View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Utilizing a Community of Practice for Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility: A Case Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Utilizing a Community of Practice for Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility: A Case Study
Language: English
Authors: Victoria Shiver (ORCID 0000-0001-9362-2738), Kelly L. Simonton (ORCID 0000-0001-7261-2047), Angela Simonton (ORCID 0000-0002-3248-6629), Ali Alshuraymi (ORCID 0009-0001-4143-1902)
Source: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2025 44(1):91-99.
Availability: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Social Responsibility, Self Concept, Responsibility, Communities of Practice, Teaching Experience, Disadvantaged, Minority Group Teachers, Work Environment, Teacher Attitudes, School Personnel, Social Bias, Teacher Role, Academic Achievement, Professional Recognition, Physical Education Teachers, Elementary School Teachers
DOI: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0295
ISSN: 0273-5024
1543-2769
Abstract: The purpose was to understand two teachers' experiences of implementing the teaching personal and social responsibility model over the span of one academic year due to their development and participation within a community of practice. A case study approach was utilized to gather and analyze qualitative data; three themes were developed. The teachers were marginalized by school personnel and received little recognition for their efforts. Student success was reported, but students were not ready to learn components of the model. Model implementation improved over time. Support from their community of practice allowed for reassurance, overcoming frustration, routine development, and value of the model. Without the community of practice, teachers indicated high potential for burnout of model use due to exhaustion associated with marginalization. The teaching personal and social responsibility model is well suited for a community of practice based on its call for continuous reflection and gradual empowerment.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1458170
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF-CzuH_4lp_jddsGhg7dlnAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL7eYTXpLcE6GM8GDQIBEICBm0vxyt58Go-Rnd-8h5cXwux5GQbXAdRPQf2UTMg77AjyZ9z70eA2_zDGhzHBFfuWFgzg2uTzcUafRezqh2eMQG3IoDtJ2eK7y8Yvuj5WDFC681-rU7VGdqQVgNxqQe09ot3vapVxsxxLDGrMG0fFxPoUTe1HilKKPfc2OBQfpS7UNRpHTwKeORKxegQTQW6zOzVr8dmh6XXM6mZ8
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181888164;0do01jan.25;2024Dec30.04:01;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181888164-1">Utilizing a Community of Practice for Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility: A Case Study </title> <p>The purpose was to understand two teachers' experiences of implementing the teaching personal and social responsibility model over the span of one academic year due to their development and participation within a community of practice. A case study approach was utilized to gather and analyze qualitative data; three themes were developed. The teachers were marginalized by school personnel and received little recognition for their efforts. Student success was reported, but students were not ready to learn components of the model. Model implementation improved over time. Support from their community of practice allowed for reassurance, overcoming frustration, routine development, and value of the model. Without the community of practice, teachers indicated high potential for burnout of model use due to exhaustion associated with marginalization. The teaching personal and social responsibility model is well suited for a community of practice based on its call for continuous reflection and gradual empowerment.</p> <p>Keywords: model implementation; situated learning theory; collaborative approach; marginalization</p> <p>Models-based instruction and research on related teacher implementation and outcomes are prevalent within the realm of physical education ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]). The Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref2">18</reflink>]) approach is one example of a best practice model. Rooted in the goals of respect, effort, self-direction, caring for others, and transfer, the TPSR model utilizes physical activity as a vehicle for learning social and emotional skills within physical education as well as alternative settings (e.g., classroom, home, and community). Those who elect to utilize the TPSR model in their programs are expected to provide gradual student empowerment, teacher and student reflections, explicitly address personal and social responsibility goals through movement, and be relational with the students ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref3">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Educators are encouraged to tailor the model to meet the needs of their participants as well as their own teaching style and philosophy ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref4">8</reflink>]). The term "TPSR-Lite" has been used to describe adoption of the model that did not include deeply rooted elements such as student choice and empowerment, relationship time, and transfer. Some argue that any form of implementation is a move in the right direction, and it is likely that it must begin in a superficial manner before teachers have the ability to delve deeply into the full model ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]). However, there is a five-step suggested daily practice process for those who elect to utilize it ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref6">18</reflink>]). These steps include relational time, an awareness talk, physical activity time, a group meeting, and self-reflection. Relational time is meant to be informal and focused on personal relationship development among the instructor and the students. The awareness talk introduces the goal of the day (e.g., caring for others). The physical activity time prioritizes utilizing movement to explicitly practice the goal. The group meeting consists of discussion around the group performance of the goal and transfer to other settings as well as suggestions for improvement or upcoming sessions. Self-reflection includes individual consideration of goal performance and setting personal goals for enhanced future performance.</p> <p>Teachers often begin their journey with the TPSR model through an intrinsic interest that connects well with the TPSR approach ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>]). Regardless of intent and alignment, implementing such concepts varies within teacher-led approaches that dominate the field of physical education, and many educators find initial implementation to be challenging ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]). Adjusting to the change in curriculum and style of interaction within the physical education setting requires ample time when first utilizing the TPSR model ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]). The expected time commitment leads many teachers to give up due to a lack of success initially and high levels of frustration early on. As stated by Casey and Macphail ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]), "a balance needs to be struck between the aspirations of a models-based practice approach and the realities of school-life" (p. 308).</p> <p>Implementing a model such as TPSR is challenging in a highly supportive and innovative environment, but the difficulty level increases when physical educators face a custodial setting without support ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]). Another key challenge is marginalization, meaning physical educators are treated as less important and valuable than classroom teachers. Subjects that expand upon cognitive function (art, music, and physical education) have been treated as supplementary ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref14">31</reflink>]). The ancillary lens has occurred formally through public policy such as the No Child Left Behind Act, which provided funding for "core" subjects as opposed to noncore subjects, including physical education ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref15">26</reflink>]). Informal examples of marginalization are also present and include loss of space, lack of professional development support, excessively large class sizes, serving in roles that are not related to physical education (e.g., providing equipment to children during recess), and beyond ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref16">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]). Consistently receiving the message that physical education and physical educators are less important or not valued may lead to washout of best practices, burnout and exhaustion, and even early career attrition ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]). Teachers may begin to believe they are second-class and less important to the mission of education when they are repeatedly, both implicitly and explicitly, shown that their subject is less important than others ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]). Strategies have been developed to combat the challenges faced as a marginalized subject as well as the process of initially implementing a pedagogical model, one of which is Communities of Practice (CoPs; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]). The use of CoPs and its associated theoretical framework of situated learning theory serves as the primary guide for this study.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-2">CoP and Situated Learning Theory</hd> <p>Ample work has been done on learning communities and professional development related to physical education and models-based instruction. Research indicates that there has been a lack of clarity in defining community learning ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]). There has been a crossover of terms (e.g., CoP vs. Professional Learning Community) despite differences in the traditional structure and theoretical support originally called for in each. In response, we narrowed our focus to CoP with situated learning theory as a guide to provide clarity and organization for our shared process.</p> <p>CoPs rooted in situated learning theory include a group of individuals that has a joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared collection of resources ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref23">35</reflink>]). Each member must contribute to the group, work toward a common goal, and they must create a shared set of understandings, language, rules, guidelines, and so on over time. The term legitimate peripheral participation is utilized in situated learning theory, with a major component indicating that all CoP participants are benefitting as individuals while also contributing to the group ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]). The positioning of the participants may vary as identities, goals, and tasks change over time and new members transition into full participants. CoPs are created by their members because they see and experience value in learning and working together. There is no outside source, such as administration, dictating meetings, or timelines. This is a critical component, as a top-down approach typically results in limited decision making; freedom in voices, choices, and scheduling; and focus on the teachers' learning due to the mandatory nature and power dynamics at play ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref25">19</reflink>]). It is recognized, however, that without administrative and/or other organizational support, it can be difficult to meet the goals of the CoP as it is situated within a larger system ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref26">32</reflink>]). The norms and culture of a setting can act as determinants for CoP knowledge gain and organization learning depending on the focus of the group ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within school settings, community can be developed among educators who work together on a daily basis, navigating practice, particularly in managing sociocultural changes such as innovative model implementation ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]). The social aspect of CoPs can enhance daily engagement through ownership, empowerment, personal and professional relationships, and a shared vision all within a safe and process-oriented space ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref29">27</reflink>]). Other work that has utilized CoPs or another form of learning community has found that knowledge and practice in pedagogical approaches were altered, becoming more teacher focused; teachers experimented more with the support of their group and had enhanced reflection toward improvement. Further, teachers' affective characteristics were altered in that they took on a student-first mentality, feeling motivation and satisfaction around collective efforts toward problem solving and striving toward personal growth, even overcoming challenging work situations at times. Often, outcomes are beneficial to outside members as CoP participants elect to showcase their learning in the form of presentations in their schools or at professional conferences. The arrangement of CoPs can vary in size, meeting location (in person or virtual), and span of time ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]). Evidence indicates that teachers have found success in partnering with university personnel to consistently consider and improve upon their practice during initial implementation ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research regarding the use of CoP within a school setting has been limited, as it relates to the implementation of the TPSR model within physical education, particularly at the elementary level ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>]). However, this research is necessary in following recommendations for improved models-based pedagogy and general teaching experiences ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>]). Work combining CoP with TPSR also serves as an extension of the TPSR Alliance, a global CoP that has resulted in the spread of TPSR in research and practice ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>]). Researchers, teaching practitioners, and youth workers collaborate in the TPSR Alliance to enhance the use of TPSR in physical activity settings by applying novel concepts and sharing findings from studies. A call for research focused on educating and supporting physical education professionals in engaging TPSR work through CoPs has been made, specifically focused on learning experiences that bridge formal and informal development while meeting the needs of the practitioners' specific environment ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref37">8</reflink>]). Further, work focused on learning communities and professional development often results in teachers reciting others' ideas as opposed to changing their teaching practices. This is contradictory to the purpose of CoPs and legitimate peripheral participation as it is driven to learn through the process of engaging in the social culture of practice ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref38">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]). Grassroots approaches in which the teachers initiate progress may enhance collaboration and reflection to result in buy-in as well as site- and teacher-specific change. Further, the TPSR model's empowerment focus and embrace of personal and social responsibility goals have the potential to influence practicing teachers' progressive comfort following the model. TPSR may support teachers with their own emotions related to managing a dynamic and challenging setting (i.e., lack of support or indifference from administration or colleagues), as well as engagement with the students through regular reflection and a focus on improvement through the CoPs. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to understand two teacher's experiences of implementing the TPSR model over the span of one academic year due to their development and participation within a CoP. Research questions included (a) How did the physical education teachers' (PETs) progress in their use of the TPSR model? and (b) How did the PETs' CoP influence their navigation of marginalization and model implementation?</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-3">Methods</hd> <p>A case study approach was utilized to understand the teacher participants' experiences implementing the TPSR model through a CoP format ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref40">34</reflink>]). This study meets the expectations of a case study in that it was bounded by the professional experiences of the two PETs in one setting, and the process was intensive as it took place over the span of one academic year and included numerous qualitative data sources. The CoP included two physical educators and two TPSR experts who met regularly.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-4">Participants and Setting</hd> <p>This study took place in an elementary school in the southeastern region of the United States. As described by the teacher participants, the school was made up of 639 students, 51% of were economically disadvantaged, and 26% were students of color. Two physical educators were the primary participants—one female and one male. The female, Kara, described her own K–12 physical education experience as a student as positive overall, beginning with "ball rollers" at the elementary level but then moving to a new state where she learned alternative activities like ropes courses, cross-country skiing, and roller skating. These experiences, combined with an influential college professor that introduced physical education as a potential major in an introduction to kinesiology course, swayed Kara to enter teacher training. She graduated with her bachelor's degree in Kinesiology with a concentration in K–12 Health and Physical Education from a large southeastern institution. After interviewing at several schools, she took a position at a first-/second-grade school that was the setting for this study. She selected this setting based on her interest in working with younger elementary students and because she perceived the administration as very supportive, though this did not prove to be the case. Kara had been teaching for a total of 1.5 years following best practices she had learned in her teacher education experiences. While teaching, Kara coached a university's women's lacrosse club.</p> <p>The male, Tony, explained that his K–12 experience as a student started well in elementary school, but then his secondary experience included several poor practices such as exercise as punishment and limited supervision or structure that often resulted in injuries. Tony was active in sports and elected to graduate from college with a degree in Kinesiology with a concentration in fitness studies. He was a strength and conditioning coach for 3 years but felt he wanted to do more. Following a conversation with a friend who was a physical educator, he felt inspired to see the impact he could have as a teacher, so he elected to go back to school for his degree. He could have gone the alternative certification route, but wanted to ensure that he had the knowledge and training to be the best he could be and felt he received that from his teacher education program. He preferred working with elementary students and took the first job he was offered upon becoming a licensed teacher. The job had large class sizes and limited support, and he felt like he was getting burned out from exhaustion. The school principal at Kara's setting knew Tony and gave him a call asking whether he would be interested in transitioning to their school, and he chose to switch schools and began working with Kara. Tony had been teaching for a total of 3 years at the time of the study, with one of those years being at the current school.</p> <p>Kara and Tony's classes were typically 20–24 students. They were limited in physical education equipment. There was a one-to-one student ratio of hula hoops and jump ropes, but other typically used options such as basketballs and soccer balls were fewer in number, older, and varied in size and quality. Lessons were typically expected to occur outside, but due to the nature of the weather in the southeastern state, the heat index could be too high, or there could be rain or postrain flooding that caused them to be inside. There was no covered outdoor space nor a gym for them to teach in, and they had access to an auditorium that was limited in size.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-5">The Community of Practice</hd> <p>Kara and Tony had implemented the Skill Themes Approach ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref41">16</reflink>]) together the year before but agreed they wanted to begin utilizing the TPSR model because they wanted to develop the affective domain and needed concrete steps to do so well. Both indicated that they were seeing ample social and emotional setbacks from the students in their classes, and they wanted to be proactive instead of always being reactive to create a more positive environment and to set their students up for success.</p> <p>The two PETs had attended the same undergraduate program and had been introduced to the TPSR model briefly during that experience, which is what led to its selection. Neither felt that they could confidently implement the model with the limited understanding from their teacher training. To learn more, the teachers connected with a prior university faculty member with questions regarding implementation. The university faculty member provided some insights and connected Kara and Tony with two additional support members, both of which had years of experience implementing the TPSR model at the elementary level during physical education and out-of-school time programming. These support members both worked at the university level, one as a faculty member and one as a lecturer. The PETs requested regular meetings as ongoing professional development to receive feedback and assist in reflection regarding their implementation process. The outside members, Kara, and Tony all worked together with Kara and Tony serving as core members of the CoP.</p> <p>With only four firm participants of the CoP, it is smaller in size—but having a few specialists to start is considered acceptable when other elements are present (i.e., joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared collection of resources; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref42">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref43">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]). Further, the present CoP drew regularly on materials and discussions that were had in the TPSR Alliance based on the expert's membership and participation ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>]). The two PETs and two TPSR experts had a shared goal of guiding the PETs through learning TPSR to successfully implement the model in an elementary setting. The PETs expressed a need for guidance in arranging meetings and organizing materials, requesting that one of the TPSR experts served as the facilitator ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>])—sending calendar invitations with Zoom links (Zoom Video Communications) and creating a shared folder to share lesson plans, resources, and reflection space as a group.</p> <p>Each member provided an important contribution to the success of the CoP, an essential component of the group's success ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref47">20</reflink>]). The PETs had their actual daily experiences working with children and the model, sharing honest feedback on effectiveness of their teaching and their environment. This allowed the experts to have a deeper understanding of the individuals and the setting, to then share their contributions of experience and knowledge with TPSR in other settings. Conversations occurred regularly, almost as though there was no definite start or end, through written reflections and critical incidents (detailed below) with comments from all members as well as through regular meetings. A shared language and understanding were developed, and a clear sense of belonging was present.</p> <p>To better understand teacher-driven collaborative learning that has the potential to influence other practitioners as well as research in the field, Kara and Tony agreed to allow data to be collected during the process, which culminated into the present study. The case itself, the CoP, is viewed through the lens of Kara and Tony as they were the practitioners and the goals of the CoP were to ensure they felt support from the group and developed in the TPSR model, though data are deeply connected to the CoP overall as they worked as a group regularly.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-6">Data Collection</hd> <p>Qualitative data were collected over the span of one academic year of TPSR implementation and through multiple modalities allowing for data triangulation: semistructured interviews, professional development meetings, critical incident reports, and journaling.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-7">Semistructured Interviews</hd> <p>The PETs took part in 10 research interviews that lasted 45 min to an hour each. Each interview included both the PETs and one researcher. The researcher did not participate in the CoP and was not an expert in TPSR, and the interview space was solely meant to collect data as opposed to sharing of advice and ideas. Prompts were developed regarding model implementation, teaching experiences that either promoted or hindered the experience, and how working collaboratively did or did not make a difference related to the theory of situated learning. For example, this was one prompt: "Describe how you are feeling when you alternate lead teaching and lesson planning around the TSPR model. What is going through your head as you share roles?" Another said, "Explain how the professional development sessions have impacted your teaching experience." Follow-up prompts were utilized to delve more deeply into topics, such as when the PETs discussed challenges experienced due to school culture. Each interview was conducted over Zoom, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-8">Professional Development Sessions</hd> <p>The participants took part in seven professional development meetings with the two TPSR experts. These sessions were 30–45 min and included participants asking for advice or answers to questions, reviewing video footage of their teaching for feedback, sharing of additional resources, and other miscellaneous requests from the PETs for implementation improvement. For example, in response to the teacher's desire to better understand the teaching behaviors associated with the TPSR model, a video was observed as a group while the experts led Kara and Tony through the Tool for Assessing Responsibility-based Education (TARE) 2.0 systematic observation form ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]). The TARE 2.0 is a time interval tool that allows for nine teacher behavior categories (i.e., fostering social interaction and role in assessment) and nine student behavior categories (encouraging others and expressing voice) to be measured to determine whether responsibility-based education is occurring. The PETs asked several questions, reflected on the results of the TARE 2.0, and utilized the data moving forward as well as the TARE 2.0 form on other recorded lessons on their own without prompting from the TPSR experts. Other sessions included a more informal approach in which specific questions that allowed for a more in-depth look into the model were asked, such as this one: "What if we already taught respect and have moved on to effort, can we go back to respect again if we are starting to see that the lessons we learned are not being applied?" prompting a discussion around goals versus levels and how one goal does not necessarily need to be achieved before practicing another ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]). Each meeting was conducted over Zoom, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-9">Critical Incident Reports</hd> <p>Collectively, the two PETs shared 55 critical incident reports on a one Google Document each ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref50">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref51">11</reflink>]). The prompt stated, "Describe a meaningful experience. This could be a positive experience or a challenge that you encountered." When completing an entry, the two participants wrote three to 10 sentences at moments they deemed as significant throughout the year. These were related to their CoP experience, implementation of TPSR, student performance of TPSR, and school supports and challenges.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-10">Journal Entries</hd> <p>Each teacher wrote journal entries to reflect on their experience teaching in general as well as utilizing TPSR specifically. They were asked to consider the following prompts and free write based on what came to mind: "What went well? What could have gone better? What sources of support did you have this week? What barriers did you face this week? What is your biggest takeaway that you will bring into next week?" Collectively, Kara and Tony wrote about one entry every other academic week, collectively creating 32 journal entries.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-11">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Data analysis occurred over the span of 3 months and followed the Richards and Hemphill ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref52">30</reflink>]) guide for collaborative analysis. Initially, data were open and axially coded by three of the authors (the CoP support members and an outside member) with weekly meetings to discuss general findings and begin to create categories. The PETs did not participate in the research analysis. Next, a codebook was developed and pilot tested as each team member analyzed the same materials and continued to meet weekly to add to categories or address exceptions. A fourth member of the research team (the interviewer) served as peer debriefer ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref53">33</reflink>]) by reviewing the codebook and providing comments, such as identifying areas of overlap between categories or challenging perceptions of participant commentary. Once all comments and suggestions were addressed, the final codebook was developed, themes and subthemes were finalized, and the rest of the data were coded. Throughout the process, a researcher journal was kept providing an audit trail of the process ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref54">25</reflink>]). Negative cases were sought out and discussed, and data triangulation was present using multiple data sources ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref55">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-12">Findings</hd> <p>Data analysis led to the development of three themes: (a) marginalization of subject and professional, (b) perceived student engagement with TPSR, and (c) teacher TPSR implementation. A key component to each of the themes was the approach the co-PETs utilized in managing both the successes and challenges faced throughout the school year.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-13">Marginalization of Subject and Professional</hd> <p>Throughout the year, the PETs described scenarios of marginalization related to their administration, other teachers and staff within their building, external contextual factors, and reaching a point of exhaustion as a result. Administrators consistently removed physical education space without warning and were typically not receptive to the teacher's feedback or advocacy efforts. In fact, having the ability to work with the students and put forth effort resulted in higher workloads and management expectations, as was evident in an interview when Tony said, "they know we're competent... they might not send it to the music teacher who calls the kids stupid, they know that we know what we're doing. We get sent extra stuff a lot because we're good at our jobs." Further, administration sent students that were displaying negative behaviors in their classrooms or other settings to Kara and Tony to manage as opposed to a behavior specialist because they managed their space well, so they would get an additional student to manage while trying to implement their planned lessons, which often led to "more behavior problems and if they run away, either Tony or I have to watch the class while the other runs after them" (Kara, Interview). There was also little value for professional achievements or development such as attending or presenting at state and national conferences. Administrators required Kara and Tony to find their own substitute teachers if they elected to attend a conference.</p> <p>The classroom teachers predominantly viewed physical education as ancillary in supporting their own success, also ignoring advocacy efforts from the physical educators. During a professional development session, Tony referred to a conversation with another teacher and their administrator following an observation and said,</p> <p>[They said] if y'all can have this level of management when you're outside with first grade classes, every teacher should be able to do it. And I was like, oh yeah, I mean we have great management, but it's because we teach this great content too, you know, I think part of it is because we teach TPSR.</p> <p>The feedback was positive, but it was solely focused on managing the group, not the positive approach toward innovative curriculum. There was one example that countered the typical lack of support that Tony mentioned in a critical incident form in reference to a classroom teacher:</p> <p>She was so excited that we are teaching self-control. She said that it is such a benefit for our students to be learning those types of skills. She asked if we came up with it ourselves or if it was part of our curriculum. It felt so good for someone to notice what we were doing, especially after feeling extra irrelevant during the day.</p> <p>Otherwise, Kara and Tony felt there was little recognition of the proactive efforts they were putting into their lessons, and they only got recognition for maintaining a safe and controlled space. These marginalizing behaviors made it difficult to maintain the motivation to implement the TPSR model and were a regular component of discussion during professional development (PD) meetings and within teacher reflections, as they sought advice in how to manage an unsupportive setting. About halfway through the year, Kara said, "We understand why people roll out the ball because it would be so easy to say hey... we are going to do 7Go Noodle videos and sit in a chair and look at each other." She reiterated this when talking about a day her administrators took away her gym first thing in the morning while Tony was out sick with COVID-19:</p> <p>I just went and cried in the bathroom for a minute, and then it was fine. But, I was just in my head the whole damn time like, Tony and I are the only people who are keeping ourselves accountable for being good teachers. They don't care what we do, and I'm like why do I even try sometimes?</p> <p>Factors such as timing of classes, holidays, illnesses, and other interruptions limited the PET's experiences. After experiencing consistent setbacks, the PETs stated that they felt burnt out and lacked motivation to continue best practice due to high stress and little recognition or reward.</p> <p>A critical component to combat this was that of the support within the CoP. Kara and Tony alternated who would advocate for their program to administration when issues or needs would arise. They also took turns providing a listening ear when advocacy was not effective. The teacher participants were critical to one another in commiserating on their challenges and being able to find humor in their setbacks. Tony wrote a critical incident regarding feeling burnout from lack of support and appreciation and said, "During the last two classes my motivation was at an all-time low. Luckily Kara was there to help with the class. If it had just been me by myself, I would not have delivered a high quality lesson." They motivated each other to continue in the profession despite the challenges and made each other's work environment more enjoyable. A simple example of this was during a professional development discussion centered on strategies for managing feelings of burnout when Tony said, "Some days at the end of the day, instead of thinking about more work, we just do like a puzzle game, or something to just take our minds off of it, and be like, all right, life goes on." In a later interview, he added,</p> <p>As far as each other, we definitely just come in and some mornings we look at each other. We're like, all right, let's do this... most of the time we're pretty good about, if someone's feeling down we try to at least be, you know, a little more positive to try and lift them back up.</p> <p>It was clear that they were leaning heavily on one another to stay motivated on a daily basis.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-14">Perceived Student Engagement With TPSR</hd> <p>Inevitably, a consistent point of conversation and focus within the CoP was that of the student's engagement with the model. The teacher participants eagerly highlighted student success with TPSR goal performance in physical activities. They also highlighted honest reflections, strategic conflict resolution, and following model-based protocols. Tony wrote a critical incident report and stated, "A first-grade student said he got really mad after losing a game and then used self-control to count to three to calm himself down before moving on to play someone else." Kara wrote about another proactive approach to conflict as a critical incident reflection:</p> <p>Today we introduced the conflict corner, a six-step process to help students solve problems on their own.... I had four different sets of students use the conflict corner to resolve their problems and they were all calm. I was so proud of them and very grateful for this resource. Problem solving can be a tough part of <emph>respect</emph> to learn and I was happy to see my students calmly talking and figuring out their issues.</p> <p>Kara and Tony also stressed times the students struggled, either in action or cognitively. There were many times that the PETs felt the students were not ready for components of the model, largely due to COVID-19 setbacks. The PETs struggled with how to progress the group forward. This was a focal point in one interview for Kara:</p> <p>I feel like sometimes it's like, I'm not upset like with the model, but I'm like, I feel like this isn't working with the kids. Like, I feel like they're not getting it, the first graders are like, yeah yeah self-control. And like, they just cannot physically get past like, it's just so surface level for them.... And it's like, I'm so sick of talking about self-control and them not having any self-control at all. And we provide examples. We'll like really point out the kids who are doing a good job of using self-control, let people share how they can use self-control better. And it's like, they're all like, [thumbs up] uh huh, got it. And they don't have it.</p> <p>In moments like these, they sought the experts' advice during professional development sessions or in other forms of reflection by providing anecdotes and sharing solutions they had developed that had not worked. For example, Kara wrote in her journal:</p> <p>While we were reviewing I asked students why we have these targets and most students said "so we don't get in trouble" or "so we don't get strikes." Initially these answers made me feel somewhat sad because I don't ever want students to feel like we are punishing them for not achieving the targets we have set for them. After some continued conversation and clarification between our PE expectations and the daily target students began to say things like "to be better friends" or "to know how to be nice to other people" which made me feel like TPSR is working. These conversations put into perspective that we need to spend even more time on the "why" of all these targets. What more could we do to make that happen?</p> <p>Again, co-teacher support was critical throughout student progression, both to celebrate the wins and to reassess the losses. When students did not apply TPSR goals, the co-PETs reassured one another they would get it another day and focused on the times that the students were successful during discussions in the CoP planned meetings, particularly toward the second half of the year. For example, during an interview, Kara and Tony were reminding each other of a positive outcome. Tony said, "Getting students that come up to us, once we got really comfortable with it and we knew they were really advancing with it, they were coming up to us during our connection time and saying, hey, when I was at home, I showed and I taught my brother self-control," to which Kara prompted, "Yeah, true!" They consistently worked to trial-and-error different approaches despite the apparent setbacks in student performance and when they experienced high levels of frustration.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-15">Teacher TPSR Implementation</hd> <p>Aside from the progression the students displayed and the challenges posed by administration (principal and vice principal) and external marginalizing influences, the PETs progressed in their use of the model over time. This progression was guided by and evident in their use of the CoP. Initial discussions and reflections around the model were more superficial, such as when Kara asked, "So relational time, do you usually do that during an instant activity?" during the first professional development meeting. Discussions and reflections closer to the end of the year indicated a deeper dive into TPSR through requests for the experts to review lesson plans. The experts provided additional ideas for integration of the TPSR goals into activities and teaching behaviors, and guidance in addressing transfer to settings outside of their teaching space. They found creative ways to incorporate the model into their specific setting in the form of visual aids, student-centered language, and more. For example, during a professional development session, Kara and Tony sought feedback on an idea they had to create a poster that integrated video game connections to the goals of the model to suit their students' interests: "Level one would be on the poster and below it would be self-control and a few examples of how to be respectful. It'll be a video game font and a little level up to level 2." They also held each other accountable, asking one another to be on the lookout for TPSR behaviors during lessons and to give each other feedback on a daily basis.</p> <p>Kara and Tony indicated that consistent use of the TPSR model provided the only constant in their daily professional lives, and the structure and overall goal provided a comfort despite the challenges faced. Kara wrote a critical incident to this point, saying "the shining light in this day was the TPSR schedule and backbone. We knew that even though our facilities and our physical activity plan were uncertain, we would still have our connection time, target talk, circle chat, and self-check." In this case, the TPSR model served to combat institutional factors that have the potential to lead to burnout or washout—it was something the PETs could always control and strive to achieve.</p> <p>Through regular discussions and reflections within their CoP meetings, Kara and Tony noted that they felt they successfully share responsibilities as well as plan and implement the model. While contributions varied, the shared goal and social component of the CoP allowed for both to develop and contribute to the overall purpose. Kara said,</p> <p>I feel like we continue to get to know each other better, and that just helps, like I know he's always got my back at school and like we're always on the same page with everything so if I didn't have a partner teacher who was supportive, I think it would be way harder to implement this program... it would just be all me figuring everything out and I'm not always the best at wording things and explaining things and so it's helpful to have somebody who like wants to do the same things and wants to help and wants to make these children better people at the end of the day, hopefully.</p> <p>This was reiterated by Tony: "I don't want to say I would have given up. I probably would have continued to try, but it definitely would have taken a lot longer and wouldn't be as high quality as it is with a supportive co-teacher." Both stated, half joking and half serious, that they would leave the profession if it were not for their CoP. The teachers indicated that the meetings with the TPSR experts were also beneficial in accountability and overall performance as they were new to the model. For example, Kara wrote the following journal entry:</p> <p>Last week, Tony and I discussed what we could do to keep the students engaged in the lesson. As we were trained to do in college, our brains immediately went to ways students could be active. For example, we thought about having some paper balls they could strike into buckets while waiting. After reading a comment from our expert support [regarding integration of TPSR goals into activities) we decided to have one student be the "reporter" and one student be the score keeper. The reporter's job is to watch the students play and think of helpful tips to give them about their striking or body positioning compared to the table. We could then prompt students about what a helpful voice sounds like or how to be helpful in a caring and respectful way. Adding this position directly ties into our target of caring as we are focusing on using our words and actions to help others.</p> <p>Further, both the PETs indicated that they had fully taken on TPSR as their top resource for lesson development and that they would continue to use the model moving forward. Tony said, "I've really enjoyed teaching this model so yeah, whatever teaching I do for the rest of my career I'll be implementing TPSR at some level." The two were already collaborating on strategies to enhance their performance and outcomes. They even found multiple opportunities to present their experiences at professional conferences despite a lack of support to do so, extending their knowledge beyond their CoP and contributing to the larger profession. While many of their struggles were not resolved, and there was more work to be done, they had found ways to cope and continue to learn throughout the CoP process.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-16">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to understand two teacher's experiences of implementing the TPSR model over the span of one academic year due to their development and participation within a CoP. Kara and Tony made efforts toward gradual empowerment and included regular reflections using the CoP and involvement in the study to enhance overall use of the TPSR model following the guidelines of consistent teacher reflections as suggested by Hellison ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref56">18</reflink>]). Through the CoP process, it was evident that the PETs began to explicitly address TPSR goals within their physical activities—though it was something they initially struggled with, as many new practitioners do. TPSR-Lite appeared to be present at the start, as the PETs navigated how to provide the students with more autonomy while still maintaining a safe and meaningful physical education experience; at times, it seemed as though they were taking a step backward in achieving the TPSR goals and that the students were unable to grasp the concepts. There was progress over time, such as the introduction of the conflict corner, and it is likely that the lack of knowledge and practice within the model required the TPSR-Lite approach prior to building to full use of the model's tenets ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>The CoP allowed Kara and Tony to learn about the model in detail, but they were not expected to do the model exactly as the experts had previously done. The CoP served as a starting point, prompting additional thought and practice regarding what would work or would not work for their specific setting and students. The CoP allowed for the PETs to follow Dunn and Doolittle ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref58">8</reflink>]) suggestion that ongoing collaborative professional development allows for site-specific TPSR implementation to flourish. Both the PETs made efforts to adjust the model to meet their students' needs, such as sharing the levels in a video game format. The CoP was enhanced as discussions and practice were enriched through the creation of a shared language, set of rules, and understanding to enhance collective communication and learning; a process identified as essential for CoP development by the situated learning theory ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref59">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref60">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>The model's daily structure suggested by Hellison ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref61">18</reflink>]) was helpful for Kara and Tony, providing a consistency that they needed to feel secure in their teaching abilities since they were unable to receive from their administration (i.e., even if they had to transition to a new space last minute or had added students that were not planned for due to behavior). The PETs chose to use TPSR based on their own needs and interests, and there was no outside source that mandated their use of the model such as an administrator, which Dunn and Doolittle ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref62">8</reflink>]) suggest indicates higher likelihood of implementation success and longevity. Despite starting with a commitment to learning and practicing TPSR, they had to overcome elements of their teacher training that encouraged them to focus on physical activity and/or physical skill practice over social and emotional, as well as the challenge of giving students' voice and leadership ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref63">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Time played a critical role, as teacher and student development was slow moving and rarely obvious in the moment aside from brief snapshots of success. It was not until reflections over halfway toward the end of the year did the PETs realize that they were successfully implementing the model in several ways with perceived positive student outcomes despite frustration and feelings of failure at times, which scholars have indicated is common for those new to model implementation ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref64">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref65">12</reflink>]). They relied on the use of the CoP to plan for and try experimental teaching styles and to openly reflect on the outcomes, a trend among CoP use for learning models-based pedagogy ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref66">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Their professional practice was made difficult by the consistent marginalization experienced from their school's administration and faculty. It was important that Kara and Tony regularly supported and lifted one another up as they navigated the challenges of implementing the TPSR model while feeling as though their subject did not matter to others in their setting, a process that is deemed essential in models-based practice ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>]). The many forms of marginalization (loss of space, lack of professional development support, and covering for classroom teachers; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref68">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref69">23</reflink>]) were present daily. Kara and Tony indicated that without the added CoP daily support, they likely would have burnt out due to exhaustion from dealing with challenges that limited their ability to do their job to the standard that they had set for themselves. Kara and Tony potentially could have enhanced their overall experience by recruiting other school personnel to join the CoP that had a shared interest in TPSR-related concepts, such as when a teacher had expressed support for what they were teaching. Developing cross-school collaborations may have reduced marginalization in the future as they connected with more allies and garnered support ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref70">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>The CoP developed their abilities to incorporate TPSR, but it also went beyond learning to provide enough community support for Kara and Tony to resist leaving the profession as many marginalized teachers do ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref71">28</reflink>]). It was important to manage the impact of marginalization in order to meet their shared goal. The PETs felt their work was unappreciated, and at times even considered a nuisance that was counter to the operations of the school, such as having to take days off to present on the TPSR model at a national conference. The use of the CoP was necessary for the PETs to stay committed to best practice and to continue their work toward TPSR implementation, as is evident in their consistent support of one another during both formal (i.e., professional developments) and informal (i.e., reflection time afterschool) collaborations. As would be expected, based on previous scholarship, it was difficult for the CoP to produce change without organizational support from their surrounding system ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref72">32</reflink>]). Their work was certainly limited due to opposing the expectations and norms of the setting ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref73">3</reflink>]), and much of the CoP experience was spent discussing how to act counter to the contradictory force of administration and lack of appreciation to support the internal joint enterprise.</p> <p>Kara and Tony initiated the CoP, each serving in legitimate peripheral participation roles as they navigated the group, developing into full participants as their practices and roles changed over time. They both utilized the experts and faculty member as resources and were equal contributors in the process, each identifying the strengths they could provide to accomplishing the CoP mission. The end of the academic year marked the end of the CoP, and both the PETs left feeling motivated to continue using TPSR and improving in their teaching despite the many challenges faced. Parker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref74">27</reflink>]) have indicated such motivation is a positive outcome of the CoP practice. Their professional relationship developed into a support system through the safe space and process-oriented approach of the CoP and expanded even further into a strong friendship, an outcome they will benefit from for years.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-17">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>The present CoP focused on model implementation but included aspects of combating and/or enduring marginalization by nature of Kara and Tony's setting, and additional work should be conducted in the use of CoPs specifically to assist the PETs in resisting negative perceived mattering and custodial work environments. Additional time in the CoP in the next academic year may have been beneficial for this, as the PETs had developed comfort with the TPSR model and could be ready to take on an additional challenge of combating marginalization in their setting. This study focused on the teacher's experiences; however, as indicated by Parker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref75">27</reflink>]), future work should pair teacher data with student data to measure change throughout the process of attaining a CoP goal.</p> <p>In addition, the PET education programs likely need to consider their approach toward teaching models and/or teaching styles rooted in the affective domain to enhance teacher practice and comfort in employing an approach that is not solely physical activity or skill development focus. Further, teacher education could train future PETs in the process of creating and maintaining a CoP to have ongoing support throughout their careers, particularly at the elementary level where isolation is common. Finally, the role of the teacher educators in the present CoP was not included in the data, but future work should expand on how university personnel can serve in a legitimate peripheral participation role to work toward shared goals within higher education and/or the K–12 level. This may also serve to expand the definition of a CoP as outside experts support those operating the program.</p> <hd id="AN0181888164-18">Conclusions</hd> <p>The findings from the CoP work presented answer a call for additional literature support related to learning and implementing the TPSR model in elementary physical education ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref79">27</reflink>]). Concepts such as TPSR-Lite for practitioners that are new to the model and making modifications to the TPSR structure to better suit their needs and the needs of their specific setting are important to address, and there is no one size fits all in teaching TPSR. Utilizing a CoP approach rooted in situated learning theory serves as an ideal format to engage the PETs in hands-on collaborative learning that results in sociocultural change. The TPSR model is particularly well suited for a CoP setting based on its call for continuous reflection and gradual empowerment. Finally, CoPs serve as a format for social support to overcome challenges associated with the marginalization of physical education, an important consideration in combating washout, burnout, and quality PETs exiting the profession.</p> <p>Simonton https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7261-2047</p> <p>Simonton https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3248-6629</p> <p>Alshuraymi https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4143-1902</p> <p>Shiver (vshiver@unm.edu) is corresponding author, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9362-2738</p> <ref id="AN0181888164-19"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref36" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Balague, G. (2016). Origins and evolution of the TPSR alliance community of practice. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 87 (5), 14–17. 10.1080/07303084.2016.1157384</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beaudoin, S., Brunelle, J.P., & Spallanzani, C. (2015). The journey of two physical education and health teachers in learning to teach personal and social responsibility. Revue PhénEPS/PHEnex Journal, 7 (2). https://ojs.acadiau.ca/index.php/phenex/article/view/1515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blankenship, S.S., & Ruona, W.E.A. (2007, February 28 – March 4). Professional learning communities and communities of practice: A comparison of models [Paper presentation]. Academy of Human Resource Development International Research Conference in The Americas, Indianapolis, IN, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref32" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Calleja, J., Mizzi, D., & Riolo, I. (2018). Teachers in communities of practice: Perspectives and experiences from three doctoral research studies. Teacher Education Policy and Practice International Perspectives and Inspirations,345–372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref31" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Casey, A. (2014). Models-based practice: Great white hope or white elephant?Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19 (1), 18–34. 10.1080/17408989.2012.726977</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Casey, A., & MacPhail, A. (2018). Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23 (3), 294–310. 10.1080/17408989.2018.1429588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref50" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Curtner-Smith, M.D., & Sofo, S. (2004). Preservice teachers' conceptions of teaching within sport education and multi-activity units. Sport, Education and Society, 9 (3), 347–377. 10.1080/13573320412331302430</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref4" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dunn, R.J., & Doolittle, S.A. (2020). Professional development for teaching personal and social responsibility: Past, present, and future. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 39 (3), 347–356. 10.1123/jtpe.2019-0226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref16" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Ensign, J., & Woods, A.M. (2017). Navigating the realities of the induction years: Exploring approaches for supporting beginning physical education teachers. Quest, 69 (1), 80–94. 10.1080/00336297.2016.1152983</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Escartí, A., Wright, P.M., Pascual, C., & Gutiérrez, M. (2015). Tool for Assessing Responsibility-based Education (TARE) 2.0: Instrument revisions, inter-rater reliability, and correlations between observed teaching strategies and student behaviors. Universal Journal of Psychology, 3 (2), 55–63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–358. 10.1037/h0061470</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fletcher, T., & Casey, A. (2014). The challenges of models-based practice in physical education teacher education: A collaborative self-study. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33 (3), 403–421. 10.1123/jtpe.2013-0109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaudreault, K.L., Richards, K.A.R., & Mays Woods, A. (2017). Initial validation of the physical education marginalization and isolation survey (PE-MAIS). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 21 (2), 69–82. 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1257994</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodyear, V.A., & Casey, A. (2015). Innovation with change: Developing a community of practice to help teachers move beyond the 'honeymoon' of pedagogical renovation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20 (2), 186–203. 10.1080/17408989.2013.817012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gordon, B. (2020). An alternative conceptualization of the teaching personal and social responsibility model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 91 (7), 8–14. 10.1080/07303084.2020.1781719</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, G., Parker, M., & Holt/Hale, S.A. (2020). Children moving: A reflective approach to teaching physical education (10th ed.) McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, S., Wright, P.M., Sievwright, R., & Robertson, S. (2019). Learning to use teaching for personal and social responsibility through action research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38 (4), 347–356. 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hellison, D. (2011). Teaching personal and social responsibility through physical activity. Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy A. (2014). Understanding continuing professional development: The need for theory to impact on policy and practice. Professional Development in Education, 40 (5), 688–697.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerno, S.J., Jr. (2008). Limitations of communities of practice: A consideration of unresolved issues and difficulties in the approach. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15 (1), 69–78. 10.1177/1548051808317998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lux, K., & McCullick, B.A. (2011). How one exceptional teacher navigated her working environment as the teacher of a marginal subject. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30 (4), 358–374. 10.1123/jtpe.30.4.358</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzler, M. (2017). Instructional models in physical education. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315213521</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). https://<ulink href="http://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ110/PLAW-107publ110.pdf">www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ110/PLAW-107publ110.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, M., Patton, K., Gonçalves, L., Luguetti, C., & Lee, O. (2022). Learning communities and physical education professional development: A scoping review. European Physical Education Review, 28 (2), 500–518.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, K.A.R., Gaudreault, K.L., Starck, J.R., & Woods, A.M. (2018). Physical education teachers' perceptions of perceived mattering and marginalization. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23 (4), 445–459. 10.1080/17408989.2018.1455820</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, K.A.R., & Gordon, B. (2017). Socialisation and learning to teach using the teaching personal and social responsibility approach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 8 (1), 19–38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, K.A.R., & Hemphill, M.A. (2018). A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37 (2), 225–231. 10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, K.A.R., Templin, T.J., & Graber, K. (2014). The socialization of teachers in physical education: Review and recommendations for future works. Kinesiology Review, 3 (2), 113–134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saint-Onge, H., & Wallace, D. (2012). Leveraging communities of practice for strategic advantage. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75. 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K.Denzin & Y.S.Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9 (5), 2–3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoon, K., & Armour, K.M. (2017). Mapping physical education teachers' professional learning and impacts on pupil learning in a community of practice in South Korea. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22 (4), 427–444.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Victoria Shiver; Kelly L. Simonton; Angela Simonton and Ali Alshuraymi</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref55"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1458170
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Utilizing a Community of Practice for Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility: A Case Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Victoria+Shiver%22">Victoria Shiver</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9362-2738">0000-0001-9362-2738</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kelly+L%2E+Simonton%22">Kelly L. Simonton</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7261-2047">0000-0001-7261-2047</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Angela+Simonton%22">Angela Simonton</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3248-6629">0000-0002-3248-6629</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ali+Alshuraymi%22">Ali Alshuraymi</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4143-1902">0009-0001-4143-1902</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Teaching+in+Physical+Education%22"><i>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 44(1):91-99.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Responsibility%22">Social Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept%22">Self Concept</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Responsibility%22">Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communities+of+Practice%22">Communities of Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disadvantaged%22">Disadvantaged</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Teachers%22">Minority Group Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Environment%22">Work Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Personnel%22">School Personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Bias%22">Social Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Recognition%22">Professional Recognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0295
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0273-5024<br />1543-2769
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose was to understand two teachers' experiences of implementing the teaching personal and social responsibility model over the span of one academic year due to their development and participation within a community of practice. A case study approach was utilized to gather and analyze qualitative data; three themes were developed. The teachers were marginalized by school personnel and received little recognition for their efforts. Student success was reported, but students were not ready to learn components of the model. Model implementation improved over time. Support from their community of practice allowed for reassurance, overcoming frustration, routine development, and value of the model. Without the community of practice, teachers indicated high potential for burnout of model use due to exhaustion associated with marginalization. The teaching personal and social responsibility model is well suited for a community of practice based on its call for continuous reflection and gradual empowerment.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1458170
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1458170
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0295
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 91
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Social Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communities of Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disadvantaged
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Group Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Recognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Utilizing a Community of Practice for Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility: A Case Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Victoria Shiver
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kelly L. Simonton
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Angela Simonton
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ali Alshuraymi
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0273-5024
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1543-2769
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1