Sports’ disciplinary legacy and the challenge of ‘coaching differently’

Be empowering. Be athlete-centered. Be autonomy supportive. These are three related topics currently being promoted by sport psychologists and sport pedagogists in an effort to recognize athletes’ unique qualities and developmental differences and make coaching more holistic and coaches more considerate. This has led us to ask, how likely are such initiatives to lead to coaches putting their athletes at the center of the coaching process given that coaches’ practices have largely been formed through relations of power that subordinate and objectify athletes’ bodies through the regular application of a range of disciplinary techniques and instruments [e.g. Barker-Ruchti, N., &; Tinning, R. (2010). Foucault in leotards: Corporeal discipline in women's artistic gymnastics. Sociology of Sport Journal, 27, 229–250; Heikkala, J. (1993). Discipline and excel: Techniques of the self and body and the logic of competing. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, 397–412; Gearity, B., &; Mills, J. P. (2012). Discipline and punish in the weight room. Sports Coaching Review, 1, 124–134]? In other words, to try to develop athlete-centered coaches capable of coaching in ways that will empower their athletes without also problematizing the discursive formation of coaches’ practices concerns us [Denison, J., &; Mills, J. P. (2014). Planning for distance running: Coaching with Foucault. Sports Coaching Review, 3, 1–16]. Put differently: how can athlete empowerment initiatives be anything more than rhetoric within a disciplinary framework that normalizes maximum coach control? It is this question that we intend to explore in this paper. More specifically, as Foucauldians, we will argue that coaching with greater consideration for athletes’ unique qualities and developmental differences needs to entail coaching in a less disciplinary way and with an awareness and appreciation of the many unseen effects that disciplinary power can have on coaches’ practices and athletes’ bodies.     

Developing networks of grass-roots science curriculum action

This paper describes an ongoing process of participatory curriculum development. It outlines some of the tensions which need to be explored in science curriculum development: debates about the nature of science, of society, of school science content and of learning theories. The process whereby action can arise from this debate is also explored. An example will be outlined of a network of science curriculum action which has developed from the work of a range of science education projects in Natal, South Africa. Specializations: science curriculum development from primary to tertiary level. Specializations: inservice primary science teacher development. Specializations: inservice teacher development, biology education. Specializations: environmental education, teacher development. Specializations: environmental education, teacher development.     

Participation in adult and community education: a discourse of diminishing returns

The terms in which the dominant discourse of participation is framed systematically reinforces one particular view about the relationship between life and learning. It is one in which participation in learning is professionally and institutionally controlled and, consequently, defined largely in vocational, instrumental and individual terms. A significant absence in the dominant discourse is an understanding of participation which draws on the experience of the radical tradition in adult education. In a context where there is potential for greater participation in social and civic politics, as evidenced by the growth of social movements, reconnecting with radical ideas about participation in education can lead to rethinking the ‘problem of participation’ and its implications. We need to understand not only how the discourse of participation has generated knowledge but also excludes and limits what is known. A thorough critique is necessary and overdue and one that is critical of the ‘regime of truth’ which has been seeded, cultivated and harvested through the dominant professional discourse.     

Beginning reading strategies in children experiencing contrasting teaching methods

Two groups of 4.5–5.5 year old children in their first year at school were examined; one taught by a whole word teaching method and one taught by a mixed whole word and phonological teaching method. The children were given a test to investigate their reading of normal words. The results of this test were subjected to a detailed error analysis and the two groups were examined in order to see if there were differences in the reading strategies they used. No evidence was found counter to the assumption that reading begins with a logographic stage. However, it was found that teaching method was having a significant impact on the reading strategies which the children adopted. In addition it was found that a number of children from the whole school appeared to exhibit letter by letter reading. This suggests that letter by letter dyslexia might in part be an extreme form of a strategy used by normal readers.