Student learning through interaction in physical education

The creation of this special issue can be thought of as a cartographic exercise aimed at providing examples of current research on learning in and through interactions in physical education (PE). Together, the collection forms a kind of map that is useful for identifying connections and conceptual similarities and differences between current approaches. As such, the special issue has the potential to stimulate dialogue and to guide future research and pedagogical endeavors when encouraging student learning through interaction in PE.

As with any project of this sort, it is expedient to begin with some contextualization. Over the last 50 years, following the work of prominent education theorists like Piaget and Vygotsky, constructivist principles have become a central feature of the educational landscape (Fosnot, 2005; Roth and Lee, 2007). This trend has led to a practical emphasis on providing students with opportunities to make decisions, work collaboratively, discuss content, and negotiate with one another to actively ‘construct meaning’ in PE. Constructivist perspectives have provided an important stimulus for the genesis of policy decisions, scholarship, and pedagogical models (Rovegno and Dolly, 2006; Wright et al., 2004 ). Pedagogical models with social constructivist orientations in PE include Sport Education (Kirk, 2006; Siedentop et al., 2011), Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) (Butler, 2006; Kirk and MacPhail, 2002), and Cooperative Learning (Dyson and Casey, 2014; Lafont, 2012). While it is not entirely clear the extent to which these models, or indeed constructivist principles in general, are being implemented in PE internationally, the volume of literature on constructivist approaches (Rovegno and Dolly, 2006), along with the frequency of use of terms like ‘student centered’ suggest there has been a significant shift in the way physical educators think about teacher–student and student–student interactions. This is a key reason for examining interactions in practice more closely, and an important starting point for this special issue.

Initially, this shift in thinking was not accompanied by an explicit research focus on the changing nature of interactions, even though constructivist approaches demand new forms of interaction compared with more traditional ‘demonstrate-explain-practice’ approaches to teaching and learning. In the TGfU pedagogical model, for instance, teachers are expected to encourage reflection by posing questions rather than simply telling students how to play the game (Harvey and Jarrett, 2014). ¹ Within the Cooperative Learning model, teachers should also act as facilitators and encourage students to interact in certain ways (Casey and Goodyear, 2015; Dyson et al., 2004). Nonetheless, the nature of interactions occurring during lessons has until recently escaped sustained empirical attention and, even 10 years ago, very few studies had investigated micro-level interactions in PE (see Wright and King, 1990, for an exception). Today, the situation is somewhat different. A number of scholars are investigating what is going on as teachers and students work together in PE (see, for example, Darnis and Lafont, 2015; Goodyear and Dudley, 2015; Hennings et al., 2010). This work is providing valuable insights into the nature and consequences of interactions in PE. Unsurprisingly, learning has been a recurring theme and valuable discussions have taken place around how interactions shape students’ educational experiences (cf. Barker et al., 2015; Jenkinson et al., 2014; Koekoek and Knoppers, 2015).

Of course, one’s take on the kind of learning possible during interaction depends very much on what one means by learning. A brief consideration of what it means to learn will prepare readers for the different perspectives offered here in this issue. Learning as a theoretical construct in its own right has garnered attention in PE research with scholars considering questions of content, knowledge, and ability in general (Evans, 2004; Macdonald, 2004). Learning can occur in different ‘domains’, including the physical, cognitive, social, and affective. From a multidimensional perspective, it is feasible that learning occurs in some domains but not others during lessons. Different domains of learning may also be prioritized during pedagogical interactions. For example, within group-based models, such as Cooperative Learning or Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (Hellison, 2003), social learning might take on a greater degree of importance than in other content-oriented perspectives. Drawing on the work of Anna Sfard (1998), Quennerstedt et al. (2014) have discussed two fundamental metaphors of learning: one related to participation and the other to acquisition. Taking a participation perspective, scholars are likely to ask questions that relate to communities, positions, and relationships. How, for example, is PE content enacted during interactions? From an acquisition perspective, scholars may be more interested in knowing whether pupils have ‘picked up’ the necessary skills and concepts that were covered as content in the lesson and how students’ peers can aid that process. Like Sfard, we would propose that an awareness of the underlying assumptions on which research and practice rests is essential. Important also is that new perspectives and metaphors for understanding the complexities of on-going interactions in PE practice are developed. This is where a mapping exercise can make an especially useful contribution.

The term ‘interaction’ is also not without complexity. In this special issue, interaction is used to signal a concern for the micro-dynamics of classroom settings. A number of scholars have drawn on social psychological work (see, for example, Ensergueix and Lafont, 2010), framing interaction as a process that occurs between individual consciousnesses. Yet, there are a number of ways to demarcate the boundaries of interaction. Linguistic elements can be seen as a primary way of sense making and thus are a central focus of empirical work (Darnis and Lafont, 2015; Lafont, 2012). Alternatively, interaction can be seen as something that necessarily involves bodies in space and time and can thus be examined in ways that elucidate the corporeal, temporal, and even moral dimensions of doing things together (Barker et al., 2015; Öhman and Grundberg-Sandell, 2014). Questions of wider context, too, can be brought into focus with institutional and socio-historical factors being weighed against or used as a backdrop for explaining the ‘heres and nows’ of interactive moments (Barker and Quennerstedt, 2016; Brock et al., 2009).

In short, there are a number of ways to think about learning in and through interaction. This complexity is to a large extent what makes the topic such a fascinating and fertile area of study. Notwithstanding the interesting nature of learning through interaction as a topic of investigation, developing (i) sophisticated descriptions of how pupils learn together through their interactions, as well as (ii) useful prescriptions of how pupils might learn more effectively together, remain challenging tasks for physical educators. With these challenges in mind, the contributions in this special issue provide illustrations of a number of approaches that have been used to extend our thinking in this area.

In the first paper, Chantal Amade-Escot and Nabila Bennour (2016) conduct a detailed analysis of micro-episodes taking place within PE lessons. Using a social interactionist framework in combination with the notion of ‘productive disciplinary engagement’, they examine the ways in which students interact to construct and potentially transform the content knowledge that they are supposed to learn.

Following this, Marie Öhman (2016) explores strategies that PE teachers develop in order to deal with physical interaction in their teaching practices. The study takes its point of departure in PE teachers’ self-regulation in relation to child protection and ‘no-touch’ policies, and sheds light on how teachers in their pedagogical work use strategies to avoid physical touch as well as to resist ideas of ‘no-touching’.

In the third paper, Tristan Wallhead and Ben Dyson (2017) use a Joint Action Studies in Didactics (JASD) framework to explore how student learning evolves during Cooperative Learning. This study provides a rich description of how students who are given content decision-making responsibilities can shape the learning of peers within a cooperative group structure. It also highlights the dynamic evolution of content that occurs when teachers and students interact and co-construct content knowledge within the tasks of the Cooperative Learning model.

Following Wallhead and Dyson (2017), Lucile Lafont, Camille Rivière, Florence Darnis and Pascal Legrain (2017) provides a summary of the ‘Interactions Sociales et Acquisition’ (ISA) French group’s work to examine Peer Assisted Learning designs in PE. The authors provide contemporary empirical evidence for the optimal conditions under which students assigned to the role of tutor or tutee are prepared to endorse their roles under different dyad conditions. They also provide a summary of their research that has examined the effects of peer interaction on social relations and, specifically, the inclusion of students with special needs within Cooperative Learning contexts.

In the fifth paper, Dean Barker and Mikael Quennerstedt (2016) provide insights into how power relations in PE group work operate. Using observations of Swedish students creating dance routines, and drawing on Foucault’s notion of power as action-on-action, the authors suggest that power relations are not simply created locally between group members, nor are power relations only a function of the members’ proficiency in the task. Teachers are encouraged to introduce tasks where expertise is ambiguous, or at least, less clear than in traditional PE activities. These tasks, where objectives are not predetermined, demand student communication and deliberation and thus elicit opportunity for new power relations to operate.

Finally, Sheri Brock and Peter Hastie (2017) considers the importance of pupil status in group work situations. Focusing on verbal interactions taking place between pupils in the context of a Sport Education unit, Brock and Hastie considers how status influences the frequency of interactions as well as the topic of interaction. Brock and Hastie’s results encourage educators to think carefully about pupils’ personal characteristics, as well as how learning tasks are designed when conducting group work.

The special issue is concluded with a commentary by Ashley Casey (2016). Casey considers the articles in the special issue in relation to one another and in relation to hidden curriculum research. Using the notion of the hidden curriculum as a vantage point, Casey discusses tacit learning that occurs within everyday classroom exchanges and considers how studies of micro-level interactions can shed light on this type of learning. In Casey’s view, the kinds of explorations featuring in this issue can ultimately lead to a better understanding of broad educational processes within schools.