How does the ‘multi-activity’ curriculum shape the learner journey?

Before examining what a curriculum might look like, I will first ask some questions and critique the approach that is most common in both primary and secondary schools where some sort of structured curriculum exists. This is regularly referred to as the multi-activity approach. Critical reflection is most relevant when it is used to ‘build back better.’ Impact PE will evolve into just that - a curriculum approach that will be available to schools using miMove. In the meantime, click this link for an example of an alternative to the Badminton unit critiqued below. 

This approach has a number of distinguishing features:

• The learners take part in a number of activities over the course of the academic year. Typically 8-12 activities.

• Each activity comprises a Unit or Scheme of Work (UoW).

• Each UoW is usually referred to by the name of the activity e.g. Basketball or Gymnastics or Swimming.

• UoWs are arranged into half term blocks, meaning the learners experience around 6 lessons in each activity before moving onto another.

• Factors such as facilities, staff preferences and the school sport calendar usually determine which activities are covered. 

• UoW aim to equip students with the basic skills that are considered essential for participation in each activity.

• Traditional, linear pedagogy dominates, in which the skill is introduced in isolated practices or drill and then progressed via more complex scenarios culminating with the ‘game’ at the end.

• The teacher's role is to impart knowledge and information about HOW to perform each skill. This often involves ‘breaking down’ the skill into teaching points.

• Assessment (where and when it takes place in a cohesive manner) focuses predominantly on ability to perform the skill (often in isolation).

If there is logical alignment between the WHY, WHAT and HOW, the WHO does not, indeed, cannot feature in this model. It is very much a one-size-fits-all approach, commonly justified as promoting long-term participation by allowing students to experience a wide range of activities so they find a sport that they like. It is a model that became popular in the 1960s. Since that time there is very little evidence, if any, that it meets this aspiration. In other words, when judged against its own rationale, it does not appear to be fit for purpose. 

This approach is very prevalent in primary schools with the added complication of a traditional adherence to the notion that, where and when the children have two lessons per week, one should be indoor and the other outdoor. In many cases the outdoor lessons are games and this is delivered by a ‘specialist’ whilst the class teacher will teach gymnastics and dance indoors. (Considering that over 80% of the primary teaching workforce is female and this is reversed when considering the primary PE workforce, this arrangement can be seen to inadvertently carry important and powerful gendered messages to children about how, when and why men and women move). 

Furthermore, these 6 lessons are often reduced in reality. In many schools, PE is disrupted for a range of reasons like the weather, teachers deciding to use the time for assembly preparation or other rehearsals, to make up time in numeracy or literacy or the hall is out of use for other matters that are deemed more pressing.

An uncritical adherence to breadth allows for very little depth. This makes it very difficult to have learning or progress focussed conversations with learners because, for example, there is very little opportunity to revisit learning activities. 

The short UoWs are dominated by skill. This shapes what is taught and how it is taught. The table below is an example of what a ‘typical’ Badminton unit might look like. 

Click here to receive a more holistic, inclusive, alternative to this.

As illustrated, the unit culminates in a game-based assessment. It is as if the children are sprinkled with fairy dust that magically allows them to meet the complex demands of the fuller, more authentic game setting - after spending much of their time learning skills via largely decontextualised practices that do not expose the learning to the thinking or cognitive demands inherent in the activity. If PE is going to support learners in developing an ‘active identity’ they need to be able to meet the demands, including the cognitive demands, of any given activity at the level in which they wish to participate. Furthermore, every action is initiated and accompanied by thinking. Knowing when and why to smash is just as important as knowing how to smash. Indeed, assuming that lesson 4 allowed learners sufficient time to progress with the how (technique), the newly acquired competency is worthless if the shot is used at the wrong time or from the wrong place on the court. 

Who benefits from this approach?

Not the student who is still grappling with Long Serve and really needs longer to feel a sense of progress. They already feel ‘behind’ after lesson 1. They are then unlikely to ‘master’ the Clear. They will be dragged through the unit with the teacher moving on knowing they have not or maybe thinking they cannot ‘get it’ so all they learn is that they are not ‘good’ at Badminton (and Badminton is not for them). Advocates of this approach to PE often claim that breadth is good because it allows students 'to find a sport they like’. It might be more accurate to say they learn that they are ‘poor to average’ at a lot of different sports. Moreover, if we apply what we know about how learning takes place, any other outcome is virtually impossible in the time allocated. Despite my critique of the recent Ofsted PE Research Review (miMove, March 2022), it did emphasise that most learners are novices in each activity and that we need to rethink the trade off between breadth and depth (Ofsted, 2022).

Novices do not, indeed, cannot thrive in this version of PE. The beneficiaries are the young people with the most experience, and therefore the most developed skills, going into the unit. We know quite a lot about which children are more active and therefore more experienced. Families who actively value sport and physical activity tend to invest time, money and energy into their children’s participation in both formal settings like clubs and classes, as well as informal settings like leisure time in parks and outdoor spaces. Like most questions around resources and opportunities, children from more affluent families have a distinct advantage. Physical activity is also highly gendered and the PE curriculum reflects this. Feminist writers have highlighted how gender bias plays out and shapes policy and practice in the curriculum (Azzarito, 2011, Hill, 2015, Wright, 2000, Stride et al, 2020). This is clearly exemplified in the then Prime Minister, David Cameron’s call for a ‘return to competitive sport’ in British primary schools to emulate the experience he had at his elite, boys school (Guardian, 2012). There are further underlying disparities when considering which children benefit from this version of physical education, and which do not. These children can already perform the ‘skills’ being taught so they are described as being ‘good at PE’. This is a strange definition of being ‘good’ as the praise is given for showing little evidence of learning but merely that the student can perform certain movements more proficiently / efficiently / with more control / under greater pressure etc than their less experienced (but perhaps harder working) classmates.

This serves to contribute to how children perceive themselves and their emerging sense of identity and it may also reinforce notions of ‘natural ability,’ which carry messages that effort is not required to be good at something when it comes ‘naturally’. This is potentially, highly detrimental to both the students deemed not to be good and  those students who are. This might be surprising. What on earth could be wrong with praising a successful outcome? Mueller and Dweck (1998) highlight that praising a young person for something they can already do and therefore, not had to try hard at, only serves to fuel ego. This then shapes a young person’s identity; Adam, the footballer or Fatima, the swimmer etc. This is particularly problematic with pre and early adolescents who are often gaining successful outcomes in sport because of, either an abundance of parental and financial support, and/or them being an early maturer. Either way, when their peers catch up and Adam is unable to dribble past smaller opponents and score multiple goals per game, the gaps in his toolbox become all too evident - he’s never had to practise hard because it’s always come easy, he’s never even had to refine or develop new skills nor think differently on the pitch. All of a sudden the process becomes much more important in order to ‘succeed’ and because this goes to the heart of his identity, most kids like Adam end up dropping out. This makes perfect sense - if you’re in it to win it, and you no longer win it, what’s the point of being in it?

By this logic, the combination of the multi-activity approach, narrow definitions of what constitutes ‘good at PE’ and teaching behaviours that emanate from this, PE is actively reducing the likelihood of young people from across the ‘ability’ spectrum to stay actively engaged in sport and physical activity. A deeper thinking, more educative, better informed approach is required. This is what we are offering with Impact PE. 

References

Azzarito, L. (2011) 'Gender, the Hidden Curriculum and Physical Education Through Girls' Eyes', Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(1), pp.A33.

Hill, J. (2015) 'Girls' active identities: navigating othering discourses of femininity, bodies and physical education', Gender and Education, 27(6), pp.666-684.

miMove (March 2022) Reflections on the PE Research Review by Ofsted

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33

Ofsted (2022) Research Review Series: PE

Stride, A., Brazier R., Piggott S., Staples M. & Flintoff A (2020): Gendered power alive and kicking? An analysis of four English secondary school PE departments, Sport, Education and Society, DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2020.1825933 

The Guardian (2012) David Cameron backs compulsory competitive sports for primary students

Wright, J, (2000) Disciplining the body: power, knowledge and subjectivity in a  physical education lesson, in Lee, A and Poynton, C (eds), Culture and Text, Allen & Unwin, Sydney

To access other Impact PE articles click here