Etapa Inmediata

It has widely been argued that pupils’ learning outcomes through engagement in PE lessons depend, to a large extent, on PE teachers’ quality (e.g. UNESCO, 2014). Moreover, the enhancement of the PE teachers’ quality is influenced by PE-CPD (e.g. Armour, 2010). In this sense, studying effective PE-CPD is important in order to enhance PE teachers’ quality, and ultimately, pupils’ learning outcomes.

To date, a comparatively small amount of research on PE-CPD has been undertaken (Parker & Patton, 2016). Research on PE-CPD has been conducted both conceptually and empirically. For example, in a conceptual dimension, Armour (2010) argued that PE teachers need to view themselves as ‘learners’ rather than teachers in order to engage in sustained process of professional learning so that they could be equipped with professional responsibility. Moreover, Armour et al. (2015) recently suggested the application of the Deweyan perspective of

‘education as growth’ to designing effective PE-CPD. Along with few conceptual research, there is also empirical research which explores characteristics of (in)effective PE-CPD. Parker and Patton (2016) recently reviewed research on PE-CPD which had been undertaken from the 1980s to the present and summarised conditions which it has been found help to make PE-CPD effective. According to the research, PE-CPD is likely to be more effective when it:

• is on-going and sustained;

• is based on teachers’ needs and interests;

• includes opportunities within learning communities; • is supported;

• acknowledges teachers as learners in an active and social environment; • enhances teachers’ pedagogical skills and content knowledge;

• is facilitated with care; and

• focuses on improving learning outcomes for students.

These characteristics are similar to those of findings from research on CPD in the wider educational context (e.g. Bell et al., 2012), as examined in section 2.1.2, Teachers’ perspectives on PE-CPD which they have experienced, however, are somewhat different from the conditions for effective PE-CPD above. In other words, despite the fact that the characteristics of effective PE-CPD have been investigated and even suggested, in reality, ineffective PE-CPD has still ‘endured’ (Armour, 2010, p. 4). There is clear evidence about those weaknesses and limitations of PE-CPD which act to restrict teachers’ effective professional learning. Firstly, in terms of content (i.e. what kinds of activities or knowledge are dealt with), most PE-CPD has a limited focus. For example, it has been found that PE-CPD tends to focus on updating knowledge about sports-skills (Armour & Yelling, 2004b). This tendency has resulted in a ‘discrepancy between ideal and reality’ (Makopoulou & Armour, 2011b, p. 418). That is, some teaching strategies or pedagogies which teachers would like to learn are rarely addressed in PE-CPD. This is partly

school contexts:

this system encourages CPD providers to offer largely identical courses to different teachers at different stages in their career who work in range of different schools with different facilities and pupils who differ in their learning needs in all sorts of ways (Armour, 2010, p. 5).

PE teachers, therefore, have regarded knowledge delivered in PE-CPD programmes as not being practical, relevant and applicable, meaning that it has little influence in enhancing their pedagogies (O'Sullivan & Deglau, 2006).

Secondly, in terms of methods of delivery, much PE-CPD has faced temporal and spatial problems and these act as strong barriers to teachers’ professional learning. In other words, when PE-CPD is held in a place located outside of school or time after school, teachers find attendance to be a burden (O'Sullivan & Deglau, 2006; Bechtel & O'Sullivan, 2007). Lack of support is also important. Much PE-CPD takes the form of one-day, off-site activities with no follow-up. Because of these features, teachers are not able to expand their learning (Armour & Makopoulou, 2012). In addition, the quality of the presenter in PE-CPD programmes is a factor in either encouraging or inhibiting teachers’ learning. That is, presenters who are ‘enthusiastic, dynamic, well organized, could bring humour to the activity’ are more likely to be effective (Armour & Yelling, 2004b, p. 81).

In order to overcome these limitations, researchers have explored different approaches (e.g. Armour et al., 2015). Firstly, it has widely been argued that it is necessary for teachers to view themselves as learners. That is, both teachers and policy makers need to regard teachers as active learners who engage in sustained professional learning activities (Makopoulou & Armour, 2011a). In line with this suggestion, Armour and Yelling (2004a) argued that the term

professional learning. In this sense, PE teachers need to do more than simply attend in PE-CPD

programmes, they must also engage in learning activities that can influence their actual teaching practices. Similarly, Keay (2006) also argued for the importance of active professional learning activities:

professional development opportunities may be experienced through difference forms of

school-based and off-site events but that professional learning is a process that takes time to embed into practice (p. 286, italics added).

Secondly, similar to the first suggestion, it is also necessary to expand the definition of CPD. There has been a tendency for teachers to understand CPD as formal ‘courses’ or ‘workshops’ that are run by educational organisations, rather than recognising school-based and informal professional learning as CPD (Armour & Yelling, 2004b; Duncombe & Armour, 2004; Keay, 2005). Researchers have argued that given the effectiveness of informal and school-based collaborative learning as professional learning, it is important to conceptualise the range of CPD more broadly (Armour & Yelling, 2007; Armour et al., 2015).

Lastly, and interestingly, much research has made a common practical suggestion (e.g. MacPhail et al., 2014); i.e. that a CoP to CPD is a practical method to overcome the limitations of other forms of PE-CPDs. This point is now examined in more detail.