CONFERENCE PAPER No. 7
Senior Physical Education
…blurring the boundaries
between written and physical
tasks…
Presented by
Damien Barry
Senior Physical Education
…blurring the boundaries between written and
physical tasks…
Damien Barry
Prior to the 1998 Senior Physical Education syllabus release,
there was a clear distinction between theory and practical
content matter. The subject, then known as Health and Physical
Education, encouraged little integration between the two areas.
Subsequently, ‘Health’ and ‘Physical Education’ emerged as two
distinct subject areas in their own right, and the 1998 syllabus
for Physical Education (PE) sought to integrate the written
components with the learning of physical skills together with a
philosophy that underpinned learning called, ‘learning in,
through and about physical education’ (Senior Physical Education
Syllabus: 1998: 5)
With the development of the 2004 Physical Education syllabus,
the same philosophy remains, however, there is an increased
focus upon the personalisation and integration of units of work
with students. Units of work continue to integrate concepts with
physical activities, however, there is further relevancy with
the learning experiences and personalised assessment so that
students for example, apply concepts of training methods and
principles to improve their own performance and that of peers in
the physical activity explored as part of that unit.
At Clayfield College, this has been facilitated with the
implementation of a variety of Thinking Skills and strategies.
These include graphic organizers, especially sequence charts,
Thinking Tools such as CAF (Consider All Factors), and the Six
Thinking Hats. These cognitive tools and strategies provide
effective scaffolding to the thinking and learning processes,
enhancing the development of intelligent performers within PE.
This paper will outline why the teaching of Thinking Skills in
PE is critical and how this is achieved at Clayfield College. It
will also examine, through the use of such tools, how both
written and physical subject matter are integrated and
personalised.
The teaching of higher order thinking as an explicit skill
within PE continues to be a challenge. Many teachers regard, or
perhaps hope, this will be developed indirectly or just happen
even though copious research suggests that thinking must be
taught directly because students do not engage in critical
thinking by themselves (Bellanca and Fogarty, 1994; Huot, 2000).
Physical Educators not only need to teach thinking but also to
incorporate it into the three domains, namely the cognitive, the
psychomotor and the affective domains.
The Queensland Senior PE syllabus is separated into three
criterion or objectives for teaching and learning. Both written
and physical performance assessment tasks are assessed using the
same three criteria. These are “Acquiring, Applying and
Evaluating”. There are also three focus areas from which subject
matter that is to be covered across years 11 and 12 is selected.
In Senior PE, higher order thinking skills are seen to be
developed
mostly
within
the
third
criterion,
that
is
“Evaluating”. However certain key skills are learnt within the
“Applying” criterion, eg. the ability to use concepts in new
situations. According to the syllabus, “Evaluating” is achieved
via hypothesizing, appraising, predicting, justifying and
reflecting upon information. Reflecting upon information is seen
to effectively move the learner into metacognition. The
evaluating criterion is expressed in Bloom’s Taxonomy as
synthesis and evaluation. Bloom’s Taxonomy presents six distinct
levels of thinking, moving from lower order thinking skills to
higher order thinking skills. The six levels from low to high
are illustrated in Figure 1.
Evaluation
Synthesis
Analysis
Application
Comprehension
Knowledge
Figure 1.
Hierarchical Taxonomy
Blooms
According to Jensen (Brainwaves Conference, 2005), the frontal
cortex of the brain, the area responsible for higher order
thinking, only begins to mature in the teenage years. Therefore
it is imperative that teachers provide sufficient support and
tools to enable and guide students to develop these higher order
thinking skills, especially if they are to be assessed in this
area.
One assumption of having the three levels of objectives is that
thinking (evaluating) needs a cluster of knowledge in which to
manipulate information (acquiring and applying). Thus as PE
teachers much of our instructional time is devoted to acquiring
and applying the information and little to evaluating. This may
be because many teachers perceive thinking as an innate ability
rather than a learnt skill. As Marzano (2001: 9) states,
evaluation may actually preclude the acquisition of new
knowledge. De Bono (1983: 703 - 708) further supports this by
arguing that we may need to reduce the time we spend teaching
information in order to focus on the direct teaching of thinking
skills.
However, PE teachers, due to a number of reasons such as time
constraints, teaching to the test, or increased accountability,
engage in largely direct teaching methods. Such teaching where
the teacher decides the content matter, has managerial control,
presents tasks, controls pacing and task progression further
limits the ability to teach thinking. The teacher becomes a tool
for the transmission of knowledge rather than a facilitator of
learning, encouraging learned helplessness and laziness within
students. Tasks should be structured so that pupils own the
information gathering and thinking processes.
This has ramifications for students attempting to fulfill the
evaluation objective. These higher order thinking skills seem to
be insufficiently taught in PE. McBride (1999: 219) points out
that most PE teachers use the traditional demonstration /
replication instruction model where they control most, if not
all decision making. PE classes often spend much time on
learning skills to play the game rather then learning a game by
playing it. Therefore students miss out on opportunities to use
their recently acquired knowledge in meaningful contexts.
In addition, too often PE Educators do not model effective
thinking skills. It is important for PE teachers to not only be
knowledgeable about the topic, but also be good role models for
critical thinking (McBride, 1995: 23). This is supported by
Howarth (2000) who suggests that the development of thinking
skills within a PE setting often demands fundamental and
difficult changes for any teacher, requiring a change in
curriculum and teaching style since students are influenced by
the way teachers examine their own thinking and encourage others
to do the same. Furthermore if teachers are to teach cognition
and metacognition, teachers themselves must understand it
(Tishman and Perkins, 1995).
At Clayfield College, the ability
of students to reflect and appraise their own and peer physical
performances has been greatly enhanced with the use of CAF’s
(Consider All Factors thinking tool). The development of written
assessment tasks, such as research reports, have also benefited
with the student use of graphic organizers and thinking tools.
Those teachers who take the time to model, encourage and discuss
the use of these tools have achieved the best outcomes for
students.
This leads to the question of what are the contemporary learning
theories appropriate to the development of higher order thinking
in school Physical Education? It appears that indirect teaching
methods are the most effective in encouraging students to think
creatively, to appraise, formulate, predict and implement
knowledge. Therefore models such as Teaching Games for
Understanding (Werner, Thorpe and Bunker, 1996), Metzler’s
(2000) Cooperative Learning, Mosston and Ashworth’s Spectrum of
Teaching Styles (1994) and Siedentop’s (1994) Sport Education
Model are ways of achieving this. Essentially, models in which
the student is the centre of learning, where the teacher poses
problems to be solved and facilitates the learning environment
rather than directs, are the most effective. What is also
required is the attainment of metacognition or the ‘thinking
about thinking’. This is an objective within PE classes across
all year levels at Clayfield College. By infusing Thinking Tools
into everyday teaching we are able to cover the content matter,
negate the time constraints experienced by all teachers, and
develop metacognitive skills and mindfulness.
Clayfield College has a Thinking focus with a coordinator
dedicated to implementing thinking skills, tools and strategies
across the curriculum. All teachers are provided with in-service
to implement the strategies in their day to day teaching and
students are provided with regular thinking skills sessions
embedded into their timetable. These sessions introduce and
expose students and teachers to these tools and strategies and
provide a subject specific context. In PE these strategies have
been extremely beneficial in developing cognitive skills and
assisting in the integration of written and physical performance
subject matter. Sequence chart graphic organisers are used to
structure the orienteering learning process (see Appendix A).
Other graphic organizers are used to assist students to plan and
structure written tasks more effectively, e.g research reports
and to develop a six week training plan to improve physical
performance (see Appendix B). The Six Thinking Hats are used to
help students plan and evaluate their aerobics routines (see
Appendix C). The written subject matter was ‘learning physical
skills and information processing’. The Six Thinking Hats
enabled students to apply these concepts in the construction of
a physical routine by identifying strengths, weaknesses,
distractions, emotions and needs. The same tool has been used by
Year 10 Health and PE students to revise a unit on energy
systems, training principles and training methods in relation to
volleyball and dance /aerobics (see Appendix D).
The results of the implementation of these tools are multifunctional. The Thinking Tools and strategies
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
provide a thinking scaffold.
enable students to consider a broader range of content
knowledge.
enhance planning and time management.
promote self reflection of optimum learning practices for
each individual.
allow students to do the thinking and work themselves.
develop a greater quality and depth of content
understanding and thinking.
improve student confidence to apply these tools to a raft
of scenarios and tasks across both physical and written
domains.
The challenge now is to totally infuse these strategies into PE
students’ schema so that they are able to perform these
strategies without teacher, sheet and stimulus items to guide
them!
The initial implementation of these Thinking Tools at Clayfield
College was met with some resistance from both teachers and
students, and continues in some areas today, because with change
comes fear and uncertainty. Teachers are encouraged to appraise
their current teaching methods and students are required to
understand, transfer and use information rather than to simply
regurgitate the information. The concept of ‘learned
helplessness’ within students is being challenged. The current
cohort of Year 11 students were the first group as year 8’s to
be exposed to the Thinking Tools and each year since has seen a
gradual ‘roll out’ of subsequent thinking tools and strategies.
Terms such as CAF, O.P.V (Other People’s Views), A.G.O (Aims,
Goals, and Objectives) and the Six Thinking Hats are part of
everyone’s lexicon at Clayfield College. Teachers can now ask
students to perform a CAF and students know exactly what is
expected of them and how to use this tool.
The ability to integrate and personalize concepts is a difficult
task. PE assessment tasks must be developed that require
students to do this, however learning experiences must
effectively prepare students and equip them to fulfill this
requirement. It is especially difficult if students are immersed
in a system that separates ‘theory’ from ‘practical’ throughout
Years 8, 9 and 10 and even more if this is a continuation from
Primary School. Physical tasks are seen as something we do
outside on a court or field.
‘It is just sport’. Students
cannot be expected to simply switch from one paradigm to another
as soon as they enter Year 11. This hurdle has been recognized
at Clayfield College, and tasks have been developed to integrate
‘theory’ and ‘practical’ content matter in Years 8, 9 and 10,
e.g. whilst exploring Athletics year 8 students are subjected to
a battery of fitness tests and write a one week training program
to improve their performance in an athletics discipline and
overall wellbeing. Whilst exploring fitness components and
training methods year 10 students apply this knowledge and
understanding to the sports explored throughout the unit, i.e.
aerobics and volleyball.
The Thinking tools and strategies used at Clayfield College are
exactly that, TOOLS. Each tool/strategy has a specific task and
therefore a specific use. Knowing the use and task for each
tool, enables the learner and teacher to select the appropriate
tool to accomplish a specific Thinking Task. No one model or
tool is best suited to the teaching of thinking within the
Physical Education context, rather what is needed is an explicit
desire and commitment to teach thinking, a structured
methodology in which to pursue this commitment and PE educators
themselves to want to change the way they structure learning
experiences and to model effective thinking tools and strategies
that develop creative thinkers, but also to blur the boundaries
between the written and physical domains of PE creating a
wholeness rather than isolated, stand-alone blocks of
information and knowledge.
References
Bellanca, J. and Fogarty, R. (1994). Blueprints for Thinking in
the Co-operative Classroom (3rd ed.). New York: Hawker Brownlow
Education.
De Bono, E. (1983). ‘The Direct Teaching of Thinking as a
Skill”. Phi Delta Kappan, 64 (10), 703 – 708.
Huot, J. (2000). ‘Understanding Thought Processes for Improved
Teaching of Thinking’. http://fox.nstn.ca/~huot/model-tk.html
Howarth, J (2000). ‘Contributions of Research on Student
Thinking in Physical Education’. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education. 16 (1), 262 – 277.
Jensen, E. 2005. Brainwaves Conference, Sunshine Coast,
Australia.
Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives, California: Corwin Press Inc.
McBride, R.E. (1995). ‘Critical Thinking in Physical Education An Idea Whose Time Has Come’. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 66 (6), 21 – 52.
McBride, R. E. (1999). ‘If You Structure It, They Will Learn –
Critical Thinking in Physical Education Classes’. Clearing
House, 72 (4), 217 – 220.
Mosston, M. and Ashworth, S. (1990). The Spectrum of Teaching
Styles – From Command to Discovery. New York: Longman Press.
Queensland Studies Authority (2004). Senior Physical Education.
Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport Education. Champaign, Illinois:
Human Kinetics.
Tishman, S. and Perkins, D. N. (1995) Critical Thinking and
Physical Education. JOPERD, 66 (6), 24 – 30.
Werner, P., Thorpe, R., and Bunker, D. (1996). ‘Teaching Games
for Understanding – Evolution of a Model’. JOPERD, 67 (1): 28 –
33.

 Dispositions 






Thinking
Tools

 
 


Skills
Knowledge


 
Rheault, C. von Oppell, M.A. 2005: Putting it All Together. Workshop
presented at the 12th International Conference of Thinking, Melbourne, July
2005.