Hegemonic masculinity in sport education

Abstract

Research has revealed that while pre-service teachers (PTs) with coaching orientations reinforce sexism and masculine bias, those with teaching orientations combat and reject it. The purpose of this study was to examine four sport education (SE) seasons taught by two experienced in-service teachers for the presence or absence of sexism and masculine bias. The concept of hegemonic masculinity (HM) served as the theoretical framework. A case study approach was employed. Data were collected through non-participant observations; formal, informal, and stimulated recall interviews; document analysis; and electronic journals. Analysis techniques used were analytic induction and constant comparison. Findings revealed that the in-service teachers were able to combat and reject the effects of HM to a greater extent than teaching-oriented pre-service teachers were shown to do in previous work. The foundations of the teachers’ effectiveness were their liberal beliefs about sport and gender, and the teaching orientations. In addition, the teachers were able to provide a relatively equitable experience for girls and smaller, less physically-able boys. This was because these teachers possessed good levels of curricular, pedagogical, content and pedagogical content knowledge, as well as superior knowledge of their pupils.

Keywords

Sport education physical education hegemonic masculinity sexism gender

A small number of sport pedagogy scholars who are interested in exploring sexism in sport and physical education (PE) employ Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity (HM) (Connell, 2005, 2008; Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005) as the guiding framework for their research (e.g. Brown, 1999; Skelton, 1993; Wellard, 2006). Connell (2005:77) explained that HM is “the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently-accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.”

As explained by Giddens (2006), Connell suggests that power relations between masculinities and femininities were the basis of a society’s “gender order.” Moreover, Connell referred to the power relations between the genders in sub-cultures of a society (e.g. the institution of PE) as a “gender regime.” Furthermore, Connell proposes that there are multiple masculinities and femininities in any given society or sub-culture of a society; and that within each gender order and gender regime, a specific masculinity dominates other forms of masculinity and all forms of femininity: That is, the dominant masculinity is hegemonic.

In the US, where the study described in this paper took place, the gender order is similar to most Western societies in that a “traditional” masculinity is dominant (Rothernberg, 2007). The dominant masculinity within the gender regime of PE, within Western societies, reflects that in the gender order (Sykes, 2011). We would argue that this dominant masculinity is traditional and conservative in the extreme, in the region of the US in which the study took place.

The core of the concept of HM, as it applies to the US, is the notion that individuals (e.g. coaches and PE teachers), institutions (e.g. the media and schools) and social groups (e.g. participants in sport and physical activity) perpetuate dominant versions of masculinity by favoring, treating as superior, and reacting positively to traditional masculine behaviors and characteristics such as aggression, mesomorphy, toughness, and within reason, violence. Moreover, these same individuals, institutions and groups strengthen the dominant version of masculinity, by treating as inferior and reacting negatively to the characteristics and behaviors associated with femininity and competing masculinities. In general, this process serves to privilege the dominant form of masculinity over other masculinities and femininity. It also socializes both males and females into the same mode of thought and facilitates the absorption of alternative and threatening forms of masculinity. Consequently, females who are perceived as “feminine” and males who do not conform to the dominant version of masculinity are marginalized (Connell, 1987; Frosh et al., 2002). Moreover, a side effect of HM is to marginalize homosexuality, while privileging heterosexuality (Clarke, 1996, 1998, 2006; Sykes, 2007).

Importantly, the dominant form of masculinity consists of variants of the same theme, which depend on context. A variant salient for physical educators, for example, is Wellard’s (2006) “exclusive masculinity,” which prioritizes and elevates skilled, aggressive and strong physical performance. Other variants are produced by an interaction of social class and race (Bramham, 2003; Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012).

Influence of HM within traditional PE and sport

Four different lines of research reveal the influence of HM within traditional models of PE and sport. Work on sport categorization indicates that competitive sports and physical activities are often considered to be superior and masculine, while those that are aesthetic are labeled as inferior and feminine (Klomsten et al., 2005). Studies of children’s folklore related to PE and sport highlight the degree to which skill level influences boys’ standing within their peer group (Drummond, 2003; Pugsley et al., 1996; Woodruff and Curtner-Smith, 2007). For example, Woodruff and Curtner-Smith (2007) note that this folklore indicates that boys establish their masculinity and place among friends partly by displays of physical skill. In addition, several of the studies examining participation styles within PE reveal the extent to which boys can dominate girls in mixed classes, if left relatively unchecked or completely to their own devices, and the hierarchies that can exist among boys and girls (Griffin, 1984, 1985; Parker, 1996; Pope and O’Sullivan, 2003). Finally, others document how boys and girls move in ways that conform to gender stereotypes (Paechter, 2003), and how girls’ participation in sport and physical activity is curtailed by a belief in and conformity with these gender stereotypes (Schmalz and Kerstetter, 2006; Wright, 1996).

Interventions and the potential of sport education

Interventions aimed at negating HM within traditional forms of PE have largely failed (Gard, 2003; Hickey and Fitzclarence, 1999). This has mainly been due to the inability of researchers to counter the socialization that instills in teachers the beliefs and practices that serve to perpetuate the status quo (Brown, 1999; Skelton, 1993). These beliefs are established during teachers’ pre-training socialization. Key influences on PE teachers’ beliefs and values at this stage are their own experiences of PE and sport (Curtner-Smith, 2009).

More recently, however, there has been some discussion of the extent to which the relatively new curriculum model of sport education (SE) (Siedentop et al., 2011) might provide a medium through which teachers could make more of an impact in countering HM (Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012). The model’s goals of producing literate (i.e. valuing sport, and differentiating between good and bad sporting practice) and enthusiastic (i.e. taking part in sport with a prosocial attitude) sports persons, as well as those who are technically and tactically competent, are certainly compatible with this goal. So are the shift from more- to less-direct teaching styles during the course of a SE season, the incorporation of the student social system within the instructional system (Hastie and Siedentop, 1999), and the fact that the teacher is no longer central in the instructional process (Alexander et al., 1996). Moreover, the increased relevance of sport taught through the SE model, due to its proximity to sporting forms engaged in outside schools (Alexander and Luckman, 2001; Kirk and Almond, 1999) should strengthen its social and cultural impact, as may the increase in pupils’ enthusiasm for PE taught in this way (Ennis, 1999; Grant, 1992; Kinchin, 2001). Furthermore, requiring pupils to make more decisions about their own learning, take on a number of additional roles other than player, and participate as members of a team for a lengthy period of time provides teachers with the tools and conditions that should enable them to produce a relatively equitable environment free of sexism and masculine bias. Finally, its compatibility with teachers’ socialization (Curtner-Smith, 2012; Curtner-Smith et al., 2008; Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012) and the resulting enthusiasm among teachers for SE (Alexander and Luckman, 2001) should ensure that the model is actually employed by those trained to use it.

There is also a considerable amount of research suggesting that those who have employed the SE model have indeed provided a more equitable and inclusive experience for pupils (Alexander and Luckman, 2001; Alexander et al., 1996; Carlson, 1995; Hastie and Sharpe, 1999). This may be because the teachers studied delivered a progressive or liberal version of the model, and used its features to counter sexism and masculine bias. Conversely, some research suggests that in other contexts, the climate in SE seasons is distinctly inequitable (Brock, 2002; Curnow and Macdonald, 1995; Hastie, 1998; Penney et al., 2002). This may be because some teachers deliver a conservative version of the model that reflects current problems and issues in sport, including the promotion of HM (Kirk and Macdonald, 1998; Penney and Waring, 2000; Penney et al., 2002).

Research of the sport education model

The research reported in this paper builds on two previous studies that directly attempted to discover the impact of SE on HM. The first study examines the SE taught by two preservice teachers (PTs), with coaching orientations (i.e. their main priority was working with extracurricular school teams) and traditional views about gender, to middle school Caucasian and African American boys and girls aged 11 to 14 years (Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012). Results of the study mainly verify the contention that the delivery of a conservative version of the model supports sexism and masculine bias. The boys in this study dominated the four SE seasons observed. Specifically, they took most of the central and leadership roles (e.g. coach and captain), made the majority of decisions and took control of competitive games. In addition, boys took the best time slots and spaces for practice and competition, and worked hard to undermine those girls who did manage to get leadership roles. Bigger, stronger and more physically skilled boys also dominated smaller, less-skilled boys.

The girls in the study mostly conformed to the boys’ wishes and were content to take on more feminine and peripheral roles (e.g. keeping statistics or score or newspaper reporting). They tended to avoid participation either subtly, in the manner of Tousignant and Siedentop’s (1983) “competent bystanders,” or overtly, by socializing with friends when they should have been practicing or playing. These girls were only motivated to take on dominant boys when roles and spaces that they felt were earmarked for them were also under threat. A few more physical and well-skilled girls (i.e. those who possessed more “masculine” characteristics) fought for equality and did well in leadership roles, when they got the chance to try them.

Parker and Curtner-Smith’s (2012) study also reveals an interaction between race and gender. Caucasian girls were less inclined to resist dominant boys, but also less likely to engage in off-task behaviors than African American girls. Furthermore, while Caucasian boys mainly treated each other and African American boys and girls with respect, more physical African American boys often abused the smaller, less-gifted boys of the same race and gave “gendered performances” (Robinson, 2005:20), sexualized behavior which emphasizes their maleness to girls of both races in whom they were interested.

Finally, the PTs in the Parker and Curtner-Smith (2012) study believe that the pattern of participation in their classes was “inevitable” and “natural.” Consequently, they made no attempt to intervene, in order to promote equality. To the contrary, they were often observed reinforcing the HM existent in their classes.

Parker and Curtner-Smith (2012) echoed the sentiments of Penney and Clarke (2005) by concluding that simply employing the SE model does not guarantee less sexism and masculine bias, nor more equality. Both sets of authors, however, continued to argue that the “curricular scaffolding” (Ennis, 1999) of SE, together with its pedagogies, could assist thoughtful teachers who are prepared to take deliberate action to this end. Parker and Curtner-Smith (2012) also conclude that expecting well-trained, but inexperienced, PTs to both deliver the SE model accurately and tackle gender inequality might be too much. Borrowing from teacher concerns theory (Fuller and Brown, 1975), their suggestion was that teachers training to use the SE model may learn in two distinct phases. In Phase 1, they focus on the model’s technical components, while in Phase 2 they can consider how they can teach through the model, in such a way as to promote equality.

The second study examines the SE taught to elementary school Caucasian and African American boys and girls, aged 9 to 11 years, by two PTs with teaching orientations (i.e. their main priority was teaching curricular PE) and a strong belief in gender equity (Chen and Curtner-Smith, 2013). Findings reveal that the comparatively liberal version of the model delivered by these PTs primarily serves to combat sexism and masculine bias. Specifically, girls and smaller, less-skilled boys enjoyed a relatively equitable PE experience. This appeared to be due to the PTs’ liberal views concerning sports and their readiness to defy aspects of the sporting culture that were damaging. Providing a more equitable PE within SE seasons is also thought to be facilitated by teaching at the elementary school level, as pupils were not yet socialized as deeply as older secondary pupils into conventional thinking about gender.

On a more negative note, this second study also reveals an interaction between gender and race that is both similar to and different from that observed by Parker and Curtner-Smith (2012). While Caucasian boys and African American boys display similar patterns of behavior to those described in the original study, in contrast to the original study’s results, Caucasian girls are more likely to resist male attempts at dominance than African American girls. The authors also speculate that social class may have been a factor determining the differences in the behaviors of boys and girls, given that the Caucasian children in the study were more likely to come from relatively affluent homes than the African-American children.

Moreover, the findings of Chen and Curtner-Smith’s (2013) study indicate that the PTs failed to detect and combat more subtle forms of sexism in their seasons, and they were not prepared to engage in conversations specifically about HM with their pupils. Furthermore, they relied mostly on their own pedagogies to combat the overt forms of sexism they did recognize, and employed few of the structures of the SE model in this effort.

Purpose

Given the superiority of the performance of PTs with teaching orientations and liberal views about sport, over that of PTs with coaching orientations and conservative views about sport, Chen and Curtner-Smith (2013) suggest that experienced inservice teachers with teaching orientations and liberal views regarding sport might be even more successful in terms of combatting sexism and masculine bias during SE seasons. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine SE seasons taught by two such experienced inservice teachers for the presence or absence of HM.

Method

The study was set in the interpretive paradigm and involved employing a case study approach (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009) in which several qualitative techniques were used to collect and analyze data.

Participants

The participants in this study were two in-service teachers with considerable experience using the SE model and relatively liberal orientations towards PE teaching and sport. Prior to taking part in the study, both teachers signed consent forms in congruence with the university’s policy on human subjects in research.

“Dennis,” a 34-year-old male Caucasian, was born in urban FL and moved to rural NY when he was in the 7th grade. His parents, sister and brother-in-law were all teachers. During his elementary and middle school PE, Dennis was taught “a lot of different activities” within traditional “multi-activity” units and he learned “all the skills to play sports in [his] later years.” Dennis had also played volleyball and run track in middle school, and been on the football, basketball, and lacrosse teams in high school. Despite his positive experiences of PE and school sport, Dennis did not “look up to” any of his PE teachers for their pedagogical prowess. One motivation for entering a university PE teacher education (PETE) programme on graduating was to become a teacher whom “taught proper PE.” During his PETE, Dennis was trained how to teach SE through classroom lectures within methods courses, teaching five mini-seasons of SE during early field experiences, and teaching two full seasons of SE during his secondary student teaching placement. On graduating, he spent 6 years teaching at a school located in a moderately-sized Southeastern city that catered to pupils with special needs, aged 12 to 21 years, where he employed the SE model with his higher-functioning pupils. During this time, he also completed his master’s degree in sport pedagogy. Dennis then moved to the school district’s new magnet school, where he taught PE to elementary and middle school children for 3 years prior to the study’s commencement.

“Mary,” a 28-year-old female Caucasian, was born and grew up in suburban Alabama. She was “destined to be a teacher,” as her parents, grandparents, and several aunts and uncles were all in the profession. Mary was “exempt” from high school PE, because she played on the school volleyball, softball, and basketball teams and was a cheerleader. Her elementary PE was “traditional and teacher-directed,” and included “dance, gymnastics, and lots of cooperative games.” Her middle school programme consisted of “a broad range of competitive sports” and “square dancing,” but did not include much in the way of “health-related fitness stuff,” which Mary felt detracted from her experience. Nevertheless, PE was Mary’s “favorite part of the day” and her elementary and middle school PE teachers inspired her to become a teacher. During her undergraduate PETE, Mary learned basic pedagogies based on the effectiveness literature (see Silverman, 1991), and Mosston and Ashworth’s (2008) spectrum of teaching styles. She also learned a good deal about elementary content for younger pupils, and teaching traditional multi-activity units and health-related fitness to secondary pupils. It was not until she enrolled in the same master’s degree programme as Dennis that she learned about SE. Her experiences of the model at this stage; however, were restricted to reading about and discussing it within class sessions. On graduating from her master’s programme, Mary was hired as the second PE teacher at the same magnet school as Dennis. At the time data collection commenced, she had worked at the school for 3 years and had also just started working on a doctorate in sport pedagogy, part-time. It was here that her second phase of learning to teach SE occurred, as she began by team-teaching SE seasons alongside Dennis.

Both Dennis and Mary’s acculturation and professional socialization had led them to develop strong teaching orientations. For example, they emphasized “processes” over “products,” wanted to develop “positive characteristics for life and sportsmanship,” and stressed that they were interested in achieving much more than teaching the “skills and knowledge necessary to play sports.” They were also staunch supporters of high-quality curricular PE and recognized the potential for SE to “rescue” the subject. The following data extracts are examples of their thinking and beliefs about, and commitment to, both PE and SE:

It [i.e. PE] should be educational, I mean, it’s called “physical education.” I know people that are PE teachers that don’t teach. That gets on my nerves. I don’t like those people; they give PE a bad name. The kids should take stuff home with them. What we teach them here, with health-related fitness, they can take it home and they can do it on their own. (Mary, Formal Interview 1)

Yes, I do [think PE teachers should know about SE]. That’s why we [i.e. Dennis and Mary] have done two presentations and everything about it [at regional PE conferences]. I think a lot of teachers around here try to teach the really basic aspects of sport ed but I don’t think it’s enough. You have to not only have the knowledge of sport ed, but be a risk-taker and be motivated, and work hard enough to take on the curriculum model, and I think that’s what a lot of PE teachers are lacking. (Dennis, Formal Interview 1)

While neither of the teachers believed that issues related to gender were a “big issue” in their classes, as illustrated by the following interview extracts, they held relatively liberal views on this topic:

Choose whatever you want to play. You just need to find your niche. I cheered in high school and people say it’s not a sport, but it is. The dancer who comes here to teach our kids is a guy. He is good at what he does and he is great with kids. Whatever floats your boat, do it. I think it’s our job to, I don’t want to say “change their [i.e. pupils’] perceptions,” but to broaden their ideas. (Mary, Formal Interview 1)

When you think of baseball and football, you think of men. When you think of softball and cheerleading, you think of girls. Kids think of that and the society thinks of that. They think if you play softball, you must look butchy. Or the other way around; if you don’t look like a girly girl, you must play softball. Well, I don’t think so. I’ve played softball my whole life and I can dress up like a girly girl, too. (Mary, Formal Interview 1)

Here, every boy wants to play football or basketball. When I let my middle school boys choose a sport [for the SE season] last year, it’s either flag football or basketball. I ended up letting them play basketball but it’s not my best season. They all thought they knew everything about basketball, so they didn’t listen to my instructions as much. That’s why we like to teach our kids sports [that] they are not familiar with. Like volleyball: boys outside of Alabama play volleyball, and it doesn’t make you less masculine if you play volleyball. (Dennis, Formal Interview 1)

In summary, Dennis and Mary were experienced teachers of SE, with teaching orientations and relatively liberal views of PE, sport and gender. Consequently, there was every chance that they would combat sexism and masculine bias within their SE seasons.

Setting

The study took place at the magnet school at which Dennis and Mary taught. As alluded to in the preceding section, Dennis and Mary were the first PE teachers hired at the school when it had opened, 3 years before the study commenced. The school catered to pupils from a range of social backgrounds who were selected from other elementary and middle schools in the school district, based on their academic ability. A key cross-curricular theme at the school was the use of project-based learning and indirect pedagogies.

The curriculum fashioned by Dennis and Mary involved them teaching skill themes to children in kindergarten through ^3rd grade, and health-related fitness and sport education to grades 4 through 8. PE facilities included a large gymnasium, a concrete playground and a large playing field surrounded by a 476-meter running/walking track. PE equipment was plentiful. As well as teaching curricular PE, Dennis organized a lacrosse club with the help of the parent-teacher association, and Mary established an extracurricular fitness programme for teachers and staff at the school. Mary was a member of the state PE board. Neither teacher coached extracurricular sport. Their programme was regarded as one of the best in the state by local university PETE faculty and other teachers.

During the course of the study, Dennis was observed teaching a 20-lesson season of team handball and a 21-lesson season of softball to the same class of 5^th-grade pupils (aged 10–11 years). This class consisted of 61 pupils (35 girls, 26 boys; 27 Caucasians, 33 African Americans, 1 Asian). Mary was also observed teaching a 20-lesson season of team handball and a 21-lesson season of softball, to the same class of 4^th grade pupils (aged 9–10 years). This class comprised 55 pupils (33 girls, 22 boys; 25 Caucasians, 29 African Americans and 1 Hispanic).

Data collection

Data that revealed the extent to which HM was rejected or reinforced within the teachers’ SE seasons were collected using six qualitative techniques. Non-participant observation, carried out by the first author, was a key source of data in which the focus of written notes was on: the teachers’ pedagogies, the pupils’ reactions to these pedagogies, interactions between teachers and pupils, and interactions between pupils. Semi-structured formal interviews (Patton, 1990) of the teachers, before they began and after they had completed teaching their SE seasons, were also conducted. These interviews focused on gathering data in three areas. First, demographic data. Second, data providing an insight into the teachers’ conceptions of gender, sexuality, femininity and masculinity. Third, data describing how the teachers were trained to employ SE, as well as their perceptions of the SE model. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both teachers were required to complete two stimulated recall interviews (Calderhead, 1981), in which they viewed film footage of their teaching and explained the thinking that led to specific actions selected by the researcher. Lessons viewed during stimulated recall interviews were filmed on Wednesday afternoons, while the actual interviews took place during the following Friday afternoon at the school. Stimulated recall interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The teachers were also asked to allow the researchers access to all materials related to their SE seasons, for the purpose of document analysis and also, they were asked to complete at least two entries per week in an electronic journal, in which they described any aspect of their SE seasons that was salient at the time. Finally, the teachers were informally interviewed at every opportunity, with notes being made as soon after the conclusion of each interview as possible.

Data analysis

The first task in the analysis process was to identify data that revealed the extent to which HM was present or absent in the teachers’ SE seasons. The second task was to identify data that indicated the degree to which the teachers’ pedagogies promoted gender equity or masculine bias and sexism. By employing the standard techniques of analytic induction and constant comparison (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984), these subsets of data were reduced to a series of codes and categories, and collapsed into themes. Credibility and trustworthiness were achieved through exhaustive member checking in the form of numerous follow-up informal interviews with the two teachers. In addition, we searched for negative and discrepant cases (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984), and triangulated our analysis through the use of the six data collection techniques.

Results and discussion

Data gathered during the course of the study indicated that the SE seasons taught by both teachers helped to combat and reject sexism and masculine bias. These actions were revealed within four themes: rejection of female stereotypes, countering male attempts to establish supremacy, racial distinctions, and teachers’ beliefs and pedagogic tactics.

Rejection of female stereotypes

The vast majority of elementary girls in the current study followed a similar pattern of behavior to those in the SE seasons taught by PTs with teaching orientations (Chen and Curtner-Smith, 2013). They did not conform to stereotypical female behaviors shaped by HM. This pattern of behavior was in direct contrast to that of the middle school girls taught by PTs with coaching orientations (Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012).

Many of the girls in the current study, for example, took a full and active part in the SE seasons; displaying interest, tolerance for pain, competitive spirit and skill that were on the same level as the most-skilled and aggressive boys in their classes:

The second and third bases are loaded. Sophia hits the ball towards Luke, the pitcher, and sprints to first base. Genesis stays on third base and looks at Luke. Meanwhile, Connor is running to third and Luke throws the ball to Kim, at second base. Genesis takes the opportunity to run home and scores a run. Both Sophia and Connor are safe on the first and third bases. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade softball)

Abigail is frustrated because Ashley, the referee, says, “It’s not a goal.” Abigail runs to Dennis and asks, “Can I lie on the floor and shoot?” Dennis replies, “Yes, you can, but you can't slide.” Abigail says, “I didn't slide. I was not on my knees.” Ashley hears it and says, “It’s a goal. Let’s go back and play.” (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

Bruce takes a shot and hits Joanna, the goalkeeper, in the stomach. Joanna picks up the ball immediately and passes it to Natalie. Natalie dribbles across the court and passes it to Michael, who scores. Joanna is spinning in front of the goal. Natalie runs to Joanna and asks, “Are you okay?” Joanna replies, “Oh, my stomach? I’m fine.” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade handball)

Moreover, many of the girls had the motivation and confidence to take on and perform central decision-making roles within the four SE seasons and often used these positions to enhance the SE experience of other girls:

Taylor, the team captain, substitutes Max and Isaiah for Cynthia and Trinity. Max and Isaiah refuse to leave the court. Taylor says, “Come on, guys. Y’all have played for the last 5 minutes. Let the girls play for a while.” When Max and Isaiah finally walk off the court, Taylor pats them on the back and says, “Y’all need to cool down a little bit. I’ll put you in, in a minute.” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade handball)

Caleb is standing next to Madison, the team coach, while she fills out the batting order form. After Madison writes her name as the 4^th batter, Caleb says, “Me next. Me next.” Madison ignores Caleb and has him as the 7^th batter. Caleb says, “Well, I don’t mind batting last. I mean, everyone on our team can bat.” Madison says, “Yeah, we had the guys batting first last week, so we [i.e. girls] will bat first this week. I’m thinking to mix girls and boys up next week.” (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade softball)

Trinity says, “I wanted to be in charge. But I’m just a board member this time.” Olivia replies enthusiastically, “That’s okay. Coach [Mary] said board members can change rules during the season. That’s pretty cool. I’m a board member, so I can decide penalties when the boys don’t listen to us [i.e. girls].” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

A large proportion of girls with comparatively little skill also engaged wholeheartedly in the SE seasons, particularly in game play segments. These girls had the confidence to take on central roles, when the opportunity arose, and made the most of situations in which they were asked to take on more peripheral roles:

While waiting for their turns to bat, Addison asks Julia, “What do you like better—playing or scorekeeping?” Julia replies, “I like them both. I mean, with scorekeeping, I make sure people are doing the right thing, but.” Addison cuts Julia off and says, “I like playing better, cos I’m already good at scorekeeping, but not so good at hitting the ball.” Julia says, “Yeah, me too. We need to practice. That’s why I like playing [games], too.” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

Nina, the referee, makes a call with which Samuel doesn’t agree. Samuel asks Nina to “come over here” and shows her what happened inside the goalkeeper’s box. Nina doesn’t change her mind after Samuel’s explanation and says firmly, “I’m the ref, and I say it’s not a goal.” Samuel doesn’t argue with Nina any further. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

Max is batting. Soon after the first pitch, Taylor, the scorekeeper, discovers that Carson is first in the batting order. Taylor stops the game and says, “It [i.e. the batting order] says Carson is the first batter.” Max says, “No, it doesn’t.” Taylor shows Max the sheet and says, “I told you.” Max says, “So what now?” Taylor says, “First time is a warning. Second time, you are out!” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

While most boys appeared perfectly content for girls to be in positions of relative power and were quite happy to follow their directions, a few were irritated by this state of affairs and did all they could to undermine the girls’ authority. The behavior of this small group of boys was congruent with a more traditional form of masculinity; however, girls were rarely observed backing down, when faced with these kinds of challenges:

During practice, Andrea and Cori, the team coach and captain, are deciding on the batting order. Jordan, the pitcher, says, “Are y’all ready yet?” John, on third base, adds, “Yeah, seriously. Let’s get this going.” Just when the girls are ready to play, Mary blows the whistle and says, “Managers, get all the equipment and come over here.” John says, “Oh, come on, time to go in now? You girls are wasting our [playing] time.” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

Chase is disputing the decision made by Isaiah, the referee, to disallow a goal. Lucy, the team captain, yells from the sideline, “Chase, that’s not a goal. Let it go. It’s bad sportsmanship. We don’t want that. We need all our [sportsmanship] points, remember?” Chase walks away from Isaiah without further argument. (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade handball)

Natalie, the assistant coach, says, “Bruce, stand right here [points to a plastic spot marking the practice area]. Ella, take three steps back. There you go. Jeremiah, do you want to practice with us?” Jeremiah nods. After adjusting the size of their practice area again, the pupils begin the fielding practice. All three of them listen carefully and do what Natalie says when she shows them the right form for throwing and catching. (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

More negatively, in line with the majority of middle school girls taught within a conservative version of SE (Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012) and some of the elementary girls taught by teaching-oriented PTs (Chen and Curtner-Smith, 2013), a small minority of the girls in the present study conformed with a more traditional form of femininity and were content to take little part in game play and practice sessions, and they were content with being allocated more peripheral, less-physical and less-powerful roles:

Joanna looks upset at being handed the clipboard. Madeline asks, “What’s the matter?” Joanna replies, “I don’t want to be the scorekeeper. It’s boring.” Madeline immediately responds, “Oh really? Scorekeeping is my favorite. I don’t need to do anything. I mean, I still need to pay attention and everything, but it’s a lot easier than playing the game.” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

There are two opponents guarding Jacob. This leaves Ashley uncovered in front of the goal. Instead of passing the ball to Ashley, who is in the best position to score, Marshall takes an awkward shot and misses the goal. Ashley jogs to the other side of the court, getting ready to defend without complaining about Marshall’s poor decision-making. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

Erin volunteers to be the assistant referee on Court 3, with Victoria. Instead of moving with play and paying attention to the game, she dances in one spot on the edge of the court. When the ball goes out of bounds close to Erin, Cooper (an Iguana) and Carson (a Kangaroo) ask her, “Whose ball is it?” Erin looks to Victoria, situated on the other side of the court, for help. Victoria shrugs. Erin hesitates for a while and says, “I don’t know.” Cooper says, “Come on. What were you doing? You were right next to it.” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade handball)

Reasons for this minority of girls avoiding participation were also similar to those discovered in the previous two studies of PTs (Chen and Curtner-Smith, 2013; Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012) and included: the wish to socialize to a greater extent than the structure of SE allowed, a total disinterest in the competitive nature of softball or handball, and fear of physical contact:

Julia asks Madeline to help her keep score. Madeline says, “My stomach started hurting a minute ago and I think I’m running a fever. I’m just gonna sit here for a while.” Within a few minutes, however, Madeline is chatting enthusiastically with Jeremiah and continues to do so for the remainder of the class period. (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade handball)

When Dennis is not looking, Autumn abandons her team and walks with Leah and Audrey to a location behind the wall next to the gym entrance. They come out to the side and cheer for their teams when Dennis walks by. As soon as Dennis moves on to the next court, they go back to gossiping behind the wall. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

Addison, the goalkeeper, closes her eyes and dodges the ball every time a member of the other team attempts to score. She is so scared of the ball that Chase, the opposition goalkeeper, makes a direct attempt to score from just in front of his goal and scores. (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade handball)

Countering male attempts to establish supremacy

Attempts by boys to establish supremacy within classes based on their gender were rare. When they did occur, in line with Wellard’s (2006) concept of exclusive masculinity, they were often perpetrated by larger, relatively skilled, more aggressive boys and designed to display their physical prowess:

Connor gestures toward the goal, indicating that Leah should take up the position of goalkeeper. Leah protests, “But I just got out.” Connor ignores Leah and walks away from her. During the game, Connor constantly talks over and ignores Diego and Audrey, the officials, and attempts to officiate while he is playing. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

Daniel dominates the game. He rarely passes the ball to his female teammates. He only trusts Cooper, to whom he passes the ball occasionally. Michael’s playing style is similar to that of Daniel. His main strategy is to dribble across the court and shoot. Once in a while, he passes the ball to Natalie, a high-skilled girl. (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade handball)

Most male attempts at establishing supremacy, however, were met with significant resistance by the majority of girls:

Sarah says to Mary, “They [i.e. Isaiah and Nevaeh] both want to be the coach. It’s two [votes] to three [votes], but the boys say it’s not fair because we have more girls [i.e. votes] on the team, so they are doing rock-paper-scissors now.” Nevaeh wins and Isaiah looks upset. Meanwhile, Victoria is trying to get everyone’s attention by yelling, “Listen up, people! Who hasn’t been a captain?” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

Logan, the scorekeeper, and Diego, the assistant scorekeeper, are calling foul balls during the game. Half-way through the game, Kim, the umpire, finally says, “Enough, you guys. Stop making calls. I’m the ref and your job is to keep score.” Logan and Diego look shocked and don’t say anything afterwards. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade softball)

There were, however, occasions when relatively small, timid, unskilled, or disinterested girls went along with boys’ attempts to dominate without any kind of resistance:

Jayden is frustrated with Layla’s weak performance as goalkeeper. He starts yelling at her from the sideline. Madison gets irritated as well and substitutes herself for Layla. Madison lets in several goals, gives up, and substitutes Jayden for herself. After Jayden makes a few saves, Layla says to Madison, “I guess he really is better than us.” (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

During a within-team practice game, John, Lucas and Addison are playing against Jason, Elijah and Allison. The boys keep possession of the ball for most of the game. The girls are energetic at the start of the game but, starved of possession, lose interest and are reduced to “walking on-field spectators.” They appear to accept this role without question. (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade handball)

Audrey’s pitch accidentally hits Faith’s bat and the ball rolls towards Audrey. Gavin, the catcher, runs to pick up the ball and says, “That doesn’t count. Redo.” Cheryl, the official, says, “But it’s not a foul ball.” Gavin replies, “Too late now. I’ve already picked it up.” Cheryl responds, “Oh, okay. Never mind.” (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade softball)

Racial distinctions

In line with previous work (Bramham, 2003; Chen and Curtner-Smith, 2013; Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012), interactions between race and gender were also observed in the current study. Specifically, and as also noted by Chen and Curtner-Smith (2013), African-American girls were more likely to conform to female stereotypes and engage in off-task behavior, whereas Caucasian girls were more likely to resist boys’ attempts to dominate them:

Taylor, the Caucasian team captain, sends Trinity, an African American, to help Luis keep score on Court 4. Trinity, however, dances on her own by the bleachers, before joining Cynthia, another African American, who is supposed to be keeping score on Court 1, for a conversation that does not appear to be lesson-related. (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade handball)

Kim [Caucasian] realizes that her pitching is not so good today, so she walks off the pitcher’s cone. Luke asks, “Can I pitch? Can I pitch?” Kim replies, “No.” Kim hands the ball to Leah [African American], but she says, “I can’t pitch.” Lily [Caucasian] quickly says, “I can!” Lily then grabs the ball from Kim’s hand and runs to the pitcher’s cone. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade softball)

Caucasian and African-American boys behaved in similar ways to the boys observed in both the earlier studies examining HM in SE (Chen and Curtner-Smith, 2013; Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012). Specifically, Caucasian boys were more likely to be supportive of girls and weaker, less physical boys of either race:

After Bella lets in several goals, Aiden [African American] tells Allen [Caucasian], “Let me be the goalie. Bella sucks!” Allen ignores Aiden and teaches Bella how to better block shots with her limbs and how to approach opponents, to narrow the angle. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

The ball rolls between Nick’s [Caucasian] legs, as he tries to pick it up by bending down. After throwing the ball to the pitcher, James [Caucasian] tells Nick, “You need to squat down or even take one knee to catch the ball with both hands, like this [demonstrates], so the ball won’t roll through your legs. Try this next time, okay?” (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade softball)

Conversely, larger and more skilled African-American boys were more likely to attempt to dominate other boys of either race:

Nick [Caucasian], the team captain, is trying to decide who is playing in the second half of the game. Liam [African American] says, “Y’all can’t handle the whole game. I’m in.” And then Liam walks on to the court. None of his teammates responds to Liam’s comment or stands up to him. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

The ball is hit and stops around home plate. Both Lucas [African American], playing third base, and Carson [African American], the shortstop, run to get it. Carson gets the ball, turns around, and sees Jeremy, a runner, is safe on third base. Carson blames Lucas for this state of affairs and yells, “What are you doing? Why aren’t you covering third?” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

In contrast to the findings in the previous two studies of HM in SE (Chen and Curtner-Smith, 2013; Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012), in the current study both African-American and Caucasian boys were observed engaging in gendered performances (Robinson, 2005) aimed at impressing female classmates. The fact that SE is a more pupil-directed curriculum model than traditional PE may have provided increased opportunity for boys of both races to engage in this type of behavior:

Emily walks over to Lily and says, “Everyone is telling James [Caucasian] that you like him. He did a hand-stand in the middle of the game and his shirt came off just blushing everybody up. He didn’t need to do that.” Lily looks embarrassed and quietly walks to sit down on the teacher’s line. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

Luis [African American] is on second base. Isaiah [African American]. hits the ball to the outfield and both of them run home. When they step on the home plate, Max [African American] does a chest bump with each of them. (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

Teachers’ beliefs and pedagogic tactics

Unlike the coaching-oriented PTs previously studied (Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012), the in-service teachers in the current study did not believe that there was anything natural or inevitable about the behaviors of the boys and girls in their classes:

You can’t have that perception [i.e. that the behaviors of boys and girls are natural and inevitable]; otherwise, you limit their potential. I mean, I’ve seen some boys who are great artists and some girls who are better athletes than their male peers. What I’m trying to say is that I’ve had some girls who enjoy keeping score and are good at it, and some boys who like playing and officiating [games], but I’ve seen it the other way around, too. I think it’s good because you get to put something different in their mind other than “girls are good at reading and writing, and boys are good at sports,” you know? (Dennis, Formal Interview 1)

I personally have that experience. I’m really good at math, I was in math education to begin with. I’ve played sports my whole life, and I believe we girls can be as good as, or even better than the guys. You’ve seen my handwriting. It’s horrible. I know [laughs]. I mean, I have those things that people consider “guys’ characteristics,” so I think there are always exceptions. I have the girls who are great athletes and some guys who can’t throw a ball. It’s just the way it is. (Mary, Formal Interview 1)

In addition, and in congruence with the teaching-oriented PTs observed by Chen and Curtner-Smith (2013), Dennis and Mary believed that part of their job was countering any sexism and masculine bias resulting from HM:

Like I said, my job is to help kids explore things; something they don’t see at home, something they don’t see on TV, or something their parents never tell them about. Something like, men don’t cry because we always have to be tough, to take care of the family, you know? I want them to shift up their mindset and try to make them think from the opposite side. (Dennis, Formal Interview 1)

I know there are PE teachers who think guys will always be football players and girls will always be cheerleaders. I don’t think so. Well, I cheered in high school, but I also played softball, a sport that is associated with guys. I don’t want my kids to do “what they’re supposed to do,” just because their teachers or parents think they should. (Mary, Formal Interview 1)

Methods by which Dennis and Mary went about countering sexism and masculine bias in their SE seasons were more sophisticated and developed than those employed by the PTs observed by Chen and Curtner-Smith (2013). Like those teaching-oriented PTs, both Dennis and Mary used their general pedagogies to this end, frequently providing behavioral guidance, intervention and feedback:

During team practice, Sophia volunteers to be the goalkeeper. When the practice is over, Audrey, Lily and Sophia walk to the side and sit on the bleachers. Sophia says, “The game, of course, starts with the boys.” Dennis hears the comment and steps in to remind Caleb, the team captain, “Make sure you don’t use the same starters every game and remember to sub people in and out fairly. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

The ball is hit toward Desmond, the shortstop. Desmond picks up the ball, looks at Olivia, who is playing second base, hesitates for a while, and then throws the ball to Luis at first base. Both runners are safe on first and second. After the inning is over, Mary asks Desmond, “Why didn’t you throw the ball to Olivia earlier? She was much closer than Luis. Kevin might have been out if you threw the ball to her.” Desmond replies, “Because Olivia can’t catch the ball.” Mary says, “Are you sure about that? I’ve seen Olivia doing some good plays. You have to trust your teammates.” Desmond replies, “Okay.” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

In addition, both teachers made a conscious effort to provide more performance and motivational feedback to girls and boys who were less skilled and assertive:

I told Elijah [low-skilled, less able boy] to throw the ball to the pitcher because Carlos was already on first base. What happened was Elijah overthrew the ball to the first baseman, so Carlos got to third as opposed to staying at first. If Elijah had thrown to the pitcher, Carlos would have just stayed at first. So I was making him think about a smarter play. (Mary, stimulated recall interview 2)

After Brianna [low-skilled girl] lets in a goal, Dennis says, “Hey, Brianna, you know what you could do to block that goal?” Brianna shakes her head. Dennis says, “If you’d approached Yang when he was about to take the shot here, that narrowed down the angle. And you could do this [demonstrates] to block the goal. Can you do that next time?” Brianna nods her head and smiles. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

There were also times when both teachers observed inequities in their lessons, but deliberately chose not to intervene for pedagogical reasons:

The DVD showed Logan constantly asking Jocelyn to “pass the ball” to him even though she was in a better position to score. Dennis was monitoring the game, but didn’t comment. Dennis recalled, “That’s at the beginning of the game. Logan saw Jocelyn using the wrong foot to shoot, so he wanted to make sure he got the ball and did the shooting. If you keep playing [the DVD], you’ll see Logan showing Jocelyn how to use the opposite foot and he actually let her shoot later in the game. You’re supposed to have the kids to guide each other in sport education, so I try to tell the coaches little tips that they can pass on to their teammates. When it comes to strategies, I try to teach them myself, because it’s hard to explain to the coaches without showing them. But skills, I try to leave that more on the coaches, because kids listen better when they’re hearing from their peers on this kind of thing. (Dennis, stimulated recall interview 1)

The DVD showed the Panthers getting frustrated with their coach, Isaiah [a less able boy], because he couldn’t throw a strike. Robert, Jeremy and Victoria all tried to grab the ball from Isaiah, but he refused to give it up. Mary was standing next to the field, but did not intervene. Mary recalled, “In that situation, I don’t step in, they have to work it out. That’s the whole point of sport ed—they have to work through it. I’ve talked to the whole class. If there is any issue, they have to come together as a group and talk to each other. It’s not the first time. They have to learn.” (Mary, stimulated recall interview 2)

Neither teacher believed it was usually necessary to make changes to game structures or rules for the purposes of improving equity:

We never have an issue that girls don’t get to play. I think they [i.e. girls and boys] have the same share of playing time. We have very athletic girls and not-so-athletic boys, so that evens out. In our sixth grade class, the first time we played lacrosse, we did tell the boys to pass the ball to the girls before taking a shot, but that was it. I mean, I only see them as a person, not a girl or a boy. Same as black and white, I don’t see them that way. I see them based on their skill levels more. (Mary, informal interview)

I don’t do something like that [i.e. modifications for girls]. Well, at least not in my fifth grade class because the girls are just as good athletes as the boys, and I think the boys realize that too (laughs). I mean, it’s a possibility if I start the sixth grade [SE season] and see the girls don’t get as much time to play. But I seriously don’t see that here. If I gave bonus points for the girls, that would decrease the chances for the boys to play. I think that’s not fair to the boys. That’s why we put emphasis on “play as a team,” not on individual players. (Dennis, informal interview)

Both Dennis and Mary, however, believed it important that they provide pupils of both genders with equal access to the best spaces and times to play and practice:

The first two weeks of the team handball unit have been fairly stressful for me. I am still running into many of the same problems that we have had in the past two sports—captains not playing teammates fairly [i.e. equally], certain students’ unsportsmanlike conduct, and a few individuals who are unconcerned with classmates’ safety. I’ll have to keep reminding the captains to provide each teammate with adequate amounts of time for actual gameplay, especially girls who don’t mind sitting out. I’ll also have to rotate the practice areas, so the girls won’t always stay on the stage, and the boys get the floor and goals to practice shooting. (Dennis, electronic journal)

There have been problems with certain students playing too much or not enough during the preseason games. As always, captains need to be reminded to play their teammates evenly. No matter how often I bring kids in and emphasize the importance of fair playing time, some still “forget.” We don’t have enough goals for 10 teams to practice, so we have to use pads on the stage. I assign them to different practice areas each time they have sport ed, so I haven’t had any complaint about that. (Mary, electronic journal)

While the teaching-oriented PTs previously observed (Chen and Curtner-Smith, 2013) had used four of the SE model’s structures (fair play points system, equity board, allocation or roles, and competitive game play) sparingly, in attempts to provide a more equitable experience for their pupils, the practicing teachers in the current study relied primarily and frequently on one of the model’s key components in this endeavor. They provided a more equitable experience for pupils through the allocation of roles. When they first implemented the SE model with a new group of pupils, Dennis and Mary made sure that roles more central to a season (e.g. coach and captain) were allocated equally to boys and girls (and pupils of all races) by providing a “set of guidelines” for teams to follow during their role “elections” or by selecting pupils to perform some of the key roles themselves:

Dennis asks pupils to “raise your hand if you haven’t been a coach.” He selects four African-American girls, three African-American boys, one Caucasian girl and two Caucasian boys. Following team selection, Denis assigns the 10 coaches to a team [each], with the goal of balancing gender, race and skill level. (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade handball)

As pupils became more familiar with SE and socialized into this sense of fairness, the guidelines were withdrawn, the teachers ceased to intervene in the selection process and the pupils continued, by and large, to elect pupils from a variety of backgrounds for key roles:

The pupils are sitting in the gym in their teams. Mary says, “This is the team that you’ll stay on for the rest of the semester. Now, I want y’all to decide who is gonna be the coach, captain, manager and all that good stuff [other roles with which the pupils are familiar]. I know y’all all want to be the coach, but try to take the job [i.e. role] that you haven’t been before, so everyone can get the chance to take different responsibilities.” (Mary, field notes, 4^th grade softball)

Dennis and Mary also increased the opportunity for pupils of both genders (and different races) to engage in roles the pupils considered important, by increasing both the number of roles and the responsibilities that went along with them. For example, equity officers were required to “determine consequences as a result of unsportsmanlike conduct or forceful contacts,” board members had the authority to “determine preseason rankings and changes to game rules, if needed,” league members had to “make game schedules and update points on the poster on a daily basis,” and managers were required to “get all equipment needed for gameplay or practice, distribute whistles or score cards when officiating or scorekeeping, and put all equipment away after class” (as per the class SE roles poster). As illustrated by the following extracts, Mary was particularly pleased with the effect of increasing the responsibilities given to board and league members:

The board members, I try to incorporate as much as possible, because they really didn’t do a whole lot, but [now] they can change or modify the rules. So instead of me making that decision, I’m gonna let the board members decide what they should do. It’s supposed to be their system. And really, the rules I’m using for this class are what my middle schoolers made up. (Mary, stimulated recall interview 1)

My biggest and greatest encouragement was the league members. They surprised me so much and really did a great job on keeping up with points. I was amazed! It was a new task and they took it and ran with it. It definitely helped me out too, because the points were posted immediately. I loved that! I think the kids really enjoyed posting their own points. To me, this was the best part! (Mary, electronic journal)

The teachers also increased pupils’ perceptions that certain roles were important, by providing substantive feedback on the way they had been implemented. For example, in the two extracts below the teachers provided feedback about pupils’ officiating:

During lesson closure, Mary says, “Why did I see Ian get knocked out and nobody called it? I heard Lily keep saying, “That's a travel. That's a travel,” but the ref didn't call it. One, if you have problems, talk to the ref during half-time. Don't call out. Two, if you are a ref, you need to make calls right away; otherwise, the other team will think you are playing favorites.” (Mary, field notes. 4^th grade handball)

During lesson closure, Dennis says, “If they [i.e. umpires] make a call, it's final, and I'd like to see those calls be final. When they make the call that you are out, you stay off the field. You do not hold the game up by running in and arguing with the umpire. Umpires, if the person is arguing with you, call it unsportsmanlike conduct. They get two [unsportsmanlike conducts], then they get kicked out. Easy as that, and you don't have to deal with the arguing anymore.” (Dennis, field notes, 5^th grade softball)

Importantly, and unlike the previously studied teaching-oriented PTs (Chen and Curtner-Smith, 2013), Mary and Dennis were also able to detect and counter more subtle forms of sexism and masculine bias, including the view that officiating is a male occupation and boys only like to play games, as opposed to performing other roles:

Many people think officials are guys. Like in Little League, many of the umpires are guys. But I tell my students that everyone gets to be the ref, whether you like it or not, and you can be a really good one. That’s why I assigned Avery to be the umpire for the championship game, because I knew she was good, she knew the rules and she made confident calls. (Mary, formal interview 2)

When Diego and Nick are together, both of them are distracted. They are buddies and they like to talk, just like Nina and Abigail. You can’t put them together as referee and scorekeeper; otherwise, the game is totally out of control. I always make sure they are not on the same court, unless their teams play against each other. You think girls like to socialize, but I have boys who like to talk more than play [games], too. (Dennis, informal interview)

Finally, in congruence with the teaching-oriented PTs observed by Chen and Curtner-Smith (2013), both Dennis and Mary believed that engaging in direct conversation with pupils about issues related to HM and concerning sexism and masculine bias was counterproductive. Their rationale was that taking such action would invariably involve making comparisons between males and females, draw attention to the issue, and have the potential to exacerbate the problem:

I think if I address the issue [of sexism and masculine bias], then it’s gonna alert the kids that, “Yeah, we’re looking at gender, and boys should be better and stronger.” If I consistently compare boys and girls, that’s going against education. I believe, as a teacher, I shouldn’t do that. (Mary, Formal Interview 2)

I don’t talk about it [i.e. the issue of sexism and masculine bias], at least not in front of the kids. If I did, I would be giving them the same values my PE teachers gave me, which I don’t agree with. I mean, it’s a pretty level playing field here. We have the high-skilled people and that’s boys and girls, and ethnicities and everything. And we have the low-skilled ones and that’s the same thing. I’d rather look at them [i.e. pupils] in terms of their skill levels, than paying attention on their genders. (Dennis, formal interview 2)

Conclusions

The key finding of this study was that HM, and any associated sexism and masculine bias, was largely rejected and combatted during the four SE seasons observed. The relatively liberal version of the model delivered by the teachers appeared to provide structures and spaces through and within which both a non-traditional femininity and masculinity were encouraged, and gender relations improved. Moreover, the teaching-oriented in-service teachers in the study were more effective in dealing with the actual and potential effects of HM in their SE units, than the teaching-oriented PTs observed by Chen and Curtner-Smith (2013).

The foundations of Dennis and Mary’s effectiveness in this context were their relatively liberal views and beliefs about sport and gender, and the fact that they were teaching-oriented. Following Shulman (1987), their enhanced degree of success; however, when compared to PTs with the same traits, appeared to be due to their having greater levels of curricular, pedagogical, content and pedagogical content knowledge, as well as superior knowledge about their pupils. Dennis and Mary were extremely comfortable with and confident about their use of the SE model. Moreover, they were already pedagogically skilled, and so were not fixated on mastering the technical aspects of teaching. Similarly, they had taught several units of handball and softball previously, and so they had developed good levels of content and pedagogical content knowledge. Finally, Dennis and Mary knew and understood the children in their classes exceptionally well, as they had been employed at their school since its opening and had taught most of the pupils that were in their 4^th and 5^th grade classes for the majority of their schooling. In congruence with teacher concerns theory (Fuller and Brown, 1975) and Parker and Curtner-Smith (2012), collectively, this level of knowledge and expertise was what allowed Dennis and Mary to move beyond a focus on themselves and technical aspects of teaching, and to a focus on their pupils’ experiences and learning. Specifically, their enhanced levels of knowledge gave them greater “pedagogical room” to attend to aspects of instruction not usually considered central to PE, including countering sexism and masculine bias. Practically, the study suggests that teacher trainers focus on helping PTs and in-service teachers acquire curricular, pedagogical, content and pedagogical content knowledge, plus knowledge about their pupils.

One component of Dennis and Mary’s instruction that we should at least examine as potentially problematic was their unwillingness to engage in any kind of direct discussion about issues of gender and equity with their pupils. Their judgment that this strategy would be counterproductive, in that it would draw attention to a problem to which they believed their children were oblivious, may well have been correct; however, we are not so sure that it was, and would certainly question the use of such a strategy with children being taught in other relatively conservative contexts.

Footnotes

Note

References

Alexander

Luckman

(2001) Australian teachers’ perceptions and uses of the sport education curriculum model. European Physical Education Review 7(3): 243–267.

Alexander

Taggart

Thorpe

(1996) A spring in their steps? Possibilities for professional renewal through sport education in Australian schools. Sport, Education and Society 1(1): 23–46.

Bramham

(2003) Boys, masculinities and PE. Sport, Education and Society 8(1): 57–71.

Brock

(2002) Sixth grade students’ perceptions and experiences during a sport education unit. PhD Dissertation, The University of Alabama, USA.

Brown

(1999) Complicity and reproduction in teaching physical education. Sport, Education and Society 4(2): 143–159.

Calderhead

(1981) Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology 51(2): 211–217.

Carlson

(1995) Now I think I can: The reaction of eight low-skilled students to sport education. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal 42(4): 6–8.

Chen

Curtner-Smith

(2013) Hegemonic masculinity in sport education: Case studies of preservice physical education teachers with teaching orientations. Sport, Education and Society. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2013.775116.

Clarke

(1996) Conforming and contesting with (a) difference: How lesbian students and teachers manage their identities. International Studies in Sociology of Education 6(2): 191–209.

10.

Clarke

(1998) Queering the pitch and coming out to play: Lesbians in physical education and sport. Sport, Education and Society 3(2): 145–160.

11.

Clarke

(2006) Sexuality and physical education. In: Kirk

MacDonald

O’Sullivan

(eds) Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage Publications, pp. 723–739.

12.

Connell

(1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

13.

Connell

(2005) Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

14.

Connell

(2008) Masculinity construction and sports in boys’ education: A framework for thinking about the issue. Sport, Education and Society 13(2): 131–145.

15.

Connell

Messerschmidt

(2005) Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society 19(6): 829–859.

16.

Curnow

MacDonald

(1995) Can sport education be gender inclusive? A case study in upper primary school. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal 42(4): 9–11.

17.

Curtner-Smith

(2009) Breaking the cycle of non-teaching physical education teachers: Lessons to be learned from the occupational socialization literature. In: Housner

Metzler

Schempp

Templin

(eds) Historic Traditions and Future Directions of Research on Teaching and Teacher Education in Physical Education. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, pp. 221–226.

18.

Curtner-Smith

(2012) Preparing physical education teachers to teach sport education. In: Hastie

(ed) Sport Education: International Perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 151–165.

19.

Curtner-Smith

Hastie

Kinchin

(2008) Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education and Society 13(1): 97–117.

20.

Drummond

(2003) The meanings of boys' bodies in physical education. Journal of Men's Studies 11(2): 131–143.

21.

Ennis

(1999) Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls. Sport, Education and Society 4(1): 31–49.

22.

Frosh

Phoenix

Pattman

(2002) Young Masculinities: Understanding Boys in Contemporary Society. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.

23.

Fuller

Brown

(1975) Becoming a teacher. In: Ryan

(ed) Teacher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–52.

24.

Gard

(2003) Being someone else: Using dance in anti-oppressive teaching. Educational Review 55(2): 211–223.

25.

Giddens

(2006) Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

26.

Goetz

LeCompte

(1984) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. San Diego: Academic Press.

27.

Grant

(1992) Integrating sport into the physical education curriculum in New Zealand secondary schools. Quest 44(3): 304–316.

28.

Griffin

(1984) Girls' participation patterns in a middle school team sports unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 4: 30–38.

29.

Griffin

(1985) Boys' participation styles in a middle school physical education team sports unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 4: 100–110.

30.

Hastie

(1998) The participation and perception of girls within a unit of sport education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 17: 157–171.

31.

Hastie

Sharpe

(1999) Effects of a sport education curriculum on the positive social behavior of at-risk rural adolescent boys. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 4(4): 417–430.

32.

Hastie

Siedentop

(1999) An ecological perspective on physical education. European Physical Education Review 5(1): 9–29.

33.

Hickey

Fitzclarence

(1999) Educating boys in sport and physical education: Using narrative methods to develop pedagogies of responsibility. Sport, Education and Society 4(1): 51–62.

34.

Kinchin

(2001) Using team portfolios during a sport education season. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 72(2): 41–44.

35.

Kirk

Almond

(1999) Sport education as situated learning in physical education: Making links to citizenship, leadership, and critical consumerism. In: AIESEP International Congress, Besancon, France.

36.

Kirk

MacDonald

(1998) Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 17: 376–387.

37.

Klomsten

Marsh

Skaalvik

(2005) Adolescents' perceptions of masculine and feminine values in sport and physical education: A study of gender differences. Sex Roles 52 (9–10): 625–636.

38.

Mosston

Ashworth

(2008) Teaching physical education. In: Spectrum of Teaching Styles. Available at: www.spectrumofteachingstyles.org/ebook (accessed 3 January 2009).

39.

Paechter

(2003) Power, bodies and identity: How different forms of physical education construct varying masculinities and femininities in secondary schools. Sex Education 3(1): 47–59.

40.

Parker

(1996) The construction of masculinity within boy’s physical education. Gender & Education 8(2): 141–158.

41.

Parker

Curtner-Smith

(2012) Sport education: A panacea for hegemonic masculinity in physical education or more of the same? Sport, Education and Society 17(4): 479–496.

42.

Patton

(1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

43.

Penney

Clarke

(2005) Inclusion in sport education. In: Penney

Clarke

Quill

Kinchin

(eds) Sport Education in Physical Education: Research-Based Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 41–54.

44.

Penney

Waring

(2000) The absent agenda: Pedagogy and physical education. Journal of Sport Pedagogy 6(1): 4–37.

45.

Penney

Clarke

Kinchin

(2002a) Developing sport education as a connective specialism: Is sport education the answer? Sport, Education and Society 7(1): 55–64.

46.

Penney

Clarke

Quill

(2002b) Activity selection in sport education. Journal of Sport Pedagogy 8(2): 53–66.

47.

Pope

O’Sullivan

(2003) Darwinism in the gym. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 22: 311–327.

48.

Pugsley

Coffey

Delamont

(1996) Daps, dykes and five mile hikes: Physical education in pupils' folklore. Sport, Education and Society 1(2): 133–146.

49.

Robinson

(2005) Reinforcing hegemonic masculinities through sexual harassment: Issues of identity, power and popularity in secondary schools. Gender and Education 17(1): 19–37.

50.

Rothenberg

(2007) Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. New York: Worth Publishers.

51.

Schmalz

Kerstetter

(2006) Girlie girls and manly men: Children’s stigma consciousness of gender in sports and physical activities. Journal of Leisure Research 38(4): 536–557.

52.

Shulman

(1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review 57(1): 1–22.

53.

Siedentop

Hastie

Van der Mars

(2011) Complete Guide to Sport Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

54.

Silverman

(1991) Research on teaching in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 62(4): 352–364.

55.

Skelton

(1993) On becoming a male physical education teacher: The informal culture of students and the construction of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Education 5(3): 289–303.

56.

Stake

(1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

Sykes

(2007) Anxious identification in “The Sopranos” and sport: Psychoanalytic and queer theories of embodiment. Sport, Education and Society 12(2): 127–139.

58.

Sykes

(2011) Queer Bodies: Sexualities, Genders, and Fatness in Physical Education. New York: Peter Lang.

59.

Tousignant

Siedentop

(1983) A qualitative analysis of task structures in required secondary physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 3(1): 47–57.

60.

Wellard

(2006) Able bodies and sport participation: Social constructions of physical ability for gendered and sexually identified bodies. Sport, Education and Society 11(2): 105–119.

61.

Woodruff

Curtner-Smith

(2007) Transitioning from elementary to secondary school: American pupils’ scary stories and physical education folklore. Sport, Education and Society 12(4): 415–430.

62.

Wright

(1996) The construction of complementarity in physical education. Gender & Education 8(1): 61–80.

63.

Yin

(2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.