Pedagogic rights and the acoustics of health and physical education teacher education: whose voices are heard?

Background: Health and Physical Education Teacher Education (HPETE) is increasingly shaped by agendas, stakeholders and accountability regimes that restrict rather than open up what is possible (Tinning [2006]. “Theoretical Orientations in Physical Education Teacher Education.” In The Handbook of Physical Education, edited by D.\ua0Kirk, D.\ua0Macdonald, and M.\ua0O’Sullivan, 369–385. London: SAGE). The evolution of an HPETE programme orientation that is ‘more conservative, less eclectic and adventurous’ (Tinning 2006, 372), and less socio-cultural and democratic (Enright, E., L.\ua0Coll, D.\ua0Ní Chróinín, and M.\ua0Fitzpatrick. [2017]. “Student Voice as Risky Praxis: Democratising Physical Education Teacher Education.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 22 (5): 459–472) has serious implications for both the official and the hidden curriculum (Bain [1975]. “The Hidden Curriculum in Physical Education.” Quest 24 (1): 92–101) of HPETE, meaning the explicit and implicit content and values taught and learned by students. Purpose: In this paper, we seek to identify how, why and to what effect various agendas and stakeholders are shaping HPETE programme orientations in Australia. To this end, we draw on the work of Bernstein and deploy an acoustic metaphor to consider who speaks, who is heard and who is addressed within HPETE, with a particular focus on the implications of these acoustics. Participants and setting: The paper draws on data that were generated across three academic years with the students and teacher educators of one HPETE programme in an Australian university. Data collection: Data were generated through: (1) focus group interviews with teacher educators and students; (2) teacher educator written reflections; (3) programme review documentation for national accrediting bodies; (4) electronic course profiles; and (5) university internal policy documents. Data analysis: These data were subjected to an inductive thematic analysis. Following Armour and Duncombe [(2004). “Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development in Primary Physical Education: Lessons from Present and Past to Inform the Future.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 9 (1): 3–21, this journal], three vignettes were also constructed post-analysis to serve as rhetorical devices to facilitate the reader in engaging with the complexity, the emotionality and the politics of curriculum construction, contestation, reconstruction and reform (Goodson [1984]. “Subjects for Study: Towards a Social History of Curriculum.” In Defining the curriculum: Histories and ethnographies, edited by I.\ua0Goodson and S.\ua0Ball, 24–44. London: Routledge) and the pedagogic acoustics of one HPETE programme. Findings: HPE teacher educators are serving many masters in order to have programmes accredited whilst also satisfying internal university approval processes and trying to maintain the philosophical integrity and some sense of ownership over HPETE programmes. Students are often unaware of the non-negotiables that have come to define and/or limit how teacher educators teach towards social justice and facilitate democratic engagement and, therefore, are sometimes critical of the disconnect between the ‘walk and talk’ of teacher educators. ‘The medium is the message’ was one of the strongest themes to be constructed from the data set, as all participants agreed that certain institutional and policy arrangements, pedagogical decisions and styles of communication were a large part of what was taught and learned about social justice, democracy and equity in and through HPETE. Discussion and conclusion: In contexts where both teacher educators and student teachers feel that their voices have been silenced, sidelined or muted and their pedagogic rights limited, opportunities for ‘democratic deliberation’ and ‘radical collegiality’ [Fielding (1999). ‘Radical Collegiality: Affirming Teaching as an Inclusive Professional Practice.’ The Australian Educational Researcher 26 (2): 1–34] become imperative. Our discussion engages with the implications of the explicit and implicit values taught and learned by student teachers through their experiences of HPETE and highlights how teacher educators can work to promote the pedagogic rights of their students