Search

Background: Physical education (PE) and physical education teacher education (PETE) have a substantial literature base that advocates for students to develop a critical consciousness, appreciate multiple perspectives, and engage in actions to enhance social justice [Tinning, R. 2016. "Transformative Pedagogies and Physical Education." In The Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies, edited by C. Ennis, 281-294. New York: Routledge]. Analysing sociocultural issues, critically reflecting on beliefs, knowledge, biography, and values, and developing a sense of agency to enact change, have been recognised as an integral part of the PETE knowledge base for some time [Fernández-Balboa, J. M. 1997. "Physical Education Teacher Preparation in the Postmodern era: Toward a Critical Pedagogy." In Critical Postmodernism in Human Movement, Physical Education, and Sport, edited by J. M. Fernández-Balboa, 121-138. Albany: State University of New York Press]. However, there remain differences in how social justice itself is conceptualised and enacted. Social justice is aligned heavily with critical and 'post' theories where taking action for justice, democracy, and power is central; but social justice is also found in humanist beliefs in student-centredness and equality and has been co-opted by neoliberal forces that promote individual responsibility. While a lack of consensus is not in itself a problem [Bialystok, L. 2014. "Politics Without "Brainwashing": A Philosophical Defence of Social Justice Education." Curriculum Inquiry 44 (3): 413-440], diverse definitions might contribute to confusion and lead to uncertainty over what and how to teach for social justice. Purpose: In order to work towards greater certainty around concepts of social justice in the PETE community, this project sought to map variations in definition and conceptualisation of social justice and sociocultural issues among physical education teacher educators (PETEs) and physical education and sport pedagogy (PESP) educators, as part of a wider project on social justice and sociocultural perspectives and practices in PETE. Methods: PETE and PESP faculty (n = 72) in North America, Europe, and Australasia engaged in an in-depth interview, during which they were asked how they define social justice and sociocultural issues. Additional information about participants' social identity was collected. A constant comparative method of analysing participants' definitions mapped a range of concepts building on the theoretical framework of neoliberal, humanist, critical, and 'post' approaches to social justice. Findings: The data demonstrate that there are a range of understandings about sociocultural issues and social justice. Most commonly, some participants articulated a humanist approach to social justice by encouraging their pre-service teachers (PSTs) to have awareness of equality of opportunity in relation to gender, sexuality, and/or racism. Less prevalent, but strongly stated by those who conceptualised social justice in these terms, was the importance to take action for democracy, empowerment, or critical reflection. The terms diversity and equality, framed in neoliberal and humanist discourses, were most commonly used within the United States (US), while critical pedagogy and alignment with critical and 'post' theoriesweremore prevalent in Australia and NewZealand. Conclusion: Differences exist in the ways social justice is conceptualised in PETE. While this can be attributed to the influence of local issues, it is also reflective of what intellectual tools, such as humanism or critical theory, are available for problematising social issues. The range of non-critical concepts found raises concern that PSTs are not getting the tools to enact social justice or tackle sociocultural issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For over four decades, there have been calls for physical education (PE) and physical education teacher education (PETE) to address social inequality and foster social justice. Yet, as numerous studies demonstrate, attempts to educate for social justice in PETE are infrequent and rarely comprehensive. This raises the question why it appears to be possible in some situations but not others, and for some students and not others. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the multiple sociopolitical networks or assemblages in which PETE is embedded and explore how these shape the possibilities for students to engage with the concept of social justice and sociocultural issues (SCI) when learning to teach PE. Two research questions guided this study: How does an orientation for social justice education (SJE) within education policy affect the standards for enacting PETE programs? How is SJE encouraged within PETE programs? Methodology: Drawing from a broader study of over 70 key personnel in more than 40 PETE programs, we examined how faculty in PETE understand their professional world, identify their subjective meanings of their experiences, and address SCI and SJE within PETE. Data sources included an initial survey, a semi-structured interview, and program artifacts. We analyze the ways that SJE/SCI was represented in three national settings (England, the United States, and New Zealand) and identified common themes. Results: Examination of each national setting reveals ways that SJE and SCI were enabled and constrained across the national, programmatic, and individual level in each of the countries. The coherence of explicit National policy and curricula, PETE program philosophies, and the presence of multiple individual interests in social justice served to reify a sociocultural agenda. Conversely, possibilities were nullified by narrow or general National Standards, programs that failed to acknowledge sociocultural interests, and the absence of a critical mass of actors with a socio-critical orientation. These differences in assemblage culminated in variations in curriculum time that served to restrict or enable the breadth, frequency, and consistency of the messages surrounding SCI in PETE. Conclusion: These findings highlight the importance of acknowledging socio-political networks where PETE operates. The agency of PETEs to enact pedagogies that foreground sociocultural interests is contingent on congruity of the networks. The authors caution that although the 'perfect storm' of conditions has a profound influence of the possibility of transformational learning of SCI in PETE, this arrangement is always temporary, fluid, and subject to changes in any of the three network levels. Additionally, the success of PETE in enabling graduating PE teachers to recognize the inequities that may be reinforced through the 'hidden curriculum' and to problematize the subject area is contingent on the expectations of the schools in which they teach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]