NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Back to results
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1204197
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2019
Pages: 13
Abstractor: As Provided
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-1357-3322
Touching the Didactic Contract--A Student Perspective on Intergenerational Touch in PE
Caldeborg, Annica; Maivorsdotter, Ninitha; Öhman, Marie
Sport, Education and Society, v24 n3 p256-268 2019
A growing anxiety around intergenerational touch in educational settings has both emerged and increased in recent years. Previous research reveals that Physical Education (PE) teachers have become more cautious in their approaches to students and they avoid physical contact or other behavior that could be regarded as suspicious [Fletcher, 2013. Touching practice and physical education: Deconstruction of a contemporary moral panic. "Sport, Education and Society," 18(5), 694-709. doi:10.1080/13573322.2013.774272; Öhman, 2016. Losing touch--teachers' self-regulation in physical education. "European Physical Education Review," 1-14. doi:10.1177/1356336X15622159; Piper, Garratt, & Taylor, 2013. Child abuse, child protection and defensive 'touch' in PE teaching and sports coaching. "Sport, Education and Society," 18(5), 583-598. doi:10.1080/13573322.2012.735653]. Some also feel anxious about how physical contact might be perceived by the students. The purpose of this article is to investigate physical contact between teachers and students in PE from a student perspective. This is understood through the didactic contract. For this purpose, focus group interviews using photo elicitation have been conducted with upper secondary school students in Sweden. One of the major findings is that intergenerational touch is purpose bound, that is, physical contact is considered relevant if the teacher has a good intention with using physical contact. The main agreements regarding physical contact as purpose bound are the "practical learning" and "emotional" aspects, such as learning new techniques, preventing injury, closeness and encouragement. The didactic contract is in these aspects stable and obvious. The main disagreements are when "teachers interfere when the students want to feel capable" or when "teachers interfere when physical contact is not required" in the activity. In these aspects the didactic contract is easily breached. It is also evident that "personal preference" has an impact on how physical contact is perceived. In conclusion, we can say that physical contact in PE is not a question of appropriate or inappropriate touch in general, but rather an agreement between the people involved about what is expected. Consequently, we should not ban intergenerational touch, but rather focus on teachers' abilities to deal professionally with the didactic contract regarding physical contact.
Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: Sweden