Search

Policy classifies and shapes people/subjects in particular kinds of ways. Focusing on the context of Health and Physical Education (HPE), this paper analyses policy documents from Australia, the United States of America (USA) and Wales. We pay particular attention to how learners are represented within and across the three policy documents, and we apply Bacchi's 'What's the Problem Represented to be?' approach to guide the analysis. For us, problematization is a fruitful and positive process that enables educators to engage with a critical dialogue regarding the policies they are expected to enact. Our analysis highlighted that common across the policies were overlapping discourses of idealism, neoliberalism, healthism, and individualism, which serve to reinforce deficit language and a focus on what learners 'lack'. The problem of 'learner as lacking' is represented within the policies via at least three subject positions: 'the sedentary learner', 'the un-educated learner' and 'the naïve learner'. The findings suggest that the three policies were producing an ideal and perhaps impossible learner (subject) whilst at the same time representing the learner as a problem that the policy could 'fix'. This paper is important because it: (i) demonstrates how certain discourses and voices are amplified and silenced within curriculum policy documents and policy work more broadly; (ii) makes educational and health politics visible; and (iii) creates space for the profession to develop greater critical consciousness related to policy. In terms of future directions, we urge curriculum policy writers and other stakeholders to carefully consider how learners are categorised, represented and governed in and through policy. If curriculum policies, by their very nature, need to produce problems – in this case, the (im)possible subject - we invite educators to engage in critical conversations regarding the policies they are expected to enact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a tendency in European education policy to emphasise more and better deliberate learning outcomes. The tendency is criticised for taking an instrumental view of education [Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge,; van Manen, M. (2008). Pedagogical sensitivity and teachers practical knowing-in-action. Peking University Education Review, 6(1), 2–20. ] and threatening children's self-governed play opportunities [Pettersvold, M., & Østrem, S. (2019). Problembarna: Metoder og manualer i barnehage, skole og barnevern. Cappelen Damm akademisk]. However, self-governed play outdoors is perceived as educationally important, notably within Nordic early childhood education. This paper aims to contribute to the international debate on what constitutes good education by investigating an outdoor education culture framed within the context of Nordic early childhood education. We investigate the research question of what characterises teachers' outdoor didactics in self-governed play and growth as these appear in a Norwegian nature kindergarten? The theoretical framework builds on (1) perspectives on Bildung as playful self-formation [Løvlie, L. (2002). The promise of bildung. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(3), 467–486. ; Steinsholt, K. (2010). Vi må miste oss selv for å finne oss selv igjen. Lek, erfaring og danning hos Hans-Georg Gadamer. In K. Steinsholt, & K. P. Gurholt (Eds.), Aktive liv (pp. 101–119). Tapir Akademiske Forlag] and (2) a relational perspective on children's self-governed outdoor play as a way of integrated dwelling and growth through intimate correspondence with environments [Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, (2018). Anthropology and/as education: Anthropology, art, architecture and design. Routledge]. Data were generated through ethnographic fieldwork in a public Norwegian nature kindergarten that emphasises children's outdoor play as educationally important. Nineteen children aged 4–6 participated. The fieldwork drew on participant observation, including playing with the children and on-site conversations. Using the theoretical framework as a lens, the educational culture is conceptualised as didactic sensitivity, which entails the teachers' delicate sensitivity and responsiveness towards children and place. The teachers act professionally by creating unique, thoughtful, responsive, and situated conditions for children's autonomous growth in natural environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By examining on-course pedagogical practices, recent research has sought to inform the development of National Governing Body (NGB) coach education courses. Coach education programmes are, however, social constructs, and are influenced by policies and socio-economic factors. To inform future provision, there is a need to understand the construction of policy and the influences affecting course design. This study examined how the English Football Association (FA) redeveloped their coach education policy in 2016. The 2016 changes are pertinent because calls for educational provision to be informed by social constructivism have been made. The FA's coach education policy (2016) claim to be informed by such a philosophical stance. This study, therefore, reports on what policy was created, and how it had been disseminated within the organisation. Twenty-eight interviews were conducted with 14 participants (staff members with different roles within the FA) across two separate points in time, 12 months apart. A thematic analysis identified three key themes: (1) Three Elements of Curriculum/Course Design (A learning strategy informed by social constructivism; a body of content for courses; a coaching competency framework and qualification specification); (2) Recontextualisation of the policy and some confusion during dissemination; and (3) A restricted code when disseminating policy. The significance of these findings extends beyond the case presented and policy makers who seek to inform course design with learning theory may wish to offer elaboration throughout the workforce via text and discourse. Future research should build on these findings and consider how knowledge is selected and legitimised by policy makers, and how coach developers implement recontextualised policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]