 |
 |
Hi Colin and everyone I learned a lot from reading “Defining Physical Education: The Social Construction of a School Subject in Postwar Britain” by David Kirk (1992 – recently re-released): https://www.routledge.com/Defining-Physical-Education-Routledge-Revivals-The-Social-Construction/Kirk/p/book/9780415508100 In this book, on page 25, Kirk makes this comment (below), employing the word “defining” in a very active sense which supports historical investigation: The act of defining physical education is a social process, one which involves drawing on ideas in general circulation, and fixing these ideas in a meaningful configuration. This fixing, as an intrinsic part of defining the subject, is no arbitrary process. As I aim to show in this study, particular definitions of physical education have gained acceptance as the orthodox version of the subject, and these definitions have advantaged certain social groups over others at particular times in history. In the final chapter of this book, for example, I will try to show how the crisis surrounding physical education at the time of the 1987 General Election was able to be turned to the advantage of the Thatcher government and a number of other social groups. In this respect, no definition of physical education is politically, socially or culturally neutral. Every attempt to define the aims, content and pedagogy of the subject involves making sense, which in turn involves a selection and articulation of particular sets of ideas. The whole book is an interesting journey through the evolution and demise of varying ways of defining physical education over decades which cannot be dissociated from other events occurring at these times. Hopefully of some use … Cheers :-) John Quay, PhD Associate Professor Health and Physical Education Outdoor and Environmental Education Philosophy of Education Melbourne Graduate School of Education 234 Queensberry Street | University of Melbourne | Vic 3010 Australia t: +61 3 8344 8533 | m: +61 (0)438 048 955 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | unimelb.academia.edu/JohnQuay<https://unimelb.academia.edu/JohnQuay> | education.unimelb.edu.au<http://www.education.unimelb.edu.au/> [id:[log in to unmask]]orcid.org/0000-0002-0872-1705<http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0872-1705> Please consider the environment before printing this email This email and any attachments may contain personal information or information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of copyright. Any use, disclosure or copying of any part of it is prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this email is received in error please delete it and notify by return email. From: OUTRES LIST <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Chris Loynes <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: Chris Loynes <[log in to unmask]> Date: Monday, 23 April 2018 at 3:15 am To: OUTRES LIST <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: seeking definitions Hello Interestingly, they want to work with communities and the profession to find out what they think coherent means to them. ‘Progressive’ in this sense is not a political term. It means that there are a series of outdoor experiences so that one can progress from one to the other. Chris On 22 Apr 2018, at 13:37, Bill and Maureen Krouwel <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: I would be interested in what the Government might mean by 'progressive' and 'coherent' outdoor experiences ... Although I don't know of many people who would call what they provide 'regressive', I can think of a good few that might be described as 'incoherent' - some of which I would welcome as leaving the way open to learning appropriate to the participants rather than the sponsor (I have a mild suspicion that 'coherent' may mean 'fitting in with a performative, predictable agenda'). Colin has rightly interpreted my comments on clashes of understanding within OMD as being ultimately damaging to the medium - I finally entitled my dissertation 'OMD - A House built on sand' (after Matt. 7:24-27)... Blessings! Bill Krouwel ----Original message---- From : [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Date : 22/04/2018 - 09:10 (GMTST) To : [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject : Re: seeking definitions I wonder who the ‘us’ and the ‘we’ are in your response Colin? I suspect it is not only academics who are wriggling here. I think, and hope, it is the field that refuses to be tied down. I use the word ‘field’ advisedly and this is I think why terms like ‘industry’ and ‘sector’ are rejected by practitioners over time. For example, I suspect that the majority of activity that those in the sector would call outdoor learning would not be called this by the people doing it. Some would reject the term in favour of others and some would never even have heard the term. Sue’s comments are also important here as the term outdoor learning/education is an English speaking world idea - and not just a word but a practice accused, rightly at least in part, of colonialism. If 7 years of working with international students from 52 countries on the MA Transcultural European Outdoor Studies has taught me anything, it is that our human nature relations are highly distinctive. Not only do they come from cultures with very different views, their views of Europeans is quizzical and fascinating. Even in countries that would seem to have closely related histories and cultures, their gaze reveals substantial differences - and words to to with this that do not translate without a significant loss of meaning. By the way, I was at the table when NAOE became AfOL and then IOL. ‘Learning' replaced education’ intentionally for two reasons. The first was a strong association at the time between education and schools and a desire to represent a wider community of practice. The other was to reflect the notion that, in outdoor experiences, people cannot be taught, they can only learn. Where would this place a class being taught maths in the school grounds? The Government has just asked the field to work out how to ensure every child has progressive and coherent outdoor experiences from 5 to 18. We currently do not reach all young people. If we are not reaching many young people with the outdoor learning offer of the day, I foresee many new practices emerging - would defining outdoor learning support or hinder this process? Chris On 21 Apr 2018, at 22:37, Colin Wood <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Hmmmm, is this a very erudite way of us saying that we don't like to be pinned down, but that at the same time we reserve the right to use whichever term feels right on the day? I accept that any definition of a term is reductionist and unstable and I accept that the terms themselves reflect their socio-cultural context, but I am very uncomfortable with Noel's proposal that each of his students needs to develop their own understandings of the terms in their own context of their own inquiries. Surely these terms do not only belong to the individual - they are the means by which we (as a community) differentiate areas of practice. If we are unwilling (or unable) to define the terms, then how can we establish the grounds by which we are differentiating these areas of practice. Bill's comments about OMD are interesting. My understanding is that the term was understood (and defined for others) by those who used it, but it existed amongst a host of other terms. Many of these alternates overlapped in meaning and some were probably synonyms for OMD. I would suggest that the "clashing of understandings" meant it was not a useful way of differentiating one area of practice from others and it thus fell from usage. cheers colin From: Outdoor and adventure education research [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Bill and Maureen Krouwel [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] Sent: 21 April 2018 15:15 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: seeking definitions Whilst lacking Noel's rigour I sort of agree with his assertion that thumbnail definitions of terms that encompass complexities are inherently unstable ... to the extent that my Doctoral thesis was based on the idea that the comparative eclipse of outdoor management development (OMD) is partly due to the theoretically contested nature of both outdoor learning/education/ and management learning/development/education - leading to unclear and clashing understandings of what OMD is (was?). So, although (maybe) thumbnail definitions are inherently unstable, I do think it's worth working at addressing and identifying the complexities masked by short definitions in order to gain a more thorough understanding of our field... BTW, if anyone wants a pile of very tidy JAEOLs, mine are still available for the cost of postage... Regards Bill Krouwle ----Original message---- From : [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Date : 21/04/2018 - 10:22 (GMTST) To : [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject : Re: seeking definitions At a recent international conference on udeskole at skovskolen in Denmark organised by Erik Mygind and Uli Dettweiler, this question came up again. I suspect that Noel is right that it is too complex to produce definitions that can encompass all the local enactments of the various forms but being clear about characteristics in different cultural contexts helps us make sense of research in the field. A colleague at the conference, Lee Eun-Young, is coordinating an international consensus project to explore this and it would be great to have participation from this network to draw on these understandings. We will keep you posted on progress with that and hope you will join in. All the best Sue Sue Waite Sent from my mobile On 21 Apr 2018, at 09:53, Noel Gough <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: My advice is to stop seeking definitions and to be aware that any brief explanation is bound to be partial. Thumbnail definitions of terms that encompass complexities are inherently unstable due to the depth of argument about them. This shouldn’t be confusing because we use complex terms in everyday life without feeling any need to “define” them (do you need to define “love” or “justice”?). I advise students to develop an understanding of the range (locations) of uses of terms, and to be clear about their own understandings in the context of their inquiries. I recommend a poststructuralist position on questions of definition that sees words performing an ordering function by imperatively changing the circumstances in which they are formulated. If we approach “outdoor education” as a speech act that performs an ordering function then we will not ask what outdoor educationmeans (that is, we will not ask for a dictionary definition) but ask how it works and what it does or produces in specific and locatable discourses-practices. Best, Noel Noel Gough PhD<http://www.latrobe.edu.au/education/about/staff/profile?uname=Ngough> Professor Emeritus and Foundation Chair of Outdoor and Environmental Education La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Honorary Life Member: Australian Association for Research in Education<https://www.aare.edu.au/pages/honorary-life-membership-award.html> Founding Editor: Transnational Curriculum Inquiry<http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/tci/about/editorialTeam> ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Noel_Gough<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Noel_Gough> Please note that I retired from La Trobe University on 8 July 2014. Personal email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Postal: PO Box 820 Parkville VIC 3052 Australia Mobile: + 61 417311219 Recent publications: Gough, Noel. (2017). Specifying a curriculum for biopolitical critical literacy in science teacher education: exploring roles for science fiction. Cultural Studies of Science Education 12(4), 769–794. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11422-017-9834-0<http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11422-017-9834-0> Adsit-Morris, Chessa, & Gough, Noel. (2017) It takes more than two to (multispecies) tango: queering gender texts in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(1), 67-78. http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/CHGd4E95RwSNJfd9T3n3/full<http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/CHGd4E95RwSNJfd9T3n3/full> Gough, Annette, & Gough, Noel. (2017). Beyond cyborg subjectivities: becoming-posthumanist educational researchers. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(11), 1112-1124 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1174099<https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1174099> Gough, Noel. (2016). Australian outdoor (and) environmental education research: senses of "place" in two constituencies. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 19, 2-11. http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A469848453/EAIM?u=latrobe&sid=EAIM&xid=2918bf89<http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A469848453/EAIM?u=latrobe&sid=EAIM&xid=2918bf89> Gough, Noel. (2016). Postparadigmatic materialisms: a "new movement of thought" for outdoor environmental education research? http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A469848457/EAIM?u=latrobe&sid=EAIM&xid=f0b762e7<http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A469848457/EAIM?u=latrobe&sid=EAIM&xid=f0b762e7> Gough, Noel, & Sellers, Warren. (2016). Changing planes: lines of flight in transnational curriculum inquiry. In William M. Reynolds & Julie A Webber (Eds.), Expanding Curriculum Theory: Dis/positions and Lines of Flight<https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415715058> <https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415715058> (2nd ed., pp. 90-120). New York: Routledge. Springer Book Series (with Annette Gough): International Explorations in Outdoor and Environmental Education<http://www.springer.com/series/11799> From: Outdoor and adventure education research <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Colin Wood <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Reply-To: Colin Wood <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Saturday, 21 April 2018 at 5:21 AM To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: seeking definitions Dear all, I know it sounds like a really dumb question, but does anyone know of a good source of definitions of outdoor education, adventure education and outdoor adventure education? A student asked me and I realized that I didn't have a clear answer. I pointed her at Ford 1987, and the first chapter of Ewert, & Sibthorp 2014, but I feel that either I have forgotten something important or that these are such nuanced terms that they are defined only through usage. But that seemed sloppy. I checked a handful of recent PhDs to see how they had coped and most of them ducked the question by only defining one term and then magically merging the terms in the literature review. I even checked Wikipedia which suggested that there was no consensus on the meaning of terms and that they may be synonyms. So I am appealing for a source... Mind you, now that I have started to worry about the paucity of definitions: I wonder if there is any real definitional difference between outdoor learning and outdoor education... between learning outside the classroom and education outside the classroom... etc. Colin Colin Wood University of Worcester [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.