![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
The study addresses professional vision, including the abilities of selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning. This article focuses on the latter ability. Groups with different sport-specific and pedagogical expertise (n = 60) were compared according to their observation and interpretation of sport activities in a four-field design. The first group (novice) was composed of student teachers who had their university studies and who were characterised by low sport-specific and low pedagogical expertise. The second group (athlete) comprised athletes with high sport-specific expertise determined by league affiliation. The third group (teacher) included teachers with high pedagogical expertise based on teaching experience and further pedagogical criteria. The fourth group (expert) consisted of teachers with high pedagogical expertise, who, in addition, played and coached basketball at a high level (high sport-specific expertise). Observational data were obtained from physical education classes. The participants’ comments were recorded in a guided interview and analysed based on qualitative content analysis. The results were exported for further statistical analysis. The findings reveal general and specific differences in knowledge-based reasoning and identify different types of knowledge and beliefs used in this process. The implications for physical education teacher education programmes using video-supported reflection are discussed in light of the results.
Introduction
Over the last two decades, teaching has become increasingly demanding due to the growing diversity of educational objectives and heterogeneity of students (Darling-Hammond, 2006). In this context, questions about the professionalisation of teachers and teacher education have gained new currency (e.g. Armour et al., 2012; Bechtel and O’Sullivan, 2006; Borko, 2004; Wang and Ha, 2008). While there is a controversial debate about necessary teaching skills and dispositions, there is a wide consensus regarding the importance of teachers being able to reflect on their practice (e.g. Capel et al., 2011; Lamb et al., 2013; Standal and Vegard, 2013; Tsangaridou and Polemitou, 2015; Van Manen, 1995). Reflective practice can take place before, during and after teaching. This article focuses on professional vision, which includes observing and analysing students’ behaviour and learning processes during the act of teaching. Its importance becomes apparent when considering the special requirements in classrooms, where many events occur simultaneously and decisions must be made under time pressure. This challenge is amplified in physical education (PE) classes, as pupils do not have assigned seats and action is part of the lesson (see Behets, 1996). Moreover, in the German school system, PE teachers must perform the two-fold task that is part of the curriculum. This two-fold task encompasses the education of sports, that is, teachers must teach techniques and tactics to prepare pupils to take part in sports culture, in addition to providing education through sports, that is, teachers must teach cognitive and affective competencies to support pupils in their personal development. This should be implemented not only in sports but also in different movement fields (e.g. gymnastics, fitness; Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund et al., 2009). In complex and demanding situations in the classroom or gymnasium, teachers must be able to separate important events from unimportant events and decide where to focus their attention because they can only react in an appropriate way and provide pupils with the best support possible if they notice and understand what is going on. Observing and analysing are recognised as important prerequisites for meeting diverse learning needs and adapting teaching to heterogeneous preconditions (Choppin, 2011).
This study mainly focuses on the influence of pedagogical and sport-specific expertise on the process of professional vision. The term ‘professional vision’ refers to the theoretical framework used by Sherin and Van Es, who have investigated professional vision in numerous studies (Sherin and Van Es, 2005, 2009; Van Es and Sherin, 2002, 2008, 2010). They describe professional vision as the ability to notice what is occurring in complex classroom situations (selective attention) and the ability to ascribe meaningful importance to these events from a teaching perspective (knowledge-based reasoning). Understanding the process of professional vision and the underlying knowledge and skills in more detail is expected to help to improve these abilities, particularly concerning reflecting on teaching. One main aim of this paper is to draw conclusions regarding physical education teacher education (PETE) based on the findings of this study. This article presents the findings regarding knowledge-based reasoning. Before focusing on this process, the next section initially covers the concept of professional vision as well as empirical evidence.
Professional vision of teachers – Theoretical background and empirical evidence
The concept of professional vision is based on Goodwin (1994), who emphasises its importance in other professional domains. His work provides a framework for the concept and is often used as a reference in other studies in the field of education research (cf. for the trajectory Lefstein and Snell, 2011), including that of Sherin and Van Es, who conceptualised professional vision for the teaching domain. They differentiate two main processes: selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning. The first aspect, also known as noticing, refers to the ability to separate important from unimportant events and to decide where to focus one’s attention in complex classroom situations. Knowledge-based reasoning includes the ability to analyse certain events and give well-founded reasons for the interpretations of such events. Selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning can be understood as a reciprocal process (Sherin and Van Es, 2009; Van Es and Sherin, 2010).
Meanwhile, several researchers have also focused on these abilities (e.g. Blomberg et al., 2011; Lefstein and Snell, 2011; Seidel et al., 2011) or on the ability to notice (e.g. Jacobs et al., 2010; Rosaen et al., 2008; Star and Strickland, 2008). Star and Strickland (2008) have shown that teachers often struggle with selective attention, particularly at the beginning of their careers, which is thought to hinder new teachers from making decisions and acting appropriately in complex classroom situations. This issue has been picked up by various projects using video analysis to improve teachers’ professional vision in classroom settings (Sherin and Van Es, 2005, 2009; Van Es and Sherin, 2002, 2010). Other studies have focused on special aspects of interventions, such as the importance of an observation framework (Santagata and Angelici, 2010) or the type of video material observed (i.e. one’s own teaching or that of others, see Seidel et al., 2011). Rosaen et al. (2008) compared video-supported reflection to memory-based reflection and conclude that the former enables participants to reflect more thoroughly. In summary, these findings demonstrate the importance of video-supported reflection to develop selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning. At the end of the intervention programmes conducted in the studies presented above, participants focused more closely on the relevance to the subject and made better evidence-based sense of situations.
In all cases, the above authors express that developing these perceptive abilities is an important step towards improving education. Blomberg and colleagues (2011) even indicate that the development of professional vision is one of the key purposes of university teacher education. Rosaen et al. (2008) consider professional vision to be an essential requirement for changes in teacher behaviour. The comparison of groups with different expertise is an important approach to obtain more information about the complexity of professional vision. This will be presented in the next section.
Professional vision of different groups
Selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning vary among individuals. Despite the subjective nature of professional vision, researchers have found similar patterns in groups of teachers with different expertise. For example, studies comparing teacher novices and teacher experts reveal that experts perceive situations in a holistic way and describe different aspects as being important, which they furthermore immediately connect with justified action consequences (e.g. Berliner, 1987; Carter et al., 1988). In addition, researchers (Sherin and Van Es, 2005, 2009; Van Es and Sherin, 2008, 2010) have studied these abilities during the development from teacher novice to teacher expert by comparing groups with increasing experience at various times. Therefore, they have developed and investigated projects using video analysis to improve teachers’ professional vision in classroom settings. At the end of these programmes, participants focused more closely on the relevance to the subject and made better evidence-based sense of situations. Jacobs and colleagues (2010) compared groups with different teaching experiences and levels of professional development in a cross-sectional study. In addition to the group of prospective teachers, they differentiated teachers into three levels of professional development. All of the teachers were participants in workshops focused on children’s mathematical thinking, which was the subject of the investigation. Their results from pairwise comparisons indicate that teaching experience alone only provides support for attending to children’s strategies, while professional development also provides support for interpreting children’s understanding and deciding how to respond.
By comparing four groups with different sport-specific and pedagogical expertise, the present study seeks to learn more about the complex factors influencing professional vision. Thus, the findings of this study will help to improve our understanding of the development of professional vision and will therefore represent another step towards knowing how to best support pre-service teachers in becoming successful teachers. While most of the studies mentioned above were conducted in mathematics education, there are essential differences that must be taken into account when investigating the knowledge-based reasoning of PE teachers. After a short overview of the current state of research on the professionalisation of PE teachers with a focus on teacher knowledge, special characteristics in the domain of PE are presented in the following section.
Professionalisation of physical education teachers – Special features
Although research in the field of teacher education started in subjects other than PE, teacher development in PE (e.g. Armour et al., 2012; Armour and Yelling, 2007; O’Sullivan and Deglau, 2006) has been of increasing research interest since 1990 (see Wang and Ha, 2008). In overviews of the research on professional development in PE, both Bechtel and O’Sullivan (2006) and Wang and Ha (2008) conclude that researchers have mainly investigated the impact of professional development, the influencing factors (e.g. the context, workplace conditions, personal dispositions, beliefs) or types of PE teacher development (e.g. collaborative learning, continuing professional development).
In the context of teacher professionalisation, teacher knowledge has been the subject of much research and discussion in recent years, as well as the focus of many education reform efforts (for overviews, see Baumert and Kunter, 2006; Byra, 2009; O’Sullivan and Deglau, 2006; Schempp, 2003), but has rarely been investigated in concrete contexts, for example, by observing lessons (Ball, 2000). The need for an approach in concrete contexts is also mentioned by Kersting et al. (2010), who note that knowing something does not necessarily mean being able to access and use this knowledge in concrete situations. In their investigations, Kersting (2008) and Kersting et al. (2010) compared the collected knowledge based on teachers’ analyses of classroom video clips with the knowledge collected in a widely used measure of mathematics knowledge for teaching (MKT scale). Their findings demonstrate a significant, positive relationship and therefore provide empirical evidence for the suitability of the approach of using video analysis. They claim an increasing interest in assessing knowledge in concrete situations, which is the approach utilised in the investigation described herein.
Prior studies (e.g. Blomberg et al., 2011; Jacobs et al., 2010; Kersting, 2008; Sherin and Van Es, 2009; Van Es and Sherin, 2010) have distinguished qualitatively different levels in the process of knowledge-based reasoning, also termed as founded reasoning. With minor differences, these studies differentiate between statements that are more and less well-founded. For example, they distinguish statements that are mostly descriptive, those in which the observed events are interpreted by linking them to knowledge and those in which knowledge-based reasoning is used to predict what might happen next. The findings of these studies reveal that novice teachers differ from expert teachers in that experts’ statements are more interpretative and less descriptive. This indicates that once expert teachers notice what is going on, they begin to reason about the events based on their professional knowledge to make better sense of what they must attend to. Thus, many of these researchers reduce the foundation of reasoning to an increase in knowledge among experts (e.g. Blomberg et al., 2011; Kersting, 2008; Seidel et al., 2011). However, little is known about the influence of specific types of knowledge on selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning. The few exceptions to this are described below.
By comparing teachers of different subjects, Blomberg et al. (2011) hoped to gain insight into the impact of generic and subject-specific aspects of knowledge on professional vision. Their findings reveal unexpected differences. Pre-service teachers in the social sciences/humanities group scored higher in founded reasoning than the mathematics/science group, even on clips showing mathematics/science instruction. Because of these results, the researchers assume an influence of generic knowledge on professional vision to explain the differences between the two groups; however, they were not able to prove this hypothesis in further analyses. In an overview, Berliner (2001) summarises findings concerning the handling of discipline problems and concludes that case knowledge plays an important role in the cognitive analysis of these situations. For instance, when confronted with a problem, teacher experts search through their case knowledge for a case that is similar to the present one. Regarding the special needs of disabled people in education, Stough and Palmer (2003) demonstrate in a qualitative study that special education teachers refer to their diagnostic knowledge when making decisions in the classroom. Investigating teachers who observed and analysed two instructional sequences in PE, Reuker (2011) found differences between prospective and experienced teachers. The prospective teachers often argued by referring to their subjective beliefs, whereas the experienced teachers predominantly referred to their pedagogical and case knowledge.
The researchers mentioned previously often refer to Shulman’s (1986) broadly accepted conceptualisation of teachers’ knowledge. In particular, two types of knowledge are assumed to be central to the classroom: pedagogical knowledge and subject-matter knowledge (e.g. Baumert and Kunter, 2006; Kersting et al., 2010). In PE, researchers (e.g. Byra, 2009; Siedentop, 2002; Tsangaridou, 2009) have mainly focused on pedagogical knowledge, while subject-matter knowledge has been rarely investigated. They assume that this is due to the difficulties in identifying the content knowledge domain of PE. In more recent research (e.g. Ward et al., 2015), however, subject-matter knowledge has also received closer attention through investigations of its influence on pedagogical knowledge.
One special characteristic in the domain of PE is subject-matter expertise, including not only knowledge but also personal performance skills. Teaching these skills is a central element in the education of PE teachers. However, university curricula include only a selection of sports disciplines, and given that society increasingly differentiates sports into various sports trends, an increasing number of PE teachers must teach sports outside of their expertise and in areas where they lack personal performance skills. In addition, the emphasis on education in diverse athletic disciplines in German universities is decreasing. This raises questions about whether sport-specific performance skills are necessary for teaching sports. These questions have not yet been thoroughly investigated, nor has the impact of sport-specific performance skills on professional vision.
Looking beyond the teaching domain, however, sport researchers have engaged in a variety of work closely related to this issue. For example, in research on athletes, several studies have investigated the relationships between personal motor skills and the perception of motor processes (for an overview, see Hodges et al., 2006). The findings provide empirical evidence that personal performance skills do influence perceptual abilities. In novice–expert comparisons, researchers have revealed that expert athletes recognise relevant events in their respective sports disciplines faster and better than novices and differ from novices in their focus of observation. For example, experts and novices differ in their perceptions of movement patterns and game situations, as well as their anticipation of events. This relationship between personal motor skills and the perception of motor processes in sports is called embodied perception (Shiffrar and Heinen, 2010).
Obviously, there are essential differences between athletes and PE teachers. For example, in studies of athletes, very detailed aspects of movement processes have been investigated. In school settings, other aspects are more important than observing these details. PE teachers must focus on more general aspects of movement processes in groups that are often very heterogeneous, in addition to social processes. Furthermore, there are differences concerning the intention of observation. While athletes must observe other players to react in an appropriate and successful way, teachers must identify learning problems, considering the individuality of their students to best assist them with their learning processes.
Lawson (1983, 1984) describes this perspective of teachers as teaching or coaching orientations. He found that many PE teachers possessed a coaching orientation based on their socialisation. In a review of research, Pike and Fletcher (2014) report that a shift to more teaching orientations has occurred since the turn of the century. However, while several studies in this review show that PETE programmes can lead to a teaching orientation, which can be maintained when entering the profession, other studies demonstrate that coaching orientations are reinforced rather than challenged within PETE. Richards (2015) critically notes that a culture that awards good coaches rather than good teachers reinforces coaching orientations. In addition, Capel et al. (2011) demonstrate a strong sport orientation once teachers begin teaching. The participants in an initial teacher education programme expressed strong self and task concerns about missing sport-specific knowledge and skills, indicating a salient role of sporting experience, which influences teaching.
In the context of professional vision, Schempp and colleagues (Schempp and Woorons Johnson, 2006; Schempp et al., 1998b, 2002, 2006) report interesting findings. They conducted several studies comparing novices and experts to identify the characteristics of teachers’ or coaches’ professionalisation. The findings of these investigations show that in comparison to novices, experts perceive situations in a holistic way and mention different aspects as being important, which they furthermore immediately connect with justified action consequences. Based on retrospective interviews, Schempp et al. (1998a) even found differences in the perception of students’ learning problems depending on sport-specific expertise in the particular subject, with different factors being identified as the major source of learning difficulties. Gründel et al. (2013) investigated the impact of personal skill on coaching by comparing groups of low- and high-skilled athletes and coaches. They measured a range of perceptual-cognitive variables that are needed in sport and coaching situations and found differences for low-skilled players in particular. They ascribe the similarities between high-skilled players and coaches to sport-specific expertise, but note that this conclusion requires further exploration. Gründel et al.’s (2013) findings provide the first indications about the relationships between sport-specific expertise and teaching skills, but this conclusion requires further exploration because these relationships have not yet been sufficiently clarified and researched (for an overview, see Reuker, 2012).
Summary and research questions
In summary, there is substantial empirical evidence of the importance of knowledge as a foundation of reasoning, with expert teachers being more able to reason about events based on their professional knowledge. These findings are mostly based on comparisons of more and less experienced teachers. Therefore, less can be said about the influence of specific expertise on this process. Furthermore, when speaking of founded reasoning, it is still unclear what types of knowledge are used for reasoning. As stated above, a few studies indicate that some types of knowledge are more or less important, but the findings on this issue remain unclear. Subject-matter and pedagogical knowledge, in particular, are assumed to be central, but neither their influence on professional vision nor the issue of their development has been sufficiently clarified (Blomberg et al., 2011; Kersting et al., 2010).
As mentioned above, a main goal of the present study is to obtain greater insight into the complex effects of knowledge and skills on professional vision, which includes selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning. This article presents the findings on knowledge-based reasoning due to expertise, focusing on three main issues. Firstly, an attempt was made to determine whether the four groups of different expertise established in the present study differ in the theoretical foundation of their statements when interpreting video clips. It was assumed that the number of statements referring to knowledge provides primary information about knowledge-based reasoning. By comparing the four groups, new insights into the influence of pedagogical and sport-specific expertise on this process were expected. Secondly, not only the number of knowledge-based statements but also the types of knowledge (quality of reasoning) that influence the process of knowledge-based reasoning were of interest, especially with regard to pedagogical and subject-matter knowledge. A third line of inquiry also concerning the quality of reasoning was the differences between the four groups. Here, particular attention was paid to the differences between groups of more and less sport-specific expertise because the findings of previous studies on this issue are not clear.
Methodology
Generally, professional vision is researched by observing and interpreting video-taped teaching sequences. This research method is reliable and well-accepted and has been used to analyse professional vision in previous studies (e.g. Blomberg et al., 2011; Kersting, 2008; Van Es and Sherin, 2008). In line with this methodological approach, groups with different kinds of expertise were compared as they observed and analysed classroom activities using a four-field design. The teaching sequences function as stimuli to activate selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning. The participants were questioned in guided interviews that were then analysed categorically. The following sections describe the steps in greater detail.
Selection of teaching sequences
Video data recorded during PE lessons in middle school classes (school age ranged from 12 to 15 years) at different schools were used as the observation material. Approval for the video observations was granted by the Hessian Ministry of Education and the Arts in the context of teacher education. Only schools that agreed to the video observation were selected. Students and their parents gave their written informed consent.
The video recordings were taken as sports games were taught. The focus was on basketball, which is a part of the middle school curriculum and often taught in PE lessons. Furthermore, in sports games, both motor and social skills are important for success and, therefore, the selection of basketball lessons should lead to a wide range of observations. As the teacher’s perspective is most important for analysis, the sequences were recorded from a teacher’s viewpoint; therefore, the sequences only show students and no teachers.
After recording the entire lessons, 5-minute clips were cut from the video material. The clips were edited by a student assistant looking for continuous sequences without teacher interaction. Twenty-four sequences from these clips were chosen for further analysis. The final collection was created by four members of the research team who possessed both pedagogical and motor expertise. The central criterion of choice was the representativeness of the sequences as realistic everyday classroom situations, which were evaluated by asking whether the sequence showed a typical situation in PE that could be observed as a teacher standing at the side of the court. Scenes that would shift perception to special classroom processes (e.g. disruptions) were eliminated. Next, sequences were analysed according to their potential for communication. To this end, the members of the working group were asked to briefly write down important classroom events after the observation. Scenes with the most similar but also different foci among the members of the group were chosen (cf. Star and Strickland, 2008). A final selection was then made regarding the variety of the scenes.
Classification into groups of different expertise
To identify the importance of various types of knowledge and skills relevant for the observation and interpretation process, groups with different expertise were compared to each other based on the four-field design shown in Figure 1. In total, 60 people (n = 15 per group) were interviewed about the scenes. Treatment of the participants was in accordance with the standards of the American Psychological Association, whilst participants participated voluntarily and gave their informed consent.
The assignment of participants into groups with high pedagogical expertise was based on the recommendations of Palmer et al. (2005). In the present study, individuals were required to have at least three years of teaching experience in PE in middle school as well as a score of two or better on their second state exam. Moreover, they had to have had work experience as a teacher educator or mentor at a university or school. Furthermore, only those people whose expertise was confirmed by another person (e.g. a colleague or director) were chosen. Participants’ assignment into groups with high sport-specific expertise was determined by sport association activities and league affiliation. These individuals had to have been active members of a basketball club for at least five years and participated in league competitions at the national level or higher. According to these criteria, the participants were categorised as follows: expert, having both high sport-specific and pedagogical knowledge; athlete, having high sport-specific expertise; teacher, having high pedagogical knowledge; and novice, having low sport-specific and pedagogical knowledge. This last group mainly comprised student teachers who had just started their university studies.
Data collection and analysis
For data collection, the participants were allowed to choose a preferred place to complete the interview. The video clips were shown on a laptop. Prior to conducting the interviews, the participants completed a short standardised introduction, including demographic and biographical variables (e.g. age, years in profession, subjects). Information about the concrete aim of the project was only given to the participants after the data collection. As a result of pilot studies intended to test the interview guidelines, contextual information for the scenes was kept to a minimum in the main study. Moreover, the instructions for observation were intentionally open because any information could have led participants to focus on specific aspects and thereby influenced the results. Therefore, only brief information on the context, such as the type of school and number of students, was provided.
Next, participants were shown four clips in a varying order, which served as the basis for the guided interview. As in the studies by Sherin and Van Es (2005, 2009), we requested the participants to identify important key features by asking, ‘What do you notice as significant in the teaching practice?’ Next, the participants had to provide interpretations of what took place by answering the question, ‘What are the reasons for your appraisals?’ For this purpose, we recalled the aforementioned key features. These questions formed the main guideline for the interviews.
The participants’ comments were recorded, transcribed and analysed by applying qualitative content analysis following Mayring (2000). The central procedure of this qualitative approach is the creation of categories based on a methodologically controlled analysis of the texts. The analysis was performed using the software programme MaxQDA. Following the deductive category application model, the system was completed step by step and revised during the process of analysis. This process is based on a coding manual that formulates ‘explicit definitions, examples and coding rules for each (…) category, determining exactly under what circumstances a text passage can be coded with a category’ (Mayring, 2000: 5). In the following section, the categories and the coding process will be explained in more detail; a portion of the coding manual can also be found in the Appendix.
According to the theoretical framework of professional vision (Sherin and Van Es, 2009; Van Es and Sherin, 2010), the two main categories of the present study are selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning. Given the scope of this article, only the latter category is of interest here.
A comment was coded as reasoning if the observations were interpreted under a teaching perspective, giving the events a meaningful importance. It was coded as knowledge based if the reasoning was founded, for example, describing profound knowledge, making connections to experience knowledge, using suitable terms and analysing the events under different theoretical perspectives. Statements that referred to subjective opinions without giving further arguments, for example such answers as ‘I think it’s important to do it this way’ or ‘in my opinion, children should have fun’, were coded as beliefs. In some cases, participants could not provide any reasons, even when asked.
Next, the knowledge-based reasoning comments were coded into further subcategories. These categories were created based on theory and category systems developed in previous studies (Ball et al., 2008; Reuker, 2011) with reference to Shulman’s (1991) taxonomy of different types of knowledge and material. Statements that could not be attributed clearly to any of these subcategories were classified into the subcategory other knowledge (e.g. knowledge of curriculum; for the coding manual, see the Appendix).
The analysis units of the interview texts were determined by context, meaning that they were based on the extent of the new issue raised (selective attention or reasoning). Therefore, units could vary between one or more sentences. Multi-coding was possible, and selective attention and reasoning were often linked together in the statements. Repetitive statements were not coded twice. Two researchers coded the transcripts independently based on the guidelines of the coding manual. The overall inter-rater reliability for reasoning was initially 78%. Any differences between the two coders were discussed and resolved through consensus.
To identify differences in knowledge-based reasoning between the four groups, the number of comments that each participant made relating to each category, conducted using the software programme MaxQDA, were exported to the software programme SPSS 20 for further quantitative analysis. To identify differences between each group, one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and Tukey post hoc tests for individual comparisons were conducted. The dependent variables were the number of comments coded in the different categories of reasoning. A significance level of .05 was used for all of the statistical tests. The effect size was measured using η2, with values of ≤ 01, ≤.10 and ≤.25 representing small, medium and large effects, respectively (Cohen, 1988). The statistical analysis was performed with a total of 60 persons, with 15 in each group. Some selected descriptive characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1. Achieving a balanced gender ratio proved problematic as it was difficult to find persons who fulfilled all of the criteria. The evaluation of the average duration of speaking time shows that the teacher and expert groups spoke longer about the video sequences than the other two groups (F (3, 56) = 14.89, p < .001, η2 = .444), which, as will be shown, is due to their use of detailed knowledge-based explanations. The specific results on the foundation of professional vision due to different expertise will be presented in the next section. In identifying these differences, the quantitative analysis helps to improve our knowledge about the necessary knowledge and skills underlying the process of professional vision, an important prerequisite for teachers that enables them to meet diverse learning needs and adapt teaching to changing conditions. Thus, the findings of the present study will help to draw conclusions about how to best support pre-service teachers in becoming successful teachers, engendering strategies that could be used in PETE programmes.
|
Table 1. Selected descriptive characteristics of the sample presented as the mean (SD).
Results
The findings of the present study reveal general as well as specific differences in knowledge-based reasoning between the four groups of different sport-specific and pedagogical expertise. Regarding general differences, the reasoning of the teacher and expert groups is more well-founded than the reasoning of the novice and athlete groups. Furthermore, the findings show that these differences can be mainly attributed to differences in the use of pedagogical knowledge. In the following section, these results are presented in more detail. Some example quotations for categorisation can be found in the Appendix with reference to the group (N = novices, A = athletes, T = teachers, E = experts) and line (e.g. A14, 45), as indicated at the appropriate place in the text.
General differences in knowledge-based reasoning
Firstly, one-way MANOVA with beliefs and knowledge-based reasoning as the two dependent variables was conducted. Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of the number of times that beliefs and knowledge-based reasoning were utilised by each group when analysing the video clips.
|
Table 2. Use of knowledge-based reasoning and beliefs by the four groups, presented as the mean (SD).
All groups referred to both beliefs and different types of knowledge when giving reasons for their appraisals, but the multivariate tests revealed significant differences in reasoning by group (F (6, 110) = 11.89, p < .001, Wilk’s Λ = 0.368, η2 = .393). Therefore, further tests were performed. In the tests of between-subject effects, there were no significant differences in the number of statements coded as beliefs (F (3, 56) = 0.75, p < .530, η2 = .038), but significant differences in the number of statements coded as knowledge-based reasoning (F (3, 56) = 29.38, p < .001, η2 = .611) between the four groups could be identified. To account for the use of multiple ANOVAs, statistical significance was accepted at p < .025 (Bonferroni correction).
The findings of this study reveal that only a slightly higher number of beliefs was used in the groups of novices and athletes compared to the other two groups, which may have been due to the lower use of knowledge-based reasoning. In all groups, participants expressed various beliefs about what PE should be and achieve (e.g. ‘pupils should have fun is what it’s all about’) to interpret the sequences. As significant differences in knowledge-based reasoning were identified, Tukey post hoc tests were performed to identify the differences between each group. In the multiple comparisons, significant differences were found between the novice and athlete groups compared to the teacher and expert groups (p < .001), with the latter using more knowledge when giving reasons for their appraisals. Furthermore, differences between the groups of novices and athletes (p = .043), with the athletes utilising more knowledge-based reasoning, were detected. Members of these groups analysed the events under different theoretical perspectives, often using technical terms, and gave their observations meaningful importance under a well-founded teaching perspective.
Specific differences in knowledge-based reasoning
Because the quality of knowledge-based reasoning was also of interest in this study, these comments were coded into further subcategories. As mentioned above, different types of knowledge to which the participants referred while reasoning about the importance of the events that they had previously highlighted could be identified. For further analysis, one-way MANOVA with four dependent variables (experience, subject matter, pedagogical and other knowledge) was conducted. An overview of the results is given in Figure 2.
The x-axis lists the four groups: novice, athlete, teacher and expert. The y-axis indicates the average number of statements related to the different subcategories of knowledge-based reasoning. Identical statements were not coded twice. Different types of knowledge are designated using different colours and filling patterns.
The multivariate tests revealed significant differences in knowledge-based reasoning based on the four groups (F (12, 140.52) = 10.58, p < .001, Wilk’s Λ = 0.182, η2 = .433). Therefore, further tests were performed. In the tests of between-subject effects, significant differences in all of the subcategories for a statistical significance level of p < .0125 were revealed. This level was used to account for the use of multiple ANOVAs (Bonferroni correction). To identify the differences between each group, Tukey post hoc tests were performed once again. These results are shown in Table 3.
|
Table 3. Subcategories of knowledge-based reasoning. Statistical parameters of the analysis of variance.
The multiple comparisons confirm the expected differences between the teacher or expert groups and the novice group for the mean number of comments coded for each type of knowledge. The teacher or expert groups referred to a greater amount of knowledge when giving reasons for their appraisals. A comparison between the four groups provides additional interesting insights.
Concerning the mean number of comments coded as experience knowledge, the results reveal statistically significant differences between the novice and the teacher or expert groups (p < .001), but not between the athlete group and the teacher (p = .227) or expert (p = .208) groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the group of athletes and the group of novices (p = .190). In summary, the findings of this study show that in the groups of high sport-specific as well as high pedagogical expertise, members interpreted the events that could be observed in the videos by referring to their experience knowledge with approximately the same frequency. It must be noted that in the statements coded as experience knowledge, no differentiation between experience of teaching and learning experience was made, as in most cases it was difficult to distinguish these types of experience knowledge (e.g. A14, 41). Nevertheless, significant differences appeared only between the teacher or expert group and the novice group. Overall, experience knowledge was used for reasoning approximately as often as subject-matter knowledge. By referring to this type of knowledge, participants often gave events a meaningful importance under a teaching perspective, dividing them into everyday and special occasions (e.g. E10, 71).
Furthermore, the mean number of comments coded as subject-matter knowledge was significantly different between the novice group and the other groups (p < .01) and, surprisingly, between the teacher group and the expert group (p < .002), but not between the athlete group and the teacher or expert group (p = .247). In summary, the results show that the two groups with high sport-specific expertise interpreted the events more often based on their subject-matter knowledge than the groups assigned to low sport-specific expertise (e.g. A14, 75); however, only slight differences between the group of athletes and that of teachers could be found. This may be because learning basketball is part of PETE, which may provide prospective teachers with sufficient sport-specific basics. The differences compared to the group of experts may be explained by the special training that is received to become a coach, as most of the members of the expert group worked as basketball coaches and their expertise therefore goes beyond personal performance skills.
Finally, it was found that the difference in the mean number of comments coded as pedagogical knowledge between the novice or athlete and teacher or expert groups was statistically significant (p < .001). In summary, in the comments of the groups with high pedagogical expertise, the participants referred to pedagogical knowledge more often than the members of the other two groups did. Thus, they interpreted their observations more frequently using a perspective that focuses on teaching methods. When analysing the interviews, a slight difference between the group of teachers and the group of experts was also found; the experts were particularly prone to referring to methodological knowledge about the instruction and management of content to achieve motor goals, such as appropriate methodological exercises or typical mistakes (e.g. E06, 37), whereas teachers referred more often to didactical knowledge about different didactical concepts, such as student- and activity-oriented methods or competency-oriented methods of teaching content (e.g. L14, 32). To give an example: members of the teacher group tended to criticise technique-centred instruction for its lack of transparency, whereas the members of the expert group suggested improvements on these instructions.
Discussion and conclusion
The aim of the present study was to investigate the differences in professional vision between four groups with different expertise. Thus, the findings contribute to our understanding of PE teachers’ development by replicating the results of studies of other subjects, namely, by identifying well-founded reasoning as one characteristic of the professionalisation of PE teachers. The differences between novices and experts are in line with earlier novice–expert research that found that expert teachers are able to make more sense of instructional situations (e.g. Berliner, 1986; Carter et al., 1988) and recent research that found differences in the foundation of reasoning between more and less experienced teachers (Jacobs et al., 2010; Sherin and Van Es, 2005, 2009; Van Es and Sherin, 2008, 2010).
Furthermore, the findings of this study provide a more detailed understanding of the process of professional vision and the underlying knowledge and skills and thus help to improve the development of these abilities in teachers, in general, and in PE teachers, in particular, which was established as a main aim of the paper. While most researchers in the field of PE (e.g. Rovegno et al., 2003; Tsangaridou, 2002) highlight the importance of pedagogical content knowledge by describing how it emerges and develops in teachers, the findings of this study indicate that professional knowledge is characterised by at least three different types of knowledge: subject-matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and experience knowledge. Scholars (cf. Bromme, 2008; Rogalla and Vogt, 2008) refer to cumulative knowledge as an increasing connection between various types of knowledge, which they interpret as a characteristic of professional development as also confirmed by the findings of this study: participants with high pedagogical expertise more frequently analysed class events, referring to more and different types of knowledge. The distinction between pedagogical and subject-matter knowledge is in line with findings that confirm the distinguishability of these two types of knowledge (Baumert et al., 2010; Kleickmann et al., 2013; Krauss et al., 2008). In their investigation of mathematics teachers with more and less in-depth mathematical training, Krauss et al. (2008) also found more extensive subject-matter knowledge as well as pedagogical knowledge in the group with higher teacher expertise; they also reported an increased connectedness, which indicates low distinguishability for these two knowledge categories in this group.
Based on the multiple comparisons in the present study, however, pedagogical knowledge appears to be the predominant orientation among teachers and experts: the findings show that the differences between groups with more and less teaching expertise can be mainly attributed to differences in the use of pedagogical knowledge, where participants with high pedagogical expertise gave the situations more meaningful importance from a teaching perspective. The high impact of pedagogical knowledge is also in line with findings from the research group led by Baumert et al. (2010), who investigated the impact of teacher knowledge on teaching quality and students’ outcomes, differentiating between subject-matter knowledge and domain-specific pedagogical knowledge. Their findings indicate that the students’ progress, mediated by the quality of instruction (cognitive activation and individual learning support), is mainly an effect of pedagogical knowledge. They also clarify, however, that the findings do not indicate that subject-matter knowledge is unimportant; indeed, it also directly affects students’ progress, and even more importantly, they assume that it provides much of the basis for the development of pedagogical knowledge. By using a slightly different conceptualisation of knowledge, Ward et al. (2015) draw similar conclusions. They investigated PE teachers and found that content knowledge influences the enacted pedagogical knowledge, which they found has a central effect on students’ learning.
In addition to knowledge, the present findings also reveal a significant influence of beliefs on professional vision in all groups. This corresponds with the results of other studies (e.g. Aguirre and Speer, 2000; Stipek et al., 2001) that found a meaningful influence of teachers’ beliefs on teaching practice. The influence of knowledge, beliefs and values is also mentioned by scholars (for an overview, see O’Sullivan and Deglau, 2006) who refer to practical knowledge as a part of professional knowledge that guides day-to-day interactions. It is understood as a product of deliberate inquiry and could be revealed by teachers verbalising their theories of teaching and learning.
As all of the groups in the present study referred to their beliefs when analysing the teaching sequences, with the group of novices doing so almost exclusively, it can be assumed that beliefs should be considered more in teacher education, for instance, by reflecting on the influence of one’s own beliefs on the observation and interpretation of education situations. This is even more important because other findings indicate that existing traditional beliefs are not challenged in initial teacher education programmes (e.g. Capel et al., 2011).
In addition, the differences between groups with more and less sport-specific expertise proved to be particularly interesting because the findings regarding this issue are not clear. The findings obtained in this study indicate that sport-specific expertise does influence professional vision as the athlete group showed a more founded reasoning than the novice group, with the athletes referring to subject-matter and experience knowledge more frequently. Sport-specific expertise seems to be necessary but insufficient for a high level of teaching, however, as athletes lack the pedagogical knowledge to teach sports. In the present study, athletes mainly interpreted the events from a sport-motoric perspective without interpreting them from a teaching perspective. The comparison between the groups with exclusively high pedagogical expertise (teachers) and the combination of both, that is, high pedagogical and sport-specific expertise (experts), also indicates the influence of sport-specific expertise, as the experts referred more often to their subject-matter knowledge while the pedagogical view within the groups did not differ significantly.
A more detailed analysis of the pedagogical knowledge also revealed differences between the teacher and expert groups. Experts referred more often to their methodological knowledge, as characterised by an exclusive focus on sport-motoric aims, compared to the teachers, who referred more often to didactical knowledge, as characterised by a focus on developing the whole individual. Although this was not the focus of the present study, these differences could be interpreted as coaching and teaching orientations, respectively, as they have been discussed in PE (e.g. Capel et al., 2011; Pike and Fletcher, 2014; Richards, 2015). This interpretation would indicate that coaching orientations still remain among teachers.
In summary, because observing and analysing students’ behaviour and learning processes during the act of teaching are important prerequisites for meeting diverse learning needs and adapting teaching to a heterogeneous student population, the presented findings have the potential to prepare teachers for these challenges. Although the present study did not investigate how to develop professional vision, some implications for PETE can be drawn based on these findings.
In German universities, the necessity of teaching sport-specific performance skills has been increasingly challenged and the number of appropriate courses has decreased. The findings of the present study indicate that sport-specific expertise has an influence on professional vision and thus – in addition to other reasons – sport-specific skills should remain an essential part of the curriculum in PETE. However, the focus in teaching sports or other movement fields should not exclusively lie with improving pre-service teachers’ performance, but should also include learning to observe, analyse and make decisions about how to respond in the context of different teaching tasks. This is especially important because possessing knowledge and skills does not necessarily mean being able to access and use this knowledge in concrete situations. In fact, the ability to make use of the acquired knowledge and skills needs to be learned as well, for example by realising peer coaching concepts or reflecting on concrete teaching situations.
While there is a consensus among researchers (e.g. Rosaen et al., 2008; Santagata and Angelici, 2010; Seidel et al., 2011; Sherin and Van Es, 2009; Van Es and Sherin, 2010) that teaching programmes using video-supported reflection improve professional vision, their application in teacher education remains controversial. The present findings indicate that in programmes using video-supported reflection, either in PETE or in other subjects, an observation framework (e.g. giving a sport-specific or pedagogical discussion focus; creating a discussion forum with participants of different expertise, such as coaches or teachers from different types of schools and pre-service teachers) could be helpful to connect different types of knowledge and thus develop professional vision. So far, what has remained unconsidered in these teacher education programmes is a critical reflection on the different experiences and beliefs of the participants discussing the video clips. As the present findings show an influence of beliefs and experience knowledge on professional vision, both aspects should be considered in programmes aimed at improving professional vision. Beyond professional vision, discussion forums designed to stimulate reflection and discussion about teaching ideas and practices among experienced teachers are also suggested in other PETE programmes (e.g. Armour and Yelling, 2007, Deglau et al., 2006). These programmes treat teachers as active learners who professionalise by developing their own understanding and meaning. Understanding professional development as the development of differentiated and well-founded views on PE practice is also a central principle of video-supported reflection programmes.
What currently remains unknown is in which phase of teacher education prospective teachers acquire professional vision: university seminars, teaching experience or both? Future research may be able to provide deeper insights into the acquisition of different types of knowledge and skills during PETE, for instance, by investigating the professional view at several critical stages in teacher education through longitudinal research projects. This could help to clarify the role of seminar content and different internships or work experience after graduation, among other factors. Furthermore, it could support the development of appropriate PETE programmes by evaluating learning progress.
Focusing on developing professional vision, existing video analysis concepts predominantly work by observing and analysing teacher interactions. Rather than observing the teacher from an observer’s point of view, a more accurate and realistic picture of teaching situations can be achieved by taking the teacher’s perspective and observing and analysing students. Either way, it is still unclear to what degree findings gathered in the context of video analysis relate to day-to-day PE situations. Some initial studies demonstrate a relationship between professional vision and classroom activity, such as teacher instruction and learning processes (e.g. Kersting et al., 2010; Sherin and Van Es, 2009), but further research is necessary.
What still remains unknown is the characterisation of professional vision in real situations where many events occur simultaneously and where decisions must be made quickly. So far, it cannot be ruled out that professional vision is influenced by other types of knowledge or beliefs in complex situations. Furthermore, in PE, teachers must perform different teaching tasks: they must correct movements, moderate social processes, initiate thought processes, observe, give advice and evaluate pupils. It can be assumed that professional vision differs depending on the tasks to which teachers must attend. This could also be an interesting field of research.
In addition, further research is needed on how professional vision, developed in PETE programmes using video-supported reflection, influences day-to-day teaching in PE. By identifying qualitative differences in knowledge-based reasoning (e.g. interpreting the events under a more methodological or didactical perspective), it would be interesting to investigate whether there are differences in teaching quality. This consideration is based on an open and non-prescriptive understanding of professional expertise. To date, this topic has received less attention but could be an interesting field for future research.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Silja Flach for her assistance in data collection and analysis. I am grateful to all of the participants in the study.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) [grant number RE 3197/1 -1].
References
|
Aguirre, J, Speer, N (2000) Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in teacher practice. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 18: 327–356. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Armour, KM, Makopoulou, K, Chambers, F (2012) Progression in physical education teachers’ career-long professional learning: Conceptual and practical concerns. European Physical Education Review 18: 62–77. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Armour, KM, Yelling, M (2007) Effective professional development for physical education teachers: The role of informal, collaborative learning. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 26: 177–200. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Ball, D (2000) Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education 51: 241–247. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Ball, D, Thames, M, Phelps, G (2008) Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education 59: 389–407. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Baumert, J, Kunter, M (2006) Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 9: 469–520. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Baumert, J, Kunter, M, Blum, W. (2010) Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal 47: 133–180. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Bechtel, PA, O’Sullivan, M (2006) Effective professional development - What we now know. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 25: 363–378. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Behets, D (1996) Comparison of visual information processing between preservice students and experienced physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 16: 79–87. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Berliner, D (1986) In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher 15: 5–13. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Berliner, D (1987) Ways of thinking about students and classrooms by more and less experienced teachers. In: Calderhead, J (ed.) Exploring Teachers’ Thinking. London: Cassell, pp.60–83. Google Scholar | |
|
Berliner, D (2001) Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research 35: 463–482. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Blomberg, G, Sturmer, K, Seidel, T (2011) How pre-service teachers observe teaching on video: Effects of viewers’ teaching subjects and the subject of the video. Teaching and Teacher Education 27: 1131–1140. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Borko, H (2004) Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher 33: 3–15. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Bromme, R (2008) Lehrerexpertise. In: Schneider, W, Hasselhorn, M (eds) Handbuch der Pädagogischen Psychologie. Göttingen: Hogrefe, pp.159–167. Google Scholar | |
|
Byra, M (2009) Tracking R-PETE from 1980 to 2000: Research on programmatic change, participants’ perspectives, and control of PETE programs. In: Housner, L, Metzler, M, Schempp, P. (eds) Historic Traditions and Future Directions of Research on Teaching and Teacher Education in Physical Education. Morgantown, West Virginia: West Virginia University, pp.315–323. Google Scholar | |
|
Capel, S, Hayes, S, Katene, W. (2011) The interaction of factors which influence secondary student physical education teachers’ knowledge and development as teachers. European Physical Education Review 17: 183–201. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Carter, K, Cushing, K, Sabers, D. (1988) Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teaching Education 39: 25–31. Google Scholar | Abstract | |
|
Choppin, J (2011) The impact of professional noticing on teachers’ adaptations of challenging tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning 13: 175–197. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Cohen, J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Darling-Hammond, L (2006) Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 57: 300–314. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Deglau, D, Ward, P, O’Sullivan, M. (2006) Professional dialogue as professional development. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 25: 413–427. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Deutscher Olympischer, Sportbund, Deutscher, Sportlehrerverband, Deutsche Vereinigung für, Sportwissenschaft (2009) Memorandum zum Schulsport. Available at: www.sportwissenschaft.de/fileadmin/pdf/download/Memorandum_Schulsport_Druck.pdf (accessed 18 August 2015). Google Scholar | |
|
Goodwin, C (1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96: 606–633. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Gründel, A, Schorer, J, Strauss, B. (2013) Does playing experience improve coaching? An exploratory study of perceptual-cognitive skill in soccer coaches. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 1–8. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | |
|
Hodges, N, Starkes, J, MacMahon, C (2006) Expert performance in sport: A cognitive perspective. In: Ericsson, K, Charness, N, Feltovich, P. (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.471–488. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Jacobs, V, Lamb, L, Philipp, R (2010) Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 41: 169–202. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Kersting, N (2008) Using video clips of mathematics classroom instruction as item prompts to measure teachers’ knowledge of teaching mathematics. Educational and Psychological Measurement 68: 845–861. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Kersting, N, Givvin, K, Sotelo, F. (2010) Teachers’ analyses of classroom video predict student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a novel measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education 61: 172–181. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Kleickmann, T, Richter, D, Kunter, M. (2013) Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 64: 90–106. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Krauss, S, Brunner, M, Kunter, M. (2008) Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology 100: 716–725. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Lamb, P, Lane, K, Aldous, D (2013) Enhancing the spaces of reflection: A buddy peer-review process within physical education initial teacher education. European Physical Education Review 19: 21–38. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Lawson, H (1983) Toward a model of teacher socialisation in physical education: The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 2: 3–16. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Lawson, H (1984) Toward a model of teacher socialisation in physical education: Entry into schools, teachers’ role orientations, and longevity in teaching (Part 2). Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 3: 3–15. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Lefstein, A, Snell, J (2011) Professional vision and the politics of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 27: 505–514. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Mayring, P (2000) Qualitative content analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2): Art. 20. Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204 (accessed 25 July 2013). Google Scholar | |
|
O’Sullivan, M, Deglau, D (2006) Principles of professional development. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 25: 441–449. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Palmer, DJ, Stough, LM, Burdenski, TK. (2005) Identifying teacher expertise: An examination of researchers’ decision making. Educational Psychologist 40: 13–25. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Pike, S, Fletcher, T (2014) A review of research on physical education teacher socialization from 2000–2012. PHEnex Journal 6: 1–17. Google Scholar | |
|
Reuker, S (2011) The professional knowledge of physical education teachers. A comparison between groups of different expertise while analyzing classroom events. International Journal of Physical Education XLVIII: 31–42. Google Scholar | |
|
Reuker, S (2012) Der Professionelle Blick von Sportlehrkräften. Ein Überblick über ein bislang vernachlässigtes Thema in der Lehrerausbildung. Sportwissenschaft 42: 240–246. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Richards, K (2015) Role socialization theory: The sociopolitical realities of teaching physical education. European Physical Education Review 21: 379–393. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Rogalla, M, Vogt, F (2008) Förderung adaptiver Lehrkompetenz: eine Interventionsstudie. Unterrichtswissenschaft 36: 17–36. Google Scholar | |
|
Rosaen, C, Lundeberg, M, Cooper, M. (2008) Noticing noticing. How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education 59: 347–360. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Rovegno, I, Chen, W, Todorovich, J (2003) Accomplished teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of teaching dribbling to third grade children. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 22: 426–449. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Santagata, R, Angelici, G (2010) Studying the impact of the lesson analysis framework on preservice teachers’ abilities to reflect on videos of classroom teaching. Journal of Teacher Education 61: 339–349. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Schempp, P (2003) Teaching Sport and Physical Activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kintecis. Google Scholar | |
|
Schempp, P, Manross, D, Tan, S. (1998a) Subject expertise and teachers’ knowledge. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 17: 342–356. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Schempp, P, McCullick, B, Sannen, MI (2006) The development of expert coaching. In: Jones, R (ed.) The Sports Coach as Educator. London: Routledge, pp.145–161. Google Scholar | |
|
Schempp, P, Tan, S, Manross, D. (1998b) Differences in novice and competent teachers’ knowledge. Teachers and Teaching 4: 9–20. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Schempp, P, Tan, S, McCullick, B (2002) The practices of expert teachers. Teaching and Learning 23: 99–106. Google Scholar | |
|
Schempp, P, Woorons Johnson, S (2006) Learning to see: Developing the perception of an EXPERT teacher. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 77: 29–33. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Seidel, T, Sturmer, K, Blomberg, G. (2011) Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others? Teaching and Teacher Education 27: 259–267. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Sherin, M, Van Es, E (2005) Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 13: 475–491. Google Scholar | |
|
Sherin, M, Van Es, E (2009) Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education 60: 20–37. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Shiffrar, M, Heinen, T (2010) Die Fähigkeiten von Athleten verändern deren Wahrnehmung von Handlungen. “Embodiment” der visuellen Wahrnehmung von menschlichen Bewegungen. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie 17: 130–142. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Shulman, L (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15: 5–14. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Shulman, L (1991) Von einer Sache etwas verstehen: Wissensentwicklung bei Lehrern. In: Terhart, E (ed.) Unterrichten als Beruf. Köln, Wien: Böhlau, pp.145–160. Google Scholar | |
|
Siedentop, D (2002) Content knowledge for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21: 368–377. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Standal, Ø, Vegard, M (2013) Reflective practice in physical education and physical education teacher education: A review of the literature since 1995. Quest 65: 220–240. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Star, J, Strickland, S (2008) Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 11: 107–125. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Stipek, D, Givvin, K, Salmon, J. (2001) Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 213–226. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Stough, LM, Palmer, DJ (2003) Special thinking in special settings: A qualitative study of expert special educators. The Journal of Special Education 36: 206–222. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Tsangaridou, N (2002) Enacted pedagogical content knowledge in physical education: A case study of a prospective classroom teacher. European Physical Education Review 8: 21–36. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Tsangaridou, N (2009) Preparations of teachers for teaching physical education in schools: Research on teachers’ reflection, beliefs, and knowledge. In: Housner, L, Metzler, M, Schempp, P. (eds) Historic Traditions and Future Directions of Research on Teaching and Teacher Education in Physical Education. Morgantown, West Virginia: West Virginia University, pp.373–382. Google Scholar | |
|
Tsangaridou, N, Polemitou, I (2015) Exploring pre-service classroom teachers’ reflections on teaching physical education. European Physical Education Review 21: 66–82. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Van Es, E, Sherin, M (2002) Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 10: 571–596. Google Scholar | |
|
Van Es, E, Sherin, M (2008) Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 244–276. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Van Es, E, Sherin, M (2010) The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 13: 155–176. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Van Manen, M (1995) On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 1: 33–50. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Wang, CL-J, Ha, AS-C (2008) The teacher development in physical education: A review of the literature. Asian Social Science 4: 3–18. Google Scholar | |
|
Ward, P, Kim, I, Ko, B. (2015) Effects of improving teachers’ content knowledge on teaching and student learning in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 86: 130–139. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
Author biography
Sabine Reuker is Professor of Sports Pedagogy in the Department of Sports and Health at the University of Paderborn, Germany.
