1. Pedagogical approaches to Meaning- Making in Primary Physical Education Ciara Ann Griffin, Mary Immaculate College. Dr. Déirdre Ní Chróinín, Mary Immaculate College Dr. Tim Fletcher, Brock University, Canada

2. Background Self-study is presented as a form of research that enables teachers to systematically and rationally examine their professional practice in teaching (Ezer 2009, p.5) Loughran (2004)

3. Purpose of Study To examine a teacher’s experience of implementing self-study. To develop and articulate pedagogies for meaning-making in primary physical education

4. Research Question What are a teacher’s experiences of implementing a meaning-making approach in primary physical education through self- study?

5. Methodology Collaborative self-study. Critical friend approach. Prioritised pupils’ affective responses to activities. Kretchmar’s (2006) five criteria for meaning- making in PE were used as a planning guide.  Challenge  Social interaction.  Improved motor competence.  Fun  Delight

6. Methodology LaBoskey’s (2004) criteria for in quality self- study were used:  Self-initiated and focused  Interactive.  Improvement aimed.  Multiple forms of qualitative data.  Validity based on trustworthiness. (LaBoskey 2004)

7. Intervention Taught tag rugby over a 10 week period using the TGFU model.

8. Data collection tools Critical friend reflections. Research diary. Independent observer document. Teacher observations. Children’s written reflections. Children’s drawings. Focus group interviews.

9. Findings 1.Learning to teach PE. 2.Learning to teach meaningful PE. 3.Identified pedagogies that supported children’s meaningful participation in PE.

10. Finding 1: Learning to teach PE Learning about TGFU, Self-study, Tag rugby and meaning-making as a NQT. Fear of children ‘liking me’.  ‘That [playing a game] was really special as it shows my lessons are suitable for the children and they are enjoying them which is the main aim’ (CF Reflection, Week 4).

11. Separating my own experience of elite sport from my teaching.  ‘I felt vulnerable at times during the lesson trying to emphasise the importance of meaning over the skill, [even though] it is in my nature as a player to master the skill first’ (CF Reflection, Week 1)

12. Finding 2: Learning to teach meaningful PE. Observing meaningful participation using Kretchmar’s 5 criteria. Prioritising the affective dimension of learning.

13. Observed lessons using a meaning-making lens. There was a shift in what I now saw as a successful lesson.

15. ’ I am focussing more on the affective as opposed to the cognitive in my approach to meaning making in this lesson. I want to focus more on feeling and what they [the children] find fun’ (CF Reflection, Week 3).

16. Finding 3: Pedagogical approaches for meaningful participation. Personal goal setting Learning with the head, the heart and the hands. Spirit points score sheet. Reflections.

17. Discussion Self-study provided a structured framework that allowed me to improve both my teaching and answer the research question about meaning- making pedagogies (Louie et al. 2003). Through the use of self-study research, educators inform their educative practice, allowing for continual professional development and the improvement of teaching methods.

18. Conclusion A quality self-study was carried out using LaBoskeys (2004) criteria. Through collaboration with her critical friend the researcher identified areas of improvement in her practice. The research identified pedagogical approaches that supported children’s meaningful participation in PE lessons.