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

participation in physical activity may improve academic performance (Sallis, 
McKenzie, Kolody, Lewis, Marshall & Rosengard, 1999; van der Mars, 2006), and may 
contribute to children’s alertness and concentration with benefits for learning (Bailey, 
Armour, Kirk, Pickup & Sandford, 2009).
Future PDP design needs to incorporate discussions with teachers recognising 
the possibilities and limitations of child learning within O&AA, due to the short 
duration of teaching and learning time within a school’s physical education programme 
(van der Mars, 2006). The child’s voice in any PDP design and evaluation should be 
considered and has much to offer as has been shown in this study. The impact of the 
PDP on the children’s learning was a critical first step on the teachers’ road to change in 
practice and made the PDP count (Guskey, 2000) for the teachers.
Communication and Collaboration Developed during the Professional 
Development Programme 
In order to help teachers change their practice we must help them expand their 
knowledge systems (Borko & Putman, 1995). Literature states that teachers require 
time and opportunities to have in-depth discussions about content, student conceptions 
and pedagogy (O' Sullivan & Deglau, 2006). This study corroborates these findings, as 
teachers pointed to the research focus groups as the first opportunity that they had ever 
had to communicate on many levels about physical education. Prior to the PDP the 
teacher culture in the school was one of ‘insulation and isolation’ (Teaching Council, 
2010a, p. 26) and a reluctance to share their experience or teaching with colleagues 
(Hogan et al., 2007) prevailed. As teachers in the study school did not possess adequate 
content or pedagogical content knowledge about Outdoor and Adventure Activities to 
share with each other prior to the PDP, the development of a community of practice 
(Lave and Wenger, 1991) within the school was not pursued at the time of the study.
However, the PDP, by providing active learning experiences followed by structured 
opportunities to discuss what was learned, initially with the researcher/facilitator during 
the modelled lessons and subsequently during interviews, was the seed from which 
collegiality and eventually collaboration grew. According to Patton and colleagues 
(2011) ‘
dialog within a community engenders further thinking’
(p. 8). The teachers 
valued this time and it had an impact not just on their teaching of physical education but 

---

229 
on other subject areas too, allowing them to develop as teachers. The learning that 
happened as a result of the exposure to this PDP reinforces the findings of Pedder and 
colleagues (2008) whereby teachers were found to place most value on professional 
development that involved, ‘experimenting with classroom practices, 
working 
collaboratively 
[author emphasis], adapting approaches in light of pupil/peer feedback 
and self-evaluation’ (p. 13). The consensus statement prepared by Armour for 
Association Internationale des Ecoles Superieures d’Education Physique (AIESEP) 
(2009) points to ‘shared commitment and collaboration between education stakeholders’ 
(p. 4) for meaningful professional development.
The teachers in this school wanted to improve and this ‘stem[ed] from the 
naturally occurring relationships among dedicated professionals who are constantly 
seeking and assessing potentially better practices’ (Hogan et al., 2007, p. 121) and was 
facilitated by inclusion of ‘collective participation’, one of the key features of the PDP.
The research methodology employed as part of the PDP evaluation provided further 
impetus for communication. As teachers were encouraged to communicate and share 
experiences in the focus groups this led to collegiality and ultimately collaboration in 
O&AA in physical education. This culture then spread to other subject areas and 
according to the Principal this was a powerful legacy of the PDP, this is similar to the 
findings of Parker and colleagues (2010) who found in their study that the relationships 
that were built between teachers when collaborating endured beyond the timescale of 
the PDP.
According to Little and colleagues (1987) teachers who collaborate together 
take more risks. Teaching outdoor and adventure activities for the first time posed a 
huge risk for many of the teachers. During the focus groups teachers were able to admit 
their deficiencies in their teaching of O&AA without being considered deficient 
teachers, as a whole school approach was taken and as only one teacher had taught 
O&AA previously, they were all equal. Armour and Makopoulou (2006) point to the 
fact that teachers learn when they are more actively involved in thinking and talking 
about their learning during any professional development. A limitation of the PDP was 
that it did not consider the processes to encourage, extend and structure professional 
dialogue in a formal way through a community of practice (Cordingley et al., 2003; 
Maldonado, 2002), nor did it emphasis peer support in its initial design. However, due 
to the whole school approach and collective participation, the evaluative methodologies 
employed, teachers began to work together and provide each other with support as they 

---

230 
undertook teaching a new aspect of the Physical Education Curriculum (Government of 
Ireland, 1999b). Utilising Wenger’s (1997), three elements of a community of practice 
(domain, community and practice), it could be said that communities of practice were 
formed through the process of the PDP facilitation. The teachers at each class level i) 
formed an identity defined by a shared interest in improving teaching practice (domain), 
ii) they collectively pursued their interest in improving teaching and by so doing 
engaged in social interaction (community) and iii) they shared resources and practice 
(practice). However, by the end of the PDP, collaboration was still at the ‘planning and 
talking about teaching’ stage (Day & Sachs, 2004) and not at the stage of ‘examining 
practice’. The collaboration involving teaching and sharing knowledge was mainly at 
class level and not at whole school level. Nonetheless, research suggests that 
collaboration initiated and maintained by the teachers can lead to stronger collaboration 
(Armour & Makopoulou, 2006; Duncombe, 2005). Due to the constructivist approach 
(Kirk and Macdonald, 1998) taken by the PDP, and the emphasis on situated learning 
meaningful and purposeful groups began working together. These groups which could 
be called communities of practice contained a central feature which could offer 
direction for future professional development in physical education in the school– trust 
and respect. This trust and respect can lead to a safe and supportive environment where 
teachers are more likely to discuss their teaching and attempt new practices which may 
deepen their understanding and offer new experiences to their students (Parker et al., 
2010; Whitcomb et al., 2009).
For communities of practice to flourish in schools, centred on children’s 
learning in physical education, they will need to be facilitated and formalised, possibly 
by the providers of physical education professional development (Duncombe, 2005).
Stoll and colleagues (2003) contend that school principals have a role to play in 
developing teachers’ capacity through developing effective collaborative conditions, 
which would possibly require organisational change within the school. Future PDPs 
should incorporate, more formally, opportunities for communities of practice to 
develop, by providing i) opportunities for teachers to observe each other teaching, ii) 
opportunities for teachers to meet and discuss practice, and iii) opportunities to receive 
input from external primary physical education specialists.

---

231