envelopeswere sent to the Heads of Department (HoD) of PE in 56 secondary schools in, or around,the Midlands of England. These schools represented a cross-section of type, location andsecondary age range (11-18) and the majority were in partnership with a university in thecontext of Initial Teacher Training (ITT). The HoDs were asked to complete thequestionnaire themselves if they had 5 or more years experience, and to distribute theadditional copies to members of their department with the requisite level of experience.Respondents could either elect to remain anonymous, or complete their personal details andindicate a desire to be kept informed about the research as it progressed and/or to participatein future stages of the project. 65 experienced PE teachers (37 men and 28 women)completed and returned their profiles. They had between 6 and 29 years experience ofteaching PE, and included teachers with many different roles in PE (e.g. advanced skillsteachers, heads of department, directors of sport, and teachers responsible for particularaspects of the PE curriculum). Although the number of returns was lower than the originaltarget, the range of teachers responding fulfilled one of the key aims of the project; namely,to capture the views of experienced teachers of PE who had varied roles within their schoolsand within PE.

In the profiles, teachers were asked to list all the professional development they could recallsince initial training, identify what had been effective/ineffective and explain why, outlineany CPD plans for the near future, offer advice to PE-CPD policy makers, and identify theoutcome from PE that they considered to be most important in their school. As was the casewith the interviews, the profiles were analysed both individually and collectively. At anindividual level, the focus was upon identifying links between the questions – for example,between the CPD activities attended and the declared key-learning outcome of PEprogrammes for pupils. At the collective level, teachers’ answers to each of the questionswere placed together under a series of key headings linked to specific questions, forexample, ‘PE teachers’ views on effective CPD’. The process involved categorising all ofthe teachers’ comments into the key issues or themes arising, checking ambiguousstatements between researchers and in the context of the whole questionnaire, and thensimply counting the frequency of mentions (see nominated output 2).

• Case studiesThe final phase of this research took place over the last academic year. Ten very differentPE teachers were identified as case studies from the details they provided on the profilequestionnaires. All agreed to allow a researcher to work closely with them throughout theyear to focus on their professional learning in all its forms. We wanted to find out about thenature and quality of teachers’ learning, including what they were learning, when and how;and (more ambitiously) whether and how there was likely to be an impact upon pupillearning. The researcher interviewed each teacher, in-depth, on 3 separate occasions (seeinterview details below). All interviews were conducted using a flexible, semi-structuredformat and transcripts were routinely returned to teachers for respondent checking. Inaddition, the researcher attended both internal and external CPD activities with the teachers,taking detailed fieldnotes and analysing the activity with the teacher focusing upon thequality of the learning experience and the likelihood of an impact upon pupils’ learning. Inaddition, the teachers kept reflective diaries for specific periods of time where they noteddown learning opportunities (formal and informal) that occurred throughout the course of a‘normal’ day. The diaries were provided by the researcher (with pen attached!) and keyprompts/tasks were added in after each meeting.

Each of the three interviews with the case study teachers had a specific focus.

Interview 1, autumn term: getting to know the teachers, learning more about their personalphilosophies on teaching physical education, following-up the teachers’ responses on thequestionnaire (views on what type of activities constitute CPD, the most important thingpupils learn from PE at their school, advice to policy makers about CPD for PE teachers),understanding the pragmatics of CPD provision and entitlement in their schools, learningabout teachers’ aspirations for CPD in the forthcoming school year, identifying an activitywhich the researcher could attend, engaging in a preliminary discussion about links betweenteacher and pupil learning, ensuring that teachers are up to date with the progress of theproject, sharing early publications.

Interview 2, spring term: seeking to establish a deeper insight into teachers’ learning andtheir chosen CPD pathways for the current year, elaborating on the ‘culture’ of and ‘climate’for CPD that exists within their school and within physical education generally, elaboratingon teachers’ diary entries and information from the first interview transcripts, identifyinglinks between teacher and pupil learning using Guskey’s (1998) 5 levels of CPD evaluationto structure the questioning (participants’ reactions, participants’ learning, organisationalsupport and change, participants’ use of new knowledge and skills, student learningoutcomes), probing where teachers’ diaries had not identified any professional learningduring the period. In addition, teachers were asked to undertake a CPD ‘task’ before the nextmeeting:

For a period of ONE WEEK after half term record (daily if possible) every instance ofprofessional learning that you encounter/recognise. This may be as a result of your participationin different types of CPD, such as a workshop or course, or other forms of CPD such as informalconversations with colleagues or friends at meetings or fixtures. Learning might occur, forexample, in your own school at departmental meetings, in liaison within your family or cluster ofschools, talking with pupils or while writing your diary! Include your reflections on the ways inwhich your professional learning influences (or fails to influence) your teaching and how youfeel this impact is measured in terms of impact upon pupil learning. Finally, if you attend aspecific CPD activity during the next period, locate yourself on the continuum below. We willdiscuss this at our next meeting.

SPARKS (2002). COMMITMENT OF PARTICIPANTS TO PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

I don’t have anydesire to change.I’m here becauseI am supposed tobe here.

I expect to learnlittle of valuehere. Ifsufficientlymotivated bythe speaker oractivity, I mayacquire someknowledge orskill, but I havelittlecommitment tochange myprofessionalhabits.

I hold highexpectationsfor thisprofessionallearningexperience. Ihave cleargoals and amcommitted tousing what Ilearn in mywork for thebenefit ofpupils.

I hold highexpectations andam willing to stepoutside my comfortzone to collaboratewith peers, to sharemy work withothers for thepurpose ofimproving teaching,to network withothers about bestpractices and tomeet regularly withpeers to studyteaching andlearning.

Interview 3, summer term: following up the task responses focusing specifically on sixtopics: the context /setting in which the learning was identified, quality of teacherlearning, links with/impact upon personal practice, impact upon pupil learning, personalbeliefs about learning in PE, models of teacher change using Guskey’s (2002) model asa prompt:

‘According to the model, significant change in teachers attitudes and beliefs occurs primarilyafter they gain evidence of improvements in student learning. These improvements typicallyresult from changes teachers have made in their classroom practices – a new instructionalapproach, the use of new materials or curricula, or simply a modification in teaching proceduresor classroom format’ (Guskey, 2002, p. 383).

Analysis of the case studies is ongoing. At this stage, all data have been read by bothresearchers, coded, and collated into a grid that organises the data into individual teacher casestudies and also key ‘themes’.

Results

The results are presented within each of the data phases.1. Pilot interviews: It is interesting (although perhaps not surprising) to note that although

the teachers had different lengths of service (from 5-35 years) and had undertaken theirinitial training in completely different time periods, the interviews raised acomparatively small range of issues. In summary, it was found that PE-CPD was foundto be somewhat limited in its challenge; routine ‘information-giving’ events (for

example those provided by examination boards) were not viewed as challenging CPD;good one-day sports update courses could have a lasting impact upon practice where thepresenter was good and the ‘course’ involved active learning; the teachers rarely - if ever- read research in PE; each teacher was different in terms of the routes into teaching andsubsequent career paths; and there was little discernible learning coherence orprogression in the teachers’ CPD histories.

2. Profile questionnaires: Four key issues have been identified from the data and arediscussed more fully in nominated output 2:

i.The nature of the key pupil learning outcomes for PE asexpressed by the teachers. These were grouped into three mainareas: health/fitness/lifelong activity, competence/knowledge andunderstanding in/of sports, and personal/social/emotionaleducation. The first of these, health/fitness/lifelong activity wasthe most commonly cited, mentioned by two thirds of respondents.However, what is interesting is that only the second outcome hasany links with the professional development that these teachershave undertaken throughout their careers.

ii.The nature of PE-CPD – what teachers learn. Takencollectively, the responses fell into eight broad categories. In orderof frequency of mention these were: sport-specific update courses(by far the most common activity), curriculumplanning/assessment, departmental activities, first aid and safety,wider school issues, ICT training, conference attendance,academic/personal development.

iii.The characteristics of effective CPD. Effective CPD waspractical, relevant and applicable, able to provide ready-to-useideas and practices, delivered by a good presenter, challenging andthought-provoking, and able to offer time for reflection andcollaboration. The findings match those from international studiesinto effective CPD, suggesting that these teachers were notunusual or unique. One of the strongest criticisms of CPD found inthese data was the tendency for CPD providers to present materialin an ideal-school scenario. This was followed up in the casestudies.

iv.Advice to policy-makers about PE-CPD. These teachersidentified five issues for policy-makers to consider: the high costof courses, the high cost of teacher supply cover and thedifficulties in finding high quality supply, timing of courses andteachers’ reluctance to give up personal time, location of coursesand the problems inherent in having to travel long distances, andaccepting the notion of ‘entitlement’ rather than seeing CPD as aprivilege.

3. Case studies: At this stage, the data have been analysed into a grid such that they can be‘read’ as individual teacher case studies or as specific ‘themes’. The main data themeshave been identified as: personal philosophies about PE, perceptions of existing formsof CPD, experiences of CPD, barriers to CPD (time, expense, supply cover, location),access to CPD, reasons for engaging in CPD (professional and personal challenge,confidence and competence, be a better teacher, pupil learning, personal), commitmentto learning, views on the ways teachers learn, learning settings, learning throughexperience, disseminating CPD learning, professional learning communities/networks(school-based focus, sharing practice, networking, support from peers, informal

learning, collaboration), the impact of specific contexts (i.e. a sports college), lack ofschool support, career expectations, credible learning. The strongest theme to emerge is‘professional learning communities’ and this has been analysed in more detail byundertaking a) a theoretical analysis of the concept of professional learning communitydrawing upon social constructivist theories, and b) illustrating the ways in which the PEteachers in this study collaborated to form learning networks to compensate for theinadequacies of ‘official’ forms of CPD(http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003181.htm) Thus, we have arguedthat:

‘ what we seem to be seeing in this research is that ‘official’ CPD, which isprovided by recognised providers, usually in a traditional model, is that which‘counts’ (for example on a CV) but which frustrates teachers as it can’t reallymeet their specific learning needs. In response to this, teachers attempt tocompensate for the shortcomings of ‘official’ CPD by seeking out opportunitiesto engage in ‘unofficial’ CPD that is collaborative, school-based (or in alocal/informal network) and that seems to ‘work’; i.e. they feel they learnsomething that is practical, relevant to their own context and can be used intheir teaching practices. It could be argued, therefore, that the whole CPDsystem is topsy-turvy. Moreover, the traditional (official) model of CPD is bothexpensive and, most ironic of all, disruptive to pupils’ learning’ (p.8).

In order to address this issue, we have argued that • CPD providers need to work with better models of teacher learning and development if

they are to impact upon learning• School structures need to recognise teachers’ desire to learn with and from each other• PE teachers need to change their expectations about what counts as CPD and what they

will accept from providers

Data analysis from the case studies is ongoing. A journal paper focusing on the teachers asindividual case studies is in preparation.

Activities

• Full papers from the project presented at the following conferences: AERA (Chicago,2003); BERA (2002, 2003).

• A paper accepted for the AIESEP Pre-Olympic Congress (Greece, 2004). • The principal applicant has also been invited to speak at a symposium at the Pre-

Olympic congress. Symposium title: ‘How do we promote physical activity in youngpeople’s lives?’ Paper title: ‘The ambiguous role of physical education teachers’.Drawing upon the findings of the ESRC project, the paper focuses on confrontingambiguity in three interlinked ways: by applying a theory of change approach toanalysing the role of PE in promoting physical activity, by exploring the potential ofaccepting ‘shared responsibility’ for physical activity outcomes, and by focussing on theprofessional development needs of PE teachers who, it is argued, are ill-equipped tonavigate the physical activity/health minefield.

• The researchers were invited to lead a workshop on CPD at the 2002 Specialist SportsColleges Conference, East Midlands Conference Centre, March.

• The principal applicant has been invited to lead a workshop on PE teachers’ professionaldevelopment at the forthcoming annual BAALPE conference, Keele University, July2004.

• The principal applicant was invited to be a PEAUK representative on the DfES-fundedPDB-PE (Professional Development Board for Physical Education, England) from 1st

September 2003 for 2 years). However, see next point.• The principal applicant won the 3 year research contract to evaluate the National PE-

CPD programme (January 2004 -December 2006). This led to a potential conflict ofinterest, therefore the post on the professional development board was vacated.

• The principal applicant was invited by the OU/BBC to lead a team to design on-lineCPD units for physical education teachers – to be made available to all teachersnationally (completed August 2003).

• A module on PE teachers and their CPD has been designed from the project for teacherson the MSc PE programme at Loughborough University. This can be studied in a semi-distance learning format.

Outputs

1. The main publications to date are the three referenced in this report: Nominated outputs1 and 2, and the BERA 2003 conference paper. In addition, a series of papers waspublished in professional journals, a linked project into primary PE-CPD has resulted inpublications, and other conference papers have been delivered (see Regard).

2. The main dissemination activity was a project ‘Dissemination Day’ held atLoughborough University on 8th October 2003. This was an invited seminar that had thekey purpose of ensuring that the findings of the research with PE teachers would reachpolicy makers and CPD providers. Attendees included representatives from: DfES,Loughborough and Birmingham Universities, the Youth Sport Trust, Governing Bodiesof Sport, BAALPE, the PDB-PE, PEAUK, PEA (Ireland), Local authorities,Sportscoach UK, QCA. In addition, nine of the ten case study teachers attended the dayand contributed to it. In the morning, researchers and case study teachers met to identifythe key messages the teachers wanted to send to policy makers and three of the teachersprepared short presentations. The research process was also evaluated. In the jointseminar in the afternoon, the researchers presented preliminary findings, teacherspresented their CPD issues, and an interactive forum provided a framework withinwhich teachers, policy makers and researchers could work together to define actionpoints for the future of PE-CPD. A report on the day, highlighting action points, wascirculated to all participants after the event. In summary, 4 key issues were identified:the need to recognise teachers as learners, formalising informal (but effective) CPD,establishing an active professional development record, evaluating CPD ‘impact’. Inaddition, actions were identified for each group represented: policy makers, CPDproviders, schools, PE teachers and researchers. Participants were also invited (viaemail) to evaluate the day. All responses received were very positive.

Impacts

1. The managing consortium of professional organisations responsible for the newNational PE-CPD programme has used the research findings directly in the design of theNational Programme.

2. The awarding of the National Programme evaluation research contract to the principalapplicant was as direct result of undertaking the CPD research. The managingconsortium has asked to be kept fully informed of all findings as they emerge.

3. The Youth Sport Trust and BAALPE, major PE-CPD providers, have used findingsfrom the research in the re-design of their CPD provision.

4. The design of the OU/BBC on-line PE-CPD has been informed directly by the research,with one of the modules reporting the research findings directly to PE teachers.

5. The university awarded the principal applicant a 3 year, full time PhD studentship toenable complementary research to be undertaken on primary PE-CPD and publicationsfrom this are now emerging.

6. The researchers were asked to review the SportscoachUK coaching task forcerecommendations for coach professional development in light of the ESRC projectfindings.

7. Last, but not least, nine of the ten case study teachers reported a significant impact ontheir perceptions of CPD and their future intentions. One teacher concluded: ‘The wholeprocess has helped me shape my thoughts and ideas about preparing a CPD programmefor the department and the family of schools. I have thoroughly enjoyed the process andinvolvement and feel better equipped to guide the process in [sports] college as a result’(email communication, 14th November, 2003).

Future Research Priorities

1. To follow up the findings on health/fitness/lifelong activity as a key outcome of PEprogrammes so that teachers’ professional development can be linked in with thenational and international physical activity/inactivity/obesity debate. An application wasmade to the ESRC TLRP (Phase III) on this issue and will be resubmitted to theResearch Grants Board in summer 2004. The invited presentation at the Pre-Olympiccongress will help to launch this line of enquiry.

2. To follow up the findings on personal/social education as an outcome of PEprogrammes through other funded research projects led by the principal applicant onusing physical activity with disaffected/disengaged young people. Here again, thepurpose is to make clear links to teachers’ professional development needs.

3. To pursue the practical, theoretical and policy implications of viewing PE departmentsas professional learning communities.