18 SES 13 B, Coach Education: Interrogating Practice
Teachers sometimes have difficulties expressing what they value when grading students in Physical Education and refer to a “gut-feeling” or internalised criteria (Annerstedt and Larsson, 2010; Hay and MacDonald, 2008). The internalised criteria consists of the teacher’s own values that have an impact on the grades regardless if they are consistent with the official grading criteria or not (cp. Penney et al., 2009). In this line research also suggests that teachers use a “hodge-podge grade of attitude, effort and achievement” (Brookhart, 1991: 36). Assessment and grading in Physical Education (PE) are no exceptions (Chan, Hay and Tinning, 2011; Redelius, Fagrell and Larsson, 2009; Svennberg, Meckbach and Redelius; 2014). In a criterion-referenced grading system the criteria need to be transparent to ensure validity and fairness. Otherwise the students do not know the reason for their grades and the grades are not possible to be discussed and evaluated. When the stated criteria are inconsistent with how the grading is done, it affects the learning-teaching process since the assessment is sending out a different message regarding what is important to learn (Chan, Hay and Tinning, 2011; Hay and Penney, 2012; James, Griffin and France, 2005; Redelius and Hay, 2009). In Sweden a criterion-referenced grading system was introduced in 1994, and grades are supposed to be awarded on the basis of how well the student meets the knowledge criteria or learning outcomes stated in the national curriculum. Conversely several studies carried out on Swedish PE indicate that how the student behaves is just as important as knowledge and skills (Annerstedt and Larsson, 2010; Redelius, Fagrell and Larsson, 2009).
The aim of this study is to explore what four Swedish PE teachers consider important when talking about grading and to analyse the relevance the expressed criteria have to the grades they have given their students. Such an exploration makes it possible to discuss how the verbalised criteria and the value they are given by the teacher can be understood in relation to the official grading criteria
Bernstein (2003: 85) points out the importance of the curriculum: ‘Curriculum defines what counts as valid knowledge, pedagogy defines what counts as valid transmission of knowledge, and evaluation defines what counts as a valid realisation of the knowledge on the part of the taught’. Linde (2012) discusses Bernstein’s thesis that curriculum defines what counts as valid knowledge and raises the question as to whether it is the written official curriculum that counts, or the mediated curriculum that results from the teachers’ transformations. He then points to the fact that the content and subject matters taught by teachers or learnt by students are not always the content expressed in the written official curriculum. The impact of the teachers’ transformation of the curriculum can also be applied on grading. How is it possible to understand the teachers’ transformation of the official grading criteria?
According to the Personal Construct Theory (PCT) by George Kelly (1955) our behaviour can be understood in the light of personally constructed patterns. These patterns of constructs help us to explain our experiences, to predict our surroundings and to choose a direction of our behaviour. The constructs are sometimes articulated, but they can also be unarticulated and experienced as a vague feeling. Constructs are sometimes described as the intuition, gut feeling or perception that guides our actions without necessarily being verbalised (Björklund, 2008).
Annerstedt C and Larsson S (2010) ‘I have my own picture of what the demands are ... ’: Grading in Swedish PEH - problems of validity, comparability and fairness. European Physical Education Review 16(2): 97-115. Bernstein B (2003) Class, codes and control. Vol. 3, Towards a theory of educational transmission. London: Routledge. Björklund L-E (2008) The repertory grid technique, Making Tacit Knowledge Explicit: Assessing Creative work and Problem solving skills. In: Middleton H (ed) Researching Technology Education: Methods and techniques. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 46-69. Brookhart SM (1991) Grading practices and validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 10(1): 35-36. Chan K, Hay P and Tinning R (2011) Understanding the pedagogic discourse of assessment in Physical Education. Asia-Pacific Journal Of Health, Sport & Physical Education 2(1): 3-18. Fransella F, Bell R and Bannister D (2004) A manual for repertory grid technique. 2. ed. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley. Hay P and MacDonald D (2008) (Mis)appropriations of criteria and standards-referenced assessment in a performance-based subject. Assessment In Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 15(2): 153-168. Hay P and Penney D (2012) Assessment in Physical Education: a sociocultural perspective,, London: Routledge James A, Griffin L and France T (2005) Perceptions of Assessment in Elementary Physical Education: A Case Study. Physical Educator 62(2): 85-95. Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs vol. 1. A theory of personality. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. Linde G (2012) Det ska ni veta!: En introduktion till läroplans teori (This you should know!:An introduction to the theory of curriculum). 3rd ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Penney D, Brooker R, Hay P and Gillespie L (2009) Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment: three message systems of schooling and dimensions of quality physical education, Sport, Education and Society, 14(4): 421-442. Redelius K and Hay P (2009) Defining, acquiring and transacting cultural capital through assessment in physical education. European Physical Education Review 15(3 ): 275-294. Redelius K, Fagrell B and Larsson H (2009) Symbolic capital in physical education and health: to be, to do or to know? That is the gendered question. Sport, Education & Society 14(2): 245-260. Svennberg L, Meckbach J, and Redelius K (2014) Exploring PE teachers’ ‘gut feelings’: An attempt to verbalise and discuss teachers’ internalised grading criteria European Physical Education Review, first published on January 20, 2014 as doi:10.1177/1356336X13517437
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.