Teaching outdoor and adventure activities: an investigation of a primary school physical education professional development p

Chapter Six: Process Investigation and Impact of the Professional Development 
Programme
Background 
Primary school teachers, in Ireland, feel incompetent, lacking in confidence, 
worry about safety issues and blame insufficient initial teacher education and 
inadequate in-service for their in-effective teaching of physical education (Coulter et al., 
2009; Deenihan, 2005). The ever expanding curriculum and curricular reform is 
eroding time spent on physical education in schools. Primary school children are not 
receiving the recommended one hour of physical education each week (Hardman & 
Marshall, 2009; Woods et al., 2010) nor are they experiencing a broad and balanced 
curriculum (Deenihan, 2007; Hardman & Marshall, 2005). Other barriers identified to 
teaching a quality programme of physical education has been highlighted as; poor 
facilities (Darmody, Smyth & Doherty, 2010; Fahey et al., 2005) and limited teaching 
styles (Graham, 2008; Hastie & Martin, 2006). 
Primary schools need well informed and motivated teachers (Coolahan, 2003; 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2005). If 
classroom/generalist teachers are provided with opportunities for learning in physical 
education, their fears may be allayed and according to the literature they are the best 
people to teach physical education in the primary school setting (Carney & Howells, 
2008; Council of the European Union, 2007). If the classroom teacher has been 
identified as the best person to teach physical education then effective professional 
development in primary physical education is required for teachers to improve their 
content and pedagogical content knowledge and this in turn should affect children’s 
learning positively.
Effective professional development should aim for the optimal mix (Guskey, 
1994; 2000) of features to achieve the best possible outcome. The following features as 
discussed previously, informed the design of the PDP and focus on teacher learning 
needs (Clancy et al., 1994; Guskey, 2003; Teaching Council, 2010b); contextualisation 
to the teachers teaching environment (Armour & Duncombe, 2004; Betchel & 
O'Sullivan, 2006); inclusion of resources and materials focussing on content knowledge 
(Faucette, Nugent, Sallis & McKenzie, 2002; Keay & Spence, 2010; Petrie, 2009); 
collaboration between teachers and teachers and facilitators (Cordingley et al., 2003; 

---

160 
Rebore, 2004); follow-up and feedback (Guskey, 2003; Maldonado, 2002); and involves 
encouragement and pressure to change practice (Kabylov, 2006). Most importantly, 
professional development must be evaluated throughout the process to ensure 
effectiveness (Caffarella, 2002; Guskey, 2002a; Muijs et al., 2004).
The professional development framework was developed for this study based on 
these key features, the initial study, (understanding the case) and an adapted model of 
programme planning as outlined in chapter five. The framework included evaluation of 
the PDP and for this study is established in study 1 baseline, and concludes with this 
longitudinal study to evaluate the short term (stage 1) and longer term (stage 2) 
effectiveness on teacher change and children’s learning.