Tools
Tools
Ravenhill, Edward (2012) Movement Literacy: Creating a Healing Encounter in Physical Education. PhD thesis, University of Gloucestershire.
|
Text
PhD Final EDWARD RAVENHILL.pdf Available under License All Rights Reserved. Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Modern Physical Education (PE) administered systemic models of teaching crafts. It atrophied the play element in human nature, and shaped a single-lens attitude to the treatment of bodies. Framing minds, it veiled the conditions of learning processes and thus “instituted” the sovereignty of subjective concerns. It created many unexplained “gaps” between abstract concerns and pragmatic issues. Following language’s poststructural analysis, PE’s professional communication practices were exposed to alternative methodological refocusing from conforming to move to personalise the agent’s experience in moving to learn. In the wake of poststructuralism came Whitehead’s Physical Literacy (PL) which I adopt as “leitmotif” to reform PE’s teacher preparation and schooling practices. PL addresses children up to 14 years. For older pupils, PL’s language needs to constitute versions of human purposes voiced by the introduction of a new development called “Movement Literacy” (ML). ML acknowledges that language and movement are very different forms of “self-expression”. By itself however, self-expression is inadequate when it comes to learning how to learn. Critical dialogue needs to be brought in to facilitate meaningful innovation in the PE world. By employing the philosophies of phenomenology and hermeneutics I make a case that expression in languaging movement [subjecting the agent’s account to hermeneutic treatment] is expression for others, and in exchange with others the expression is redefined, and changes the way one sees and talks about movement and about oneself. In its reflective practice, reverentially, ML will also unpack pedagogy’s hidden protocol, hoping to reclaim PE’s authentic purpose. It connects secular matters with sacred implications by reconciling the polemic differences between “techne” [purpose] and “phronesis ” [prudence]. With limited reference to Eastern “selflessness” ML advances teaching, through pedagogy and andragogy as a life-time mission. Not providing answers, the thesis offers a manifesto attempting to facilitate new questions such as: how can language and movement communicate? and how can movement educators “minister” to their learner’s sense of well-being?
| Item Type: | Thesis (PhD) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thesis Advisors: |
|
|||||||||
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Physical education, Physical Literacy, Movement Literacy, Pedagogy, Teaching practice, Movement education | |||||||||
| Subjects: | L Education > LB Theory and practice of education > LB1603 Secondary Education. High schools | |||||||||
| Divisions: | Schools and Research Institutes > School of Education and Science | |||||||||
| Depositing User: | Susan Turner | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 29 Jan 2015 15:00 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 01 Aug 2021 21:29 | |||||||||
| URI: | https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/1227 |
University Staff: Request a correction | Repository Editors: Update this record
