Matt Atencio Mike Jess & Kay Dewar University of Edinburgh 1 Implementing a Complex Continuing Professional Development Agenda in Scottish Physical Education

Matt Atencio Mike Jess & Kay DewarUniversity of Edinburgh

1

Implementing a Complex Continuing Professional

Development Agenda in Scottish Physical Education

(Part 1)

Matt Atencio, Mike Jess, & Kay DewarUniversity of Edinburgh

Complexity ConferenceAberdeen University

January 2009


2

Introduction

• In recent years, much written about the need for change in Physical Education

e.g. Penney & Chandler, 2000; Jess & Collins, 2003;

Kirk, 2004; Scottish Executive, 2004; Wright 2004 • Increasing focus on the dominant Curriculum & Pedagogy PE

models

• Main drivers now include lifelong learning, inclusion and ‘connectivity’ agendas

• Significant impact on the importance of, and approaches to, Professional Learning (CPD)


3

IntroductionScottish context for change in PE positive since 2000

Curriculum & Pedagogy

•Curriculum for Excellence

•Health & Well-being to Core

•Lifelong Learning

CPD •McCrone Agreement (35 hours)

Physical Activity (PA)

•National PA Strategy

•Active Schools Programme

PE •PE Review

–Curriculum Change

–2 Curriculum Hours per Week

–More CPD (particularly primary)

•HMIe (2001)


4

IntroductionBUT

• Limited and inconsistent Primary PE CPD (and secondary) in Scotland

• Some teachers have no PE-CPD over their career (HMIe, 2001)

• Traditional ‘top-down’ ‘filling the empty vessel’ ‘short course’ ‘one off’ ‘off site’ approach tends to dominate

• Some authorities have PE specialists to support but numbers and approaches vary considerably…..some have no specialists

• Recent PE-CPD research suggests professional learning is a much more complex process


5

The Presentation

• What do we mean by complexity theory in relation to education and, in particular, CPD?

• How has our understanding of complexity theory informed the initial CPD efforts of the Developmental Physical Education Group (DPEG) at the University of Edinburgh?


6

Understanding Complexity Theory

From a human behaviour perspective

• Complexity theory considers the emergent processes by which we make sense of, and interact with, an ever-changing world

• Complex systems are not pre-programmed but made up of parts that interact flexibly both internally and with the external world

• These unpredictable interactions allow systems to adapt and develop in response to ever-changing environmental demands

• ‘New patterns of activities and new rules of behaviour’ emerge (Davis and Sumara, 2006, p.5).

• As such, our world is ‘self-organising’ and ‘non-linear’ and ‘emergent’.


7

Complexity Theory & Education

Complexity has implications for learning as it (learning)….

• Emerges from the interactions between the system parts, which themselves are shifting, dynamic, and diverse.

• Is a ‘nested’ collaborative and constructivist endeavour which views pupils, teachers, head teachers and administrators as inextricably linked

• Does not view learners as ‘empty vessels’ whose minds need to be ‘filled’ with set knowledges .

• Reflects a break from simplistic behaviourist notions of cause-effect and linear predictability


8

BUT

• No intention to present a polarised picture of education with complexity portrayed as ‘good’ and behaviourism as ‘bad’.

• Propose a shift in emphasis from more behaviourist notions of learning and CPD to conceptions that are more complex, emergent, collaborative and inclusive.


9

The DPEG

• DPEG aims to influence the long term change agenda in PE through the development, delivery and evaluation of a lifelong developmental physical education programme

Phase 1 (1999-2013)

• Focus on complex change agenda in 3-14 age range

• Curriculum Development (AARE, 2008)

• Pedagogy (AARE, 2008)

• Professional learning (Aberdeen, 2009)


10

Senior Secondary

(& Beyond)

Lifelong Physical Education Dimensions

(Functional, Health, Performance,

Recreational & Support)

UPES(Upper Primary & Early Secondary)

Core learning &

Authentic Applications

Early Years

(Pre-School & Infant School)

Early Moves &

Basic Moves

The Developmental Physical Education Programme


11

The DPEG CPD Project (2001-2011)

• Since 2001, alongside the curriculum and pedagogy developments, DPEG engaged in an increasingly complex CPD project

• Phase 1: The Basic Moves Project (2001-2007)• Phase 2: Larger Scottish Primary Physical Education Project

supported by the Government from 2006-2011.

• Presentation specifically focuses on first phase (2001-2007)

• A series of non-linear but interrelated CPD episodes

– Traditional “top-down” CPD courses – Creation of emergent “bottom-up” self-organising learning

communities.


12

The DPEG CPD Project (2001-2011)

• With many planned and unplanned activities, the project is…

“multi-dimensional, non-linear, interconnected… and unpredictable” (Kuhn, 2008, p.182)

Illustrative of a self-organizing complex system.

As the CPD project progressed

• Increasing focus on collaborative learning and complexity driven principles

• Ever-expanding and diverse range of ‘nested’ individuals, groups, institutions and agencies.


13

Basic Moves (2001-2007)• Two related developments.

Basic Moves

• Alternative early years physical education curriculum (i.e. aged 5-7 years) (Jess, Dewar & Fraser, 2004)

• Set out to help all children acquire a basic movement foundation to support their current physical activity engagement and also to scaffold their future physical activity participation.

• As emerged as a credible curriculum and pedagogy alternative to traditional multi-activity models, professional learning of two distinct groups of ‘change agents’ emerged


14

Basic Moves (2001-2007)The DPEG ‘Change Agents’

• Core DPEG members and Basic Moves tutors who, from 2005 onwards, emerged as the key change agents in local contexts.

The Basic Moves ‘Change Agents’

• Focus of the DPEG’s initial CPD change endeavours • Includes undergraduate physical education students at the

University of Edinburgh, class teachers, active primary schools coordinators and primary physical education specialists, individual schools and communities, local authorities and key national institutions (see Figure 1).


15

Children

Students

Teachers, Specialist Teachers &Active

Schools Coordinators

Schools & Communities

Local Authorities

National Institutions

The ‘Nested’ Nature of the DPEG’s Complex Professional Learning System


16

Basic Moves (2001-2007)

• DPEG-CPD became increasingly complex

– Early CPD/ITE work within a more localised University and community context

– Soon extended into the wider national arena.

– Various self-organising, emergent, “edge of chaos” and collaborative examples of how these ‘nested’ change agents responded to the planned and unplanned professional learning experiences


17

Complex Professional Learning and the DPEG

The DPEG Group

• DPEG development is central to its curriculum, pedagogy and CPD endeavours

• Initial funding enabled creation of a small staffing base to focus on Basic Moves and work with ITE students

• Community-based clubs facilitated shared development of Basic Moves and DPEG members attended postgraduate motor development courses

• Emergence of a self-organising, collaborative and situated learning community


18

Complex Professional Learning and the DPEG

• In practice, collaboration provided unsettling “edge of chaos” experiences particularly as group members used to working independently and often in an isolated and marginalised context

• Also, Basic Moves challenged their (often) traditional linear PE pedagogy, so awkward meetings ensued as issues debated

• Nevertheless, began to develop a

– shared vision of EYPE based on their prior knowledge, developing knowledge and collaborative experience

– desire to undertake future curriculum, pedagogy and professional learning work as a long term change agenda


19

Complex Professional Learning and the Basic Moves Change Agents

Undergraduate ITE Students • Difficult to engage as only available students enrolled on the B.Ed. (Hons)

in Physical Education

• Although able to teach PE in primary and secondary schools, focus very much on the secondary school years

• Basic Moves included but did not fit easily with the dominating multi-activity model and national certification awards

• For most students, Basic Moves perceived to be a marginal and unnecessary part of their certification….. marginal participation

• In short term, slowed down the development process


20

Expansion of Basic Moves Professional Development Structures

Class Teachers, Specialists & Active School Coordinators

• From 2002, complex CPD issues emerged as Basic Moves moved beyond the University

• Two distinct CPD approaches : Traditional “top-down” national approach & collaborative local small-scale school-based approach

• “Top-down” justified given traditionally marginal status of EYPE

• Basic Moves National Conference in 2003 • Pilot courses with Active School coordinators• Basic Moves Training Programme in March 2004.


21


• 2 day University-based courses moving beyond “tips for teachers” to challenge perceptions of EYPE before offering pedagogical advice

• Overwhelmingly positive evaluations from most delegates

• BUT, unclear exactly what was happening in schools and communities….. the cascade model?

• AND, the “empty vessels”, one–off, off-site course delivery was problematic for some experienced physical activity professionals, particularly primary physical education specialists

• Small number (but key stakeholders) overtly dissatisfied. 2 formal ‘edge of chaos’ “clear the air” meetings required


22


• Issues raised similar to early DPEG meetings, but top-down course did not create context for issues to be “ironed out”

• Participants felt marginalised, rather than taking part in full or partial ways as had happened with the early DPEG participants

Therefore, national training successfully raised profile of EYPE

BUT,

• problems inherent in traditional “top-down” approach emerged

• highlighted need for professional learning experiences that were more situated, collaborative and, critically, differentiated to meet the needs of the different groups of professionals.


23


Schools, Communities & Local Authorities

• Alongside the national training programme, a more strategic, collaborative, situated and, ultimately, differentiated pilot programme introduced in three East Lothian primary schools.

• Supportive “nested” starting point with key stakeholders

• BUT, “edge of chaos” experiences as one head teacher withdrew and one specialist was not enthused

• DPEG member working on-site offered courses, support seminars and collaborative learning opportunities….so issues raised resolved though immediate and directly meaningful support


24


• Building on national and local experiences, a Basic Moves tutor programme was introduced in 2005

• Aimed to create a network to deliver and support Basic Moves within their own local authorities.

• Moved Basic Moves in a collaborative direction with leadership and ownership of developments distributed across the range of tutors in their own local authorities

• DPEG became engaged with multiple and overlapping “nested” communities from parents to directors of education


25


• Consequently, following rapid, chaotic national expansion, localised “Basic Moves Learning Communities” emerged across Scotland and England.

• Local authority projects emerged and evolved in different ways to fit local aspirations and needs

• Some authorities, even with tutors in place, rejected Basic Moves

for a host of different reasons which include specialist teacher perceptions, finance and conflicting interest.

• Nevertheless, the tutor programme over the years symbolises the ways in which collaborative structures support the development of more sustainable learning communities……


26

Complex & Traditional Forms of CPD

Nested/

Connective CPD Context

Hierarchical

CPD Context

•Developmental (bottom-up)

•Nested

•Collaborative

•Negotiation

•Networks

•Deep learning

•Shared vision

•Top-down

•Unrelated

•Solitary

•Prescription

•Bureaucracy

•Surface learning

•Absolutist vision


27

Conclusion

• In parallel with the Curriculum & Pedagogy change efforts, the first phase of the DPEG CPD Project has employed a number of different professional learning approaches

– Traditional “top-down” CPD courses – Creation of emergent “bottom-up” self-organising learning communities.

• However, during the phase, gradual move away from traditional “top down” , “empty vessel” approaches which proved to:

• bring about superficial and chaotic change • alienate, and potentially upset, many individuals

.


28

Conclusion

As a result

• The DPEG CPD efforts have shifted towards experiences based on collaborative and complexity driven principles…… emergence, self-organisation, connectivity, collaboration and ‘edge of chaos’

• Appear to be providing a more viable and engaging means of sustaining learning communities

• As such, we believe this complex approach has started to make a significant impact on changing the nature of EYPE in both local and broader contexts…. and is now the cornerstone of our move towards a National Primary CPD Programme in Phase 2 (2006-2011)

.

Documents

Matt Atencio Mike Jess & Kay Dewar University of Edinburgh 1 Implementing a Complex Continuing Professional Development Agenda in Scottish Physical Education