BEDAH JURNAL INTERNASIONAL “RE-TEORISASI INKLUSI DAN MEMBINGKAI ULANG PRAKTIK INKLUSIF DALAM PENDIDIKAN JASMANI “

 

MATA KULIAH

PENDIDIKAN INKLUSIF

 

TUGAS BEDAH JURNAL INTERNASIONAL 

“RE-TEORISASI INKLUSI DAN MEMBINGKAI ULANG PRAKTIK INKLUSIF DALAM PENDIDIKAN JASMANI “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oleh:

 

KATA PENGANTAR

 

 

            Segala puji bagi Allah yang telah memberikan penulis kemudahan sehingga dapat menyelesaikan makalah ini. Tanpa pertolongan-Nya mungkin penyusun tidak akan sanggup menyelesaikannya dengan baik. Shalawat dan salam semoga terlimpah curahkan kepada baginda tercinta kita yakni Nabi Muhammad SAW.

            Makalah ini di susun agar pembaca dapat memperluas ilmu tentang “Pendidikan Inklusif”, yang saya sajikan berdasarkan pengamatan dari berbagai sumber. Makalah ini di susun oleh penyusun dengan berbagai rintangan. Baik itu yang datang dari diri penyusun maupun yang datang dari luar. Namun dengan penuh kesabaran dan terutama pertolongan dari Tuhan akhirnya makalah ini dapat terselesaikan.

           Semoga makalah ini dapat memberikan pengetahuan yang lebih luas kepada pembaca. Walaupun makalah ini memiliki kelebihan dan kekurangan. Penyusun membutuhkan kritik dan saran dari pembaca yang membangu. Terimakasih.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BAB I

RE-THEORISING INCLUSION AND REFRAMING INCLUSIVE PRACTICE IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION

By

Dawn Penney, Ruth Jeanes, Justen O'Connor & Laura Alfrey

ABSTRACT

        Inclusion remains a key political agenda for education internationally and is a matter that teachers across subject communities and phases of education are challenged to respond to. In physical education specifically, research continues to highlight that current practice often reaffirms rather than challenges established inequities. This paper critically explores the understandings of inclusion that contribute to this situation and addresses the challenge of advancing inclusion in physical education from conceptual and pedagogical viewpoints. DeLuca’s [(2013). “Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Educational Inclusivity.” Canadian Journal of Education 36 (1): 305–348] conceptualisation of normative, integrative, dialogical and transgressive approaches to inclusion is employed as a basis for critical analysis of current practice and for thinking afresh about inclusive practice in physical education in relation to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Analysis informs the presentation of a set of principles that are designed to assist teachers and teacher educators to transform inclusive practice in physical education and in doing so, realise visions for physical education that are articulated in international policy guidelines and contemporary curriculum developments.

Introduction

      Teachers are acknowledged as playing a central role in promoting and supporting inclu-sivity in classrooms. Furthermore, policy frameworks such as the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2015), together with contemporary curriculum texts such as the Australian Curriculum (ACARA 2016), clearly establish that support for inclusive learning is not merely desirable – it is a requirement and expectation for all teachers. Inter-nationally, a decade ago Ainscow (2005, 109) suggested that inclusion was the ‘big chal-lenge facing school systems throughout the world’. Subsequently, inclusion has been a policy drive embraced by many governments as a strategy for tackling broader social inequalities (Florian and Rouse 2009). In our own context of Victoria, Australia, the State Government’s targets for education published in 2015 reaffirmed a focus on ‘excel-lence and equity’ and a commitment to reducing systemic educational and social disad-vantage in the state (Department of Education and Training 2015).

 

  Inclusion is thus a critical political agenda and a matter that teachers across different subject communities and phases of education are challenged to respond to. In physical education specifically, the UNESCO guidelines for Quality Physical Education (UNESCO 2015) reflect that inclusion is an integral and essential feature of quality pro-gramme development and pedagogy. The publication of these guidelines also reflected, however, that addressing inclusion remains a notable challenge for the physical education field and profession. Flintoff and Fitzgerald (2012, 16) captured the extent of this challenge in stating that the physical education profession appears ‘ill-equipped to acknowledge, celebrate and plan for difference’. Other research supports their stance, pointing to the apparent failure of teachers and teacher educators to challenge the deep-rooted historical practices that exist within the subject (Grimminger 2014; Munk and Agergaard 2015). This is despite research that has provided clear insights into the exclusionary nature of physical education, with studies highlighting that in many instances physical education is structured and delivered in ways that establish and maintain exclusionary discourses, while continuing to privilege individuals who are white (Flintoff 2012), masculine (Brown and Evans 2004) and of high sporting/motor-skill ability (Fitzgerald 2005).

 

 This paper reflects our view that progressing inclusion within physical education requires concerted efforts to disrupt traditional norms and accepted practices that remain embedded in dominant pedagogic and policy discourses internationally. In this respect, we echo Slee and Allan’s (2001, 117) emphasis that ‘inclusive education represents a fundamental paradigm shift and needs to be presented and recognised as such’. While acknowledging that multiple factors have contributed to the sustained failure of the pro-fession to meaningfully engage with inclusion, including teachers’ beliefs and values (Kulinna and Cothran 2017), dominant practices and cultures within school environments (Gerdin, Philpot, and Smith 2016), and wider political structures (Evans and Bairner 2012), this research particularly responds to the documented lack of knowledge of what inclusive physical education might look like in practice (Morley et al. 2005). Furthermore, it addresses the need for new theoretical insights to be accompanied by an explicit articu-lation of their implications for pedagogical practices and for research to therefore be con-cerned with both how inclusion is being thought about in physical education and what is envisaged, experienced and accepted as ‘inclusive practice’.

 

 We begin by providing an overview of the term ‘inclusion’ as it relates to physical edu-cation in Australian and international contexts. Drawing on international research we point to limitations of current approaches towards inclusion in physical education, and discuss concerns that contemporary curriculum, pedagogy and assessment practices var-iously contribute to the legitimation and reproduction of inequity (Evans and Davies 1986, 1993; Penney and Evans 2013). This provides the basis from which we utilise DeLuca’s (2013) interdisciplinary framework to explore a transformational approach to inclusion in physical education from theoretical and pedagogical perspectives. Our analysis illus-trates the different meanings that are generated for ‘inclusive practice’ from each of the four approaches to inclusion that DeLuca (2013) outlines. We argue that DeLuca’s concep-tualisation of dialogical and transgressive approaches offers important potential to open up opportunities for difference and diversity to be expressed and celebrated in physical education. Having explored the conceptualisations theoretically, we extend our analysis to address what is required in practice for this potential to be realised. Here we examine the practical implications for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, and emphasise that trans-formative efforts need to engage with each of these coherently in order for new under-standings of inclusion to be effectively embedded in teaching and learning. The paper concludes by addressing the agendas generated from this work for future policy, practice and research in physical education.

 

Inclusion: a philosophical approach and pedagogical challenge

      Inclusion is a term that continues to be nebulous, contested and open to numerous interpretations (Lewis 2016). As Spaaij, Magee, and Jeanes (2014, 12) highlight, it is a term that we should be posing critical questions of, including, ‘inclusion into what? On whose terms? In whose interests?’. For Ainscow (2005, 109), inclusive education is a ‘reform that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners’ and should lead to the elimination of social exclusion that stems from ‘attitudes and responses to diversity in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability’. In this paper we adopt a simi-larly broad conceptualisation of inclusive education and view it as the translation of a basic human right and an essential foundation for a just society. Our use of the term is also anchored in acknowledgement of the social value of difference (Evans and Davies 1993; DeLuca 2013) and accompanying recognition that curriculum, pedagogy and assessment are key inter-related mechanisms for the transmission of social values (Bernstein 1990; Penney et al. 2009). Bernstein’s (1990) theoretical frame makes explicit the complex ways in which education, and more specifically, normalised curriculum structures, peda-gogic practices and assessment processes are shaped by dominant discourses, and simul-taneously serve to reaffirm or challenge those discourses and the social relations that they privilege. We therefore consider inclusion to refer to the way teachers and schools value equally the accomplishments, attitudes and wellbeing of every young person while provid-ing a curriculum that is relevant and meaningful (Hayes and Stidder 2003); a pedagogy that embraces difference as a resource to enrich teaching and learning (Evans and Davies 1993); and approaches to assessment that enable diverse abilities to be recognised and celebrated (Hay and Penney 2013). From this perspective, the key task is ‘not to defend the need to accommodate learner differences by the provision of something “differ-ent from” or “additional to”, as defined in the legislation, but to challenge complacency about what is “generally available”’ (Florian and Rouse 2009, 598). As we illustrate in the section that follows, research suggests that significant work is needed to support any challenge to ‘what is generally available in physical education’.

 

Physical education: an ongoing history of exclusionary practices

Over two decades ago Evans, Davies, and Penney (1996, 167) noted that:

…        the most many [young people] … learn [in and from physical education] is that they have neither ability, status nor value, and that the most judicious course of action to be taken in protection of their fragile educational physical identities is to adopt a plague-like avoidance of its damaging activities.

…                As indicated above, physical education has repeatedly been shown to align with and reinforce particular types of hegemonic discourses that privilege a narrow group of (white, middle-class, motor-skilled, masculine) students. Enacted in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, this translates to many teachers focusing on a range of abilities and skills that relatively few students can excel at performing (Penney and Evans 2013). Yet, along-side such observations, it is important to acknowledge an extensive line of research in physical education that has sought to progressively advance understandings of equity and inclusion (see, for example, Evans 1993; Hayes and Stidder 2003; Evans and Davies 2004; Dowling, Fitzgerald, and Flintoff 2012; Hay and Penney 2013). This literature fea-tures prominently in many teacher education courses and remains an important foun-dation for our own work. Internationally, various policy developments have also sought to provide a basis for advancing inclusion in physical education and go at least some way towards challenging embedded inequities (UNESCO 2015; Wilkinson 2017). Never-theless, research continues to indicate the limited impact that policy developments have had and can be expected to have, in practice. Against this backdrop, we propose a trans-formative approach and present a framework that brings new theoretical perspectives to thinking about inclusion in physical education.

…                 

…                 

…                Advancing inclusion: a transformative approach

…                 

…                There is a general consensus that inclusive practice requires the transformation of existing educational systems (Artiles, Harris-Murri, and Rostenberg 2006, 260). Within Australia, the contemporary policy context of curriculum reform reflects a system-wide, national commitment to providing all students with access to quality schooling free from discrimi-nation and the promotion of personalised learning that can fulfil the diverse capabilities of each young Australian (MCEECDYA 2008). In the introduction to the Australian Curri-culum, it is emphasised that ‘All students are entitled to rigorous, relevant and engaging learning programs drawn from a challenging curriculum that addresses their individual learning needs’ (ACARA 2016). New state curriculum texts that have followed the national policy lead, such as the Victorian Curriculum (VCAA 2015), have echoed this emphasis.

…                 

…                In the learning area of Health and Physical Education, new curriculum texts provide distinct opportunities for sociocultural and socio-critical perspectives to be brought to the fore of curriculum planning, pedagogical approaches and assessment in PE (see, for example, Leahy, O’Flynn, and Wright 2013). New official texts remain, however, inevitably open to varied interpretations and responses and do not change the reality that in the context of broader policy, school structures and school cultures, teachers exert a consider-able influence over young people’s engagement with physical education and their sub-sequent feelings of inclusion/exclusion. As Flintoff and Fitzgerald (2012, 11) observe:

…                 

…                [physical education] teachers … are involved in hundreds of decisions and interactions … that will determine who gets made to feel different, who learns and experiences success and conversely those who don’t. Whilst everyone should have an equal right to achieve edu-cational or sporting merits, or to be healthy, the reality we know is somewhat different.

…                 

…                Following Noddings (1993) we suggest that inclusive policy needs to be enacted in the context of an encompassing moral position on education. Such a moral position needs a theoretical grounding to guide transformative developments in physical education

…                policy and practice. Amidst multiple discourses arising from different disciplinary per-spectives and from interest in various marginalised groups (defined by gender, class, ability, ethnicity) in physical education, we turn to an interdisciplinary framework to provide a reference point to prospectively unify and extend thinking about inclusion in physical education.

…                 

…                An inclusion framework for education

…                 

…                Here we explore the potential that DeLuca’s (2013) interdisciplinary framework for edu-cation inclusivity offers to reimagine and transform curriculum, pedagogy and assessment within physical education, understood as three inter-related mechanisms via which mess-ages about inclusion (and wider social values) are communicated to young people. We regard DeLuca’s (2013) framework as one of the few that has sought to provide a holistic overview of inclusion, rather than focusing on inclusive practice for particular groups of students who are categorised, labelled and targeted (e.g. as those ‘with disabilities’). The framework thereby helps reveal the flawed nature of categorisation as a basis for thinking about inclusion in education. Drawing on perspectives from disability studies, multicultur-alism and anti-racist education, gender and women’s education and queer studies, DeLuca outlines four conceptions of inclusion: normative, integrative, dialogical and transgressive, which represent a continuum of inclusive approaches.

…                 

…                DeLuca (2013, 326) suggests that normative approaches to inclusion focus on the ‘active assimilation and normalisation of minority individuals to a dominant cultural standard’. Thus, while non-dominant groups are recognised, they can only be included if they ‘assim-ilate to the dominant standard’. Within a normative conception of inclusion, the dominant group is not required to have any interest in the minority group or consider their role in promoting the exclusion of that minority. An integrative approach ‘accepts and legitimises the presence of difference in society through formal modification’ (2013, 332). Integrative approaches often include segregated opportunities which highlight the ‘duality between the dominant group and the minority group’ (2013, 332).

…                 

…                Within DeLuca’s (2013) dialogical conception, the dominant group continues to be evident as such, but at the same time, cultural complexity is recognised and celebrated. According to DeLuca (2013, 334), dialogical interactions ‘bring forward knowledge as rooted in the lived, cultural experiences of diverse students’. Dialogical conceptions aim to extend thinking and practice beyond the familiar, gathering ideas from different sources with the intention that all students will be enabled to participate fully in learning without prejudice. This conception aligns with Evans and Davies (1993) challenge to phys-ical educationalists to celebrate diversity as a resource that can enrich learning for all while opening up learning opportunities in physical education to many students who would otherwise be marginalised or excluded.

…                 

…                With a transgressive conception of inclusion, individual diversity is ‘used as a vehicle for the generation of new knowledge and learning experiences’ (DeLuca 2013, 334). There is no dominant cultural group, only overlays of divergent cultures that ‘creates a shared and emergent learning’ (334). DeLuca (2013) thereby highlights the need for society to recog-nise the very different ways of being human and being different. Transgressive conceptions thus begin to challenge educators to consider unclassified diversities, or cultural complex-ities. Such conceptions prompt awareness of the limitations of stereotypically labelling of

…                difference that emphasise a single-issue focus (Flintoff, Fitzgerald, and Scraton 2008) and/ or that focus on some differences and not others. Transgressive thinking thus calls for rec-ognition that various ‘isms’ (for example, sexism, classism, racism …) are socially con-structed and hence, need to be problematised. A transgressive approach is thus intended to value individual difference and empower individuals, by sharing uniqueness and leveraging it to be more authentically ‘ … about the self, others and the world’ (DeLuca 2013, 335). We suggest that this aligns with and usefully advances work in phys-ical education that has called for intersectionality to be adopted as a basis for (re-)thinking approaches to inclusion (Azzarito and Solomon 2005; Flintoff, Fitzgerald, and Scraton 2008). More specifically, we contend that DeLuca’s (2013) work provides a useful frame of reference that can provoke questions and generate fresh ideas about how physical edu-cation teachers and pre-service teachers understand inclusion and inclusive practice. Below we present our analysis of the alignment of various approaches to inclusion in phys-ical education with DeLuca’s four conceptualisations. In doing so, we establish a basis from which to discuss more specific ways in which to extend transformative thinking about inclusion and inclusive practice in physical education.

…                 

A conceptual analysis of inclusion in physical education

…                 

Normative and integrative inclusion

…                 

…                Much of what happens in physical education classrooms, we argue, is situated across the normative and integrative conceptions of inclusion. With normative conceptions, the role of education is essentially to ensure conformity to a particular defined standard identity that is explicitly and implicitly ‘written into’ and legitimated by curriculum, as represented in official texts and physical education programmes in schools. Physical education curri-culum itself then becomes narrowly conceived. The sustained dominance of a multi-activity based curriculum and particular sports and games in physical education (Kirk 2010) and teachers’ tendencies to prioritise particular movement experiences that are nor-malised ‘as PE’. The dominant curriculum form privileges and effectively only enables the expression of particular movement skills, knowledge and understandings. Students who cannot perform this specific skill set to a level that is required and/or expected, and/or stu-dents who lack prior exposure to the activities that are privileged, are marginalised and may well disengage from physical education (Evans and Davies 1993; Azzarito, Solmon, and Harrison 2006; Hay and Lisahunter 2006). A normative stance is also reflected in cur-riculum that directs attention to human deficits, illness, negative individual risk beha-viours and societal risks (McCuaig, Quennerstedt, and Macdonald 2013). Pedagogically and in assessment, the normative perspective plays out in deficit approaches that focus on what students are lacking (e.g. fitness, resilience, skill) in relation to specified standards and norms.

…                 

…                None of the comments are intended to imply that teachers’ efforts are not well inten-tioned. Rather, it is to acknowledge the thinking that lies behind normative-based prac-tices, with teachers seeking to help those students who are positioned and labelled as unskilled to become skilled, unfit to become fit and non-sporty to want to play the versions of sport that align with dominant social and cultural values and interests (Azzarito et al. 2017). Lessons stemming from this orientation are frequently characterised by teacher-led

…                approaches with teachers seeking to support students to reach proficiency that aligns with a particular standard of motor skill, fitness or tactical competency, often linked to a set of culturally specific and gendered sporting activities (Evans 2004; Penney and lisahunter 2006; Flintoff 2008; Kirk 2010). The approach hinges on notions of ‘equal access’ to a minimum standard of physical, technical or tactical performativity that is regarded as necessary to unlock access to a lifetime of sporting endeavour and as others have pre-viously identified, is inherently flawed as a basis for thinking about equity and inclusion in physical education (Evans and Davies 1993; Wilkinson 2017).

…                 

…                Integrative approaches have emerged in part in response to critiques of the exclusionary nature of physical education curriculum. Rather than radically changing content, integra-tive approaches feature adaptation to accommodate a broader range of young people within existing structures. Gender-differentiated curriculum provision (with, for example, girls offered netball while boys are offered rugby) and the practice of streaming on the basis of ability defined in relation to sport-based performance criteria, perhaps best characterise ‘inclusive’ PE curriculum underpinned by integrative principles (Hills and Croston 2012; Wilkinson 2017). Teachers who align with an integrative conception of inclusion may use pedagogies that acknowledge a need for differentiation, but are seeking to achieve this by adapting activities that in and of themselves continue to reinforce stereotypical thinking. For example, a teacher may seek to address diverse abil-ities by dividing a large court space up into three game areas and assigning students to high, medium and low ability courts based upon a prior skill test. This may enable engage-ment of some students with diverse abilities, but such modifications are focused on assist-ing students to achieve a fixed norm in a way that highlights difference as a deficit to be accommodated. We suggest that many of the models that emerged through attempts to introduce more inclusive pedagogies to physical education, including Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) (Bunker and Thorpe 1986), Game Sense (Light 2012) and Sport Education (Siedentop 1994), could be framed as integrative. These models have undoubtedly prompted changes to teaching and learning in physical education, including a greater focus on problem-based and co-operative learning within modified small-sided games, and student-led learning and peer-teaching in team contexts (Casey 2017). As others have acknowledged, however, pedagogical changes are often made within the context of a curriculum that remains dominated by ‘traditional’ competitive team games and that as a consequence, may reinforce gender and social class norms (Brock, Rovegno, and Oliver 2009). Further, following Evans and Bairner (2012), we suggest that these, as all models, need to be recognised as socially encoded (reflecting particular distributions of power and control) and as always received in specific contexts of ‘opportunity’.

…                 

…                In relation to assessment, as Penney, Brooker, Hay and Gillespie outline, ‘traditional assessment approaches in PE have often been product orientated, focusing on components of fitness, or de-contextualised, as in the case of assessment of isolated skills’ (2009, 43). Fitness testing in physical education is a pedagogical practice that illustrates efforts to address inclusion in ways that reflect normative and integrative orientations. Fitness testing often centres on a level of fitness that is presented as ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’ and that students should be seeking to attain and against which student success may be judged (Alfrey and Gard 2014). An integrative approach is illustrated when teachers adapt this practice to establish individual fitness targets and challenge students to ‘beat

…                their personal bests’. How ‘fitness’ is being defined and measured is rarely questioned however, and those students who are positioned as ‘lower ability’ on the basis of the par-ticular aspects of fitness and measures privileged, remain fully aware that their personal best is below what is presented as ‘normal’. Moving beyond normative and integrative approaches requires a willingness to question assumptions that underpin established cur-riculum, pedagogical and assessment practices and that simultaneously contribute to the reproduction of inequities in physical education.

…                 

…                 

Dialogical and transgressive inclusion in PE

…                 

…                Within dialogical and transgressive conceptualisations of inclusion, what counts as legit-imate and valued knowledge does not come exclusively from a historically reproduced set of games, activities, dances or movement forms. Rather, what is prioritised is a bringing forward of ‘ … knowledge as rooted in the lived, cultural experiences of diverse students, whether already present in the learning environment or not’ (DeLuca 2013, 334). Moving towards dialogical and transgressive approaches in physical education therefore requires an appreciation that there are many different ways of moving, being healthy and physically active and a commitment to this diversity being reflected in curriculum. That is, the shift in conceptualisation demands that we revisit the skills, knowledge, understandings and movement contexts that are assumed to legitimately hold centre stage in physical edu-cation curriculum. Linked to this, DeLuca (2013) further highlights that dialogical and transgressive approaches should promote spaces for deep and critical learning. In physical education we associate this with efforts to support students to question matters such as what it means to be ‘healthy’, ‘active’ or ‘fit’, through curriculum offerings, pedagogical approaches and assessment tasks that all align with this critical stance. Furthermore, the transgressive conceptualisation calls for curriculum that legitimises and prioritises exploration of the types of movement experience that are personally meaningful and rewarding to students.

…                 

…                UNESCO’s Quality Physical Education guidelines (2015) affirm such an orientation, identifying flexibility, adaptation to maximise relevance, and shifting to more student-centred pedagogies, as fundamental in efforts to address inclusion in physical education. Examples of dialogical and transgressive approaches are also clearly evident within pockets of practice in physical education internationally. Ennis (1999) exploration of culturally rel-evant curriculum for disengaged girls illustrated the importance of foregrounding partici-pants’ perspectives in seeking to develop curriculum that is more meaningful to more students (and in Ennis’ work, specifically those girls who found little connection with tra-ditional physical education curriculum). Almost two decades on it is important to acknowledge that such approaches have remained relatively marginal. Petrie and col-leagues’ research with teachers and students in New Zealand primary schools (Petrie et al. 2013) and Enright and O’Sullivan’s (2010) work focusing on young women’s partici-pation in physical education are more recent examples that illustrate how dialogical and transgressive approaches can be taken forward in contemporary physical education. Petrie et al.’s (2013) ‘Everybody counts’ curriculum particularly reveals the powerful role of dis-course in shaping – and potentially transforming – teaching and learning expectations in physical education. Critically in relation to the prompts that DeLuca’s framework presents, Petrie et al.’s (2013) and Enright and O’Sullivan’s (2010) projects involved teachers

…                supporting students in a process that promotes student engagement in the critique and creative reimagining of their physical education experience to embrace forms of move-ment, reasons for moving and ways of moving that are meaningful to students. O’Connor, Jeanes, and Alfrey’s (2016) development of curriculum grounded in inquiry-based learning and featuring co-construction and negotiation of learning is another recent example that illustrates how students can be supported to explore and create movement opportunities that are authentic and prospectively, sustainable beyond the classroom. Notably, in this instance, visions of movement underpinning the curriculum ‘re-visioning’ extended beyond organised sport to informal sport and physical activity that could have a legitimate place in student’s lives as a means of transport, recreation and social connection.

…                 

…                As the above examples indicate, particular pedagogies and most notably, inquiry-based learning and critical pedagogy, align with dialogical and transgressive approaches. Culpan and Bruce’s (2007) development of critical pedagogy in physical education usefully high-lights the extension to notions of student-centred pedagogy that are crucial to progress dialogical and transgressive conceptualisations of inclusion in practice. As Culpan and Bruce (2007, 3) explain, critical pedagogy focuses on emancipation and social justice and enables students to ‘obtain the knowledge, skills and power necessary to gain a greater degree of control over their individual and collective lives’. Culpan and Bruce (2007) argue that the use of critical pedagogy within physical education needs to move beyond critical thinking and ‘develop further the entirety of the critical pedagogy cycle’ to encourage students to generate a transformation of ideologies and structures that may restrict their enjoyment of physical education and physical activity and sport beyond schools. Students’ own physical education programmes, sport and physical activity offerings beyond the curriculum, funding priorities and assessment frameworks, may all prospectively be a focus for critical inquiry with the intent of transformation. Again we suggest that the international examples above usefully demonstrate the practical appli-cation of such thinking to fundamentally change the way in which physical education is conceived and organised within schools and to ensure that it is meaningful for young people.

…                 

…                We also echo Hay and Penney (2009, 2013) in highlighting the need for critical peda-gogy to inform transformative thinking about assessment in physical education. As Hay and Penney (2009, 398) outline, ‘socially just approaches to assessment provide opportu-nities for all students to engage in assessment, receive attention and recognition for dem-onstrations of performance, and learn as a consequence of their engagement in assessment’. They further suggest that inclusive assessment relies not only on the diversity of tasks on offer and modes of possible response (including, for example, use of oral assess-ments, exhibitions, peer assessment, portfolios and video (see Mintah 2003), but also requires the opportunity for all students to be clear on how they are expected to engage with them. Hence, ‘adequate [and necessarily varied] task scaffolding’ and ‘explicit and understandable criteria’ (Hay and Penney 2009, 399) are fundamental within assessment approaches that claim to address concerns for inclusion. To reflect dialogical or transgres-sive thinking, however, there is a need for assessment processes that enable students to negotiate the assessment tasks, methods and timelines that will best enable them to demonstrate their learning and abilities in physical education. This aligns with Hay and Penney’s (2009) discussion of ‘quality’ assessment, characterised by assessment practices that support learning, are authentic, integrated, valid and socially just.

…                 

…                As teacher educators, we acknowledge that inclusion is impacted by structures well beyond the reach of the teacher and that developments such as those discussed above are by no means easy to progress. We nevertheless remain invested in finding ways to support teachers to actively disrupt long-established patterns of inequity in physical edu-cation and thereby advance inclusion as a central facet of quality provision (UNESCO 2015). Drawing insight from our conceptually informed analysis, we propose a set of prin-ciples for future teachers and teacher educators to adopt as a basis for transforming the notion of inclusive practice in physical education.

…                 

Redefining inclusive practice in PE

…                 

…                As indicated above, in this section we seek to make explicit the practical implications of the paradigm shift that we have argued is needed and that DeLuca’s (2013) framework pro-vides a foundation for. Following Penney et al. (2009) we retain the emphasis that any approach must engage with, and seek alignment of, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment.

 

Broaden the physical education curriculum

…                 

…                According to Penney and Jess (2004, 275), as it has been traditionally presented, physical education is ‘destined to have partial and short-lived relevance to many people’s lives’. Taking forward DeLuca’s (2013) transgressive perspective particularly challenges us to re-think the starting point for curriculum planning and specifically, start from an explora-tion and understanding of how different types of movement variously features in people’s lives. Hence, we contend that developing inclusive practice needs to be underpinned by a willingness and commitment to exploring how more diverse ways of learning ‘in, through and about’ movement (Arnold 1979)¹ can be reflected in curriculum, pedagogy and assess-ment. Considering what might constitute a curriculum that connects with the notion of ‘a diverse range of lifetime physical activities’ requires first and foremost, an openness to listen to the stories, views and feelings of all learners, and to accept that interests in and attitudes towards movement that may well contrast to our own. We suggest that currently, physical education curriculum too often makes limited connections to the ways of moving and movement skills that are important to young people now and in the future. As Penney and Jess (2004) illustrated, a lifetime of physical activity sees people engaging in many forms of movement for a range of reasons, including movement to meet the physical demands of work and everyday life tasks, social engagement in physical activities and health-related participation, as well as performance-oriented involvement in sport. From this perspective, broadening the movement experiences that feature in physical edu-cation and particularly, shifting thinking about the skills, knowledge and understanding, that should be at the fore of curriculum, is critical to enhancing relevance, authenticity and we contend, inclusivity. We suggest that taking a transgressive approach to designing an inclusive curriculum requires thinking afresh about the learning that is required for a cur-riculum to effectively extend each students’ individual physical, social and emotional capa-bility to engage in movement and physical activity for purposes that they value and in contexts that they can relate to now and in the future.

…                As indicated earlier in this paper, shifting towards dialogical and/or transgressive visions of inclusion also requires a move away from deficit-based thinking about students’ learn-ing needs and towards the sort of pedagogical approaches that align with a strengths-based orientation. We acknowledge that it is not easy to resist linear and hierarchical concepts of ‘development’ (skill development, growth, fitness) as the basis for thinking about prospec-tive grouping and differentiation of learning. Such approaches are also underpinned by very genuine concerns to ‘cater for all students’ and extend opportunities for learning. Yet, we contend that actively exploring individual difference in relation to skills, knowl-edge, understandings and interests in the ways discussed above, should not only re-frame curriculum – it should also re-frame pedagogy and assessment. Hence, from a pedagogical perspective, re-visioning inclusive practice must start with a willingness to engage in co-constructing curriculum with students and a focus on facilitating students’ individual progress and growth through supported student-led learning that is character-ised by choice and collaborative learning opportunities and that therefore, embraces personal relevance. While we remain acutely aware that official curriculum requirements, institutional expectations and/or arrangements for learning, and pressures arising from wider education policy, may all generate tensions that inhibit developments along the ped-agogical lines being advocated (see, for example, O’Connor, Jeanes, and Alfrey 2016) we also retain the view that all of these factors simultaneously create possibilities for creative and specifically, transformative pedagogy to be explored in physical education (Penney 2013).

…                 

…                 

Broaden what counts for and as assessment

…                 

…                Assessment in physical education, as in other subjects, is immensely powerful in con-veying the differential value of particular skills, knowledge and understanding to stu-dents. Furthermore, both formal and informal assessment in physical education often communicate very publicly notions of ability that are notably narrow (Evans 2004; Penney and lisahunter 2006; Hay and Penney 2013). In seeking advances in inclusive assessment practice, we echo Hay and Penney’s (2013) emphasis of the need to critically examine what skills, knowledge and understanding assessment addresses, privileges and marginalises and in parallel, address how assessment occurs in PE, and particularly, how students are involved. Taking forward DeLuca’s (2013) transgressive conceptualisations clearly requires that development of inclusive assess-ment practice needs to start with students’ personal understanding and analysis of their strengths and aspirations as learners in physical education. It then needs to involve a collaborative process of negotiation to identify assessment tasks and modes of assessment that will inform and support ongoing learning, while also enabling stu-dents to demonstrate progression in learning that aligns with formal curriculum expec-tations but that also remains highly authentic.

…                 

…                Choice and flexibility are thus fundamental to inclusive assessment practice that fore-grounds a genuine concern to celebrate individual difference and not merely accommo-date it. Further, we identify the process as characterised by student ownership of assessment that clearly builds their assessment literacy (Hay and Penney 2013), and

…                that consistently seeks to maximise individual students’ opportunities for learning and success in physical education. We see such practice as characterised by diversity in the learning focus that is at the fore of any individual student’s assessment at a specific point in time, negotiated tasks to reflect the particular learning focus and variation in the mode via which students communicate their learning. Although again the tendency may be to see curriculum requirements and established institutional arrangements as sitting in tension with such ideas, there is clearly a need to be exploring the spaces within which such practice can begin to be developed.

 

Engage in critical reflexivity

…                Our work to explore inclusion and inclusive practice in physical education is also linked to an ongoing process of critical reflexivity. We make no grand claims to have ‘solved the problem’ of inclusion in physical education, but rather, recognise that engaging with inclusion and developing inclusive practice needs to be a constant and dynamic aspect of our professional work. The literature in physical education reflects that understandings of what the challenges of inclusion are, and what inclusive practice ‘is’, have changed over time and also vary in different national, cultural, policy and institutional contexts (see Wilkinson 2017). Amidst this fluidity, we contend that teachers, teacher educators and researchers need to keep asking critical questions that challenge the assumptions under-pinning current practices. As indicated above, we see a need for this questioning to span matters of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment.

 

Conclusion

…                This paper has focused on how inclusion and inclusive practice in physical education are conceptualised and reflected in contemporary practice. DeLuca’s (2013) conceptualis-ation of inclusion and specifically, his articulation of dialogical and transgressive approaches to inclusion, has been used as a framework and stimulus for critical analysis of current approaches to inclusion in physical education and to inform the development of a set of principles that may inform future thinking and practice. While each of the principles – Broaden the physical education curriculum; Share decision-making and use strengths-based pedagogies; Broaden what counts for and as assessment; and Engage in critical reflexivity – are in and of themselves important, we contend that their collective power as a framework for transforming curriculum, pedagogy and assess-ment, is far more significant. Hence, we put forward the set of principles as a concep-tually grounded framework that at the same time, deliberately has an explicitly applied orientation. Our analysis and discussion is thus designed to assist policy-makers, teachers, teacher educators and researchers to actively contribute to the sort of paradigm shift that we contend is needed to meaningfully advance inclusive practice in physical education and to delivery on stated policy intentions of contemporary cur-ricula. As teacher educators we are exploring ways in which we can apply the principles and in doing so, both encourage and enable future teachers to challenge but also respond to established inequitable practices in schools. Future research with teachers, and student experiences of revisioned physical education programmes, will clearly be the litmus test for the framework presented.

Note

1.    Arnold’s (1979) framework comprising three inter-related dimensions of learning ‘in’, ‘through’ and ‘about’ movement has informed many curriculum developments in physical education internationally. It is referred to here to reaffirm the need for curriculum develop-ments to engage with the complexities of learning (i) in varied contexts of movement, from a kinaesthetic perspective and with a focus on embodied learning and lived experiences; (ii) through participation in a variety of movement activities, with participation the means of achieving extrinsic learning outcomes; and (iii) about movement from biophysical and socio-cultural perspectives. For further discussion of these concepts and their application in phys-ical education, see Brown (2013), Brown and Penney (2018) and Stolz and Thorburn (2017).

 

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Dawn Penney is internationally known for her work on policy and equity in physical education. She is currently a Professorial Research Fellow in the School of Education, Edith Cowan University and an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Education, Monash University.

 

Ruth Jeanes’ research in sport development and sport coaching foregrounds the issues of inclusion and diversity. She is a senior lecturer and course leader for Health and Physical Education in the Faculty of Education at Monash University.

 

Justen O’Connor is a senior lecturer in Health and Physical Education at Monash University, pur-suing inclusive and innovative practices in teacher education and teaching.

 

Laura Alfrey is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Education in Monash University. Her teaching and research challenges normalised and exclusive practices in Health and Physical Education teacher education and teaching.

 

References

ACARA. 2016. “Student Diversity Advice.” Australian Curriculum. Accessed April 9, 2016. http:// www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/studentdiversity/student-diversity-advice.

 

Ainscow, M. 2005. “Developing Inclusive Education Systems: What are the Levers for Change?”

 

Journal of Educational Change 6 (2): 109–124.

 

AITSL. 2015. “Professional Standards for Teachers”. Accessed December 10, 2016. http://www.aitsl.

 

edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list#.

 

Alfrey, L., and M. Gard. 2014. “A Crack Where the Light Gets In: A Study of Health and Physical Education Teachers’ Perspectives on Fitness Testing as a Context for Learning About Health.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 5 (1): 3–18.

 

Arnold, P. J. 1979. Meaning in Movement, Sport and Physical Education. London: Heinemann.

 

Artiles, A. J., N. Harris-Murri, and D. Rostenberg. 2006. “Inclusion as Social Justice: Critical Notes

 

on Discourses, Assumptions, and the Road Ahead.” Theory Into Practice 45 (3): 260–268.

 

    Azzarito, L., D. Macdonald, S. Dagkas, and J. Fisette. 2017. “Revitalizing the Physical Education Social-justice Agenda in the Global Era: Where Do We Go from Here?” Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich ) 69: 205–219.

 

   Azzarito, L., M. A. Solmon, and L. Harrison. 2006. “‘ … If I Had a Choice, I Would … .’ A Feminist Poststructuralist Perspective on Girls in Physical Education.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 77 (2): 222–239.

    Azzarito, L., and M. A. Solomon. 2005. “A Reconceptualization of Physical Education: The

 

Intersection of Gender/Race/Social Class.” Sport, Education and Society 10 (1): 25–47.

 

     Bernstein, B. 1990. The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Volume IV Class, Codes and Control.

 

London: Routledge.

 

    Brock, S. J., I. Rovegno, and K. L. Oliver. 2009. “The Influence of Student Status on Student Interactions and Experiences During a Sport Education Unit.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14 (4): 355–375.

 

    Brown, T. D. 2013. “A Vision Lost? (Re)Articulating an Arnoldian Conception of Education ‘in’ Movement in Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 18 (1): 21–37.

 

    Brown, D., and J. Evans. 2004. “Reproducing Gender? Intergenerational Links and the Male PE Teacher as a Cultural Conduit in Teaching Physical Education.” Journal of Teaching Physical Education 23 (1): 48–70.

 

    Brown, T. D., and D. Penney. 2018. Examination Physical Education. Policy, Practice and Possibilities. London: Routledge.

 

    Bunker, B., and R. Thorpe. 1986. “The Curriculum Model.” In Rethinking Games Teaching, edited by R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, and L. Almond, 7–10. Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough.

 

    Casey, A. 2017. “Models-based Practice.” In Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies, edited by C. D. Ennis, 54–67. London: Routledge.

 

    Culpan, I., and J. Bruce. 2007. “New Zealand Physical Education and Critical Pedagogy: Refocusing

 

the Curriculum.” International Journal of Sport and Health Science 5: 1–11.

 

    DeLuca, C. 2013. “Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Educational Inclusivity.” Canadian Journal of Education 36 (1): 305–348.

 

    Department of Education and Training. 2015. Measuring the Success of the Education State.

 

Factsheet: Targets. Melbourne: Victorian State Government.

   Dowling, F., H. Fitzgerald, and A. Flintoff. 2012. Equity and Difference in Physical Education, Youth Sport and Health: A Narrative Approach. London: Routledge.

 

    Ennis, C. D. 1999. “Creating a Culturally Relevant Curriculum for Disengaged Girls.” Sport, Education and Society 4 (1): 31–49.

 

    Enright, E., and M. O’Sullivan. 2010. “‘Can I Do It In My Pyjamas?’ Negotiating a Physical Education Curriculum with Teenage Girls.” European Physical Education Review 16 (3): 203– 222.

 

    Evans, J., ed. 1993. Equality, Education, and Physical Education. London: Routledge.

 

     Evans, J. 2004. Body Knowledge and Control: Studies in the Sociology of Physical Education and

 

Health. London: Routledge.

 

   Evans, J., and A. Bairner. 2012. “Physical Education and Social Class.” In Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport, edited by G. Stidder and S. Hayes, 159–175. Abingdon: Routledge.

 

     Evans, J., and B. Davies. 1986. “Sociology, Schooling and Physical Education.” In Physical Education, Sport and Schooling: Studies in the Sociology of Physical Education, edited by J. Evans, 11–37. London: Falmer Press.

 

    Evans, J., and B. Davies. 1993. “Equality, Equity and Physical Education.” In Equality, Education and Physical Education, edited by J. Evans, 11–27. London: The Falmer Press.

 

    Evans, J., and B. Davies. 2004. “Sociology, the Body and Health in a Risk Society.” In Body, Knowledge and Control, edited by J. Evans, B. Davies, and J. Wright, 35–51. London: Routledge.

 

     Evans, J., B. Davies, and D. Penney. 1996. “Teachers, Teaching and the Social Construction of Gender Relations.” Sport, Education and Society 1 (2): 165–183.

 

     Fitzgerald, H. 2005. “Still Feeling Like a Spare Piece of Luggage? Embodied Experiences of (Dis) Ability in Physical Education and School Sport.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10

(1): 41–59.

 

     Flintoff, A. 2008. “Targeting  Mr Average: Participation, Gender Equity and School Sport

 

Partnerships.” Sport, Education and Society 13 (4): 393–411.

 

     Flintoff, A. 2012. “‘Miss Whitney’ and ‘Miss, Are You a Terrorist?’: Negotiating a Place Within Physical Education.” In Equity and Difference in Physical Education, Youth Sport and Health:

A Narrative Approach, edited by F. Dowling, H. Fitzgerald, and A. Flintoff, 78–83. London:

 

Routledge.

 

Flintoff, A., and H. Fitzgerald. 2012. “Theorizing Difference and (In) Equality in Physical Education, Youth Sport and Health.” In Equity and Difference in Physical Education, Youth Sport and Health: A Narrative Approach, edited by F. Dowling, H. Fitzgerald, and A. Flintoff, 11–36. London: Routledge.

 

Flintoff, A., H. Fitzgerald, and S. Scraton. 2008. “The Challenges of Intersectionality: Researching

 

Difference in Physical Education.” International Studies in Sociology of Education 18 (2): 73–85.

 

Florian, L., and M. Rouse. 2009. “The Inclusive Practice Project in Scotland: Teacher Education for

 

Inclusive Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (4): 594–601.

 

Gerdin, G., R. Philpot, and W. Smith. 2016. “It Is Only an Intervention, But It Can Sow Very Fertile Seeds: Graduate Physical Education Teachers’ Interpretations of Critical Pedagogy.” Sport, Education and Society 31: 1–13. doi:10.1080/13573322.2016.1174846.

 

Grimminger, E. 2014. “Getting Into Teams in Physical Education and Exclusion Processes Among Students.” Pedagogies: An International Journal 9 (2): 155–171.

 

Hay, P. J., and Lisahunter. 2006. “‘Please Mr Hay, What Are My Poss(Abilities)?’: Legitimation of

 

Ability Through Physical Education Practices.” Sport, Education and Society 11 (3): 293–310.

 

Hay, P., and D. Penney. 2009. “Proposing Conditions for Assessment Efficacy in Physical Education.” European Physical Education Review 15 (3): 389–405.

 

Hay, P., and D. Penney. 2013. Assessment in Physical Education: A Sociocultural Perspective.

 

London: Routledge.

 

Hayes, S., and G. Stidder. 2003. “Social Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport: Themes and Perspectives for Practitioners.” In Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport: Contemporary Issues for Teachers, Trainees and Practitioners, edited by S. Hayes, and G. Stidder, 1–14. London: Routledge.

 

Hills, L. A., and A. Croston. 2012. “‘It Should Be Better All Together’: Exploring Strategies for “Undoing” Gender in Coeducational Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 17 (5): 591–605.

 

Kirk, D. 2010. Physical Education Futures. London: Routledge.

 

Kulinna, P. H., and D. J. Cothran. 2017. “Teacher Beliefs and Efficacy.” In Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies, edited by C. D. Ennis, 530–540. London: Routledge.

 

Leahy, D., G. O’Flynn, and J. Wright. 2013. “A Critical ‘Critical Inquiry’ Proposition in Health And Physical Education.” Asia Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 4 (2): 175–187.

Lewis, K. 2016. “Social Justice Leadership and Inclusion: A Genealogy.” Journal of Educational Administration and History, 1–18. doi:10.1080/00220620.2016.1210589.

 

Light, R. 2012. Game Sense: Pedagogy for Performance, Participation and Enjoyment. London:

 

Routledge.

 

McCuaig, L., M. Quennerstedt, and D. Macdonald. 2013. “A Salutogenic, Strengths-based Approach as a Theory to Guide HPE Curriculum Change.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 4 (2): 109–125.

 

Ministerial Council for Education, Early Child Development and Youth Affairs. 2008. Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Canberra: MCEECDYA.

 

Mintah, J. K. 2003. “Authentic Assessment in Physical Education: Prevalence of Use and Perceived Impact on Students” Self-concept, Motivation, and Skill Achievement.” Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 7 (3): 161–174.

 

Morley, D., R. Bailey, J. Tan, and B. Cooke. 2005. “Inclusive Physical Education: Teachers’ Views of Including Pupils with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities in Physical Education.” European Physical Education Review 11 (1): 84–107.

 

Munk, M., and S. Agergaard. 2015. “The Processes of Inclusion and Exclusion in Physical Education: A Social-relational Perspective.” Social Inclusion 3 (3): 67–81.

 

Noddings, N. 1993. “Politicizing the Mathematics Classroom.” In Math Worlds: Philosophical and Social Studies of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, edited by S. Restivo, J. P. Van Bendegem, and R. Fischer, 151–161. New York: State University of New York Press.

O’Connor, J., R. Jeanes, and L. Alfrey. 2016. “Authentic Inquiry-based Learning in Health and Physical Education: A Case Study of ‘R/Evolutionary’ Practice.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21 (2): 201–216.

 

Penney, D. 2013. “From Policy to Pedagogy: Prudence and Precariousness; Actors and Artefacts.”

 

Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 4 (2): 189–197.

 

Penney, D., R. Brooker, P. Hay, and L. Gillespie. 2009. “Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment: Three Message Systems of Schooling and Dimensions of Quality Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 14 (4): 421–442.

 

Penney, D., and J. Evans. 2013. “Who Is Physical Education For?” In Debates in Physical Education, edited by S. Capel and M. Whitehead, 157–170. London: Routledge.

 

Penney, D., and M. Jess. 2004. “Physical Education and Physically Active Lives: A Lifelong

 

Approach to Curriculum and Development.” Sport, Education and Society 9 (2): 269–287.

 

Penney, D., and lisahunter. 2006. “(Dis) Abling the (Health and) Physical in Education: Ability,

 

Curriculum and Pedagogy.” Sport, Education and Society 11 (3): 205–209.

 

Petrie, K., L. Burrows, M. Cosgriff, S. Keown, J. Naera, D. Duggan, and J. Devcich. 2013. Everybody Counts? Reimagining Health and Physical Education in Primary Schools. Wellington: Teaching and Learning Research Initiative.

 

Siedentop, D. 1994. Sport Education: Quality PE Through Positive Sport Experiences. Champaign,

 

IL: Human Kinetics.

 

Slee, R., and J. Allan. 2001. “Excluding the Included: A Reconsideration of Inclusive Education.”

 

International Studies in Sociology of Education 11 (2): 173–192.

 

Spaaij, R., J. Magee, and R. Jeanes. 2014. Sport and Social Exclusion in Global Society. London:

 

Routledge.

 

Stolz, S., and M. Thorburn. 2017. “A Genealogical Analysis of Peter Arnold’s Conceptual Account of Meaning in Movement, Sport and Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 22 (3): 377–390.

 

UNESCO. 2015. Quality Physical Education Guidelines for Policy-makers. Paris: UNESCO. http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231101E.pdf.

 

VCAA. 2015. Victorian Curriculum F-10. Revised Curriculum Planning and Reporting Guidelines.

 

Melbourne: VCAA.

 

Wilkinson, S. 2017. “Equity and Inequity Amidst Curriculum Reform.” In Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogy, edited by C. D. Ennis, 187–199. London: Routledge.

 

 

 

BAB II

HASIL RESUME DAN ANALISIS JURNAL INTERNASIONAL

Judul Jurnal           : Re-teorisasi inklusi dan membingkai ulang praktik inklusif dalam pendidikan jasmani

Volume                 :   22

Tahun                    :  2018

Penulis                   :  Dawn Penney, Ruth Jeanes, Justen O'Connor & Laura Alfrey

Riviewer                :  Dewi Hartati

Tanggal                 :  22 Desember 2018

 

A. Latar Belakang

       Inklusi tetap menjadi agenda politik utama untuk pendidikan internasional dan merupakan masalah yang harus ditanggapi oleh para guru lintas komunitas subjek dan fase pendidikan. Dalam pendidikan jasmani khususnya, penelitian terus menyoroti bahwa praktik saat ini sering menegaskan kembali daripada tantangan ketidaksetaraan yang ditetapkan. Makalah ini secara kritis mengeksplorasi pemahaman tentang inklusi yang berkontribusi pada situasi ini dan membahas tantangan memajukan inklusi dalam pendidikan jasmani dari sudut pandang konseptual dan pedagogis. DeLuca's [(2013). “Menuju Kerangka Kerja Interdisipliner untuk Inklusivitas Pendidikan.” Jurnal Pendidikan Kanada 36 (1): 305–348] konseptualisasi pendekatan normatif, integratif, dialogis, dan transgresif untuk inklusi digunakan sebagai dasar untuk analisis kritis praktik saat ini dan untuk berpikir baru. tentang praktik inklusif dalam pendidikan jasmani terkait dengan kurikulum, pedagogi dan penilaian. Analisis menginformasikan penyajian seperangkat prinsip yang dirancang untuk membantu guru dan pendidik guru untuk mengubah praktik inklusif dalam pendidikan jasmani dan dalam melakukannya, mewujudkan visi untuk pendidikan jasmani yang diartikulasikan dalam pedoman kebijakan internasional dan pengembangan kurikulum kontemporer.

B.  Tujuan

     Tujuan penulisan jurnal ini adalah untuk mengetahui bagaimana Re-teorisasi inklusi dan membingkai ulang praktik inklusif dalam pendidikan jasmani.

C. Metodologi
1.  Waktu dan tempat Penelitian

      Penelitian ini sudah dilaksanakan pada semester I tahun 2018.

1.      Metode Penelitian

Dalam jurnal ini menggunakan metode Survei dan grounded research.

2.      Metode Analisis Data

Metode analisis data yang digunakan yaitu deskriptif kualitatif karena penelitian ini merupakan gambaran dari sebuah penelitian.

D. Hasil

           Inklusi  adalah agenda politik yang penting dan merupakan masalah yang harus ditanggapi oleh guru di berbagai komunitas subjek dan fase pendidikan yang berbeda. Dalam pendidikan jasmani secara khusus, pedoman UNESCO untuk Pendidikan Jasmani Berkualitas (UNESCO 2015) mencerminkan bahwa inklusi adalah fitur integral dan esensial dari pengembangan program dan pedagogi berkualitas. Publikasi pedoman ini juga mencerminkan, bahwa menangani inklusi tetap menjadi tantangan penting bagi bidang pendidikan jasmani dan profesi. Flintoff dan Fitzgerald (2012, 16) menangkap sejauh mana tantangan ini dengan menyatakan bahwa profesi pendidikan jasmani tampaknya 'tidak diperlengkapi untuk mengakui, merayakan, dan merencanakan perbedaan'. Mencerminkan  pandangan kami bahwa kemajuan inklusi dalam pendidikan jasmani memerlukan upaya bersama untuk mengganggu norma-norma tradisional dan praktik yang diterima yang tetap tertanam dalam wacana pedagogik dan kebijakan dominan secara internasional. Dalam hal ini, kami menggemakan Sleeve dan Allan (2001, 117) menekankan bahwa education pendidikan inklusif mewakili pergeseran paradigma mendasar dan perlu disajikan dan diakui sebagai ’. Sementara mengakui bahwa banyak faktor telah berkontribusi pada kegagalan berkelanjutan pro-fesi untuk terlibat secara bermakna dengan inklusi, termasuk keyakinan dan nilai-nilai guru (Kulinna dan Cothran 2017), praktik dan budaya dominan dalam lingkungan sekolah (Gerdin, Philpot, dan Smith 2016) ), dan struktur politik yang lebih luas (Evans dan Bairner 2012), penelitian ini secara khusus menanggapi kurangnya pengetahuan yang terdokumentasi tentang apa yang tampak seperti pendidikan jasmani dalam praktik (Morley et al. 2005).

 

Inklusi: pendekatan filosofis dan tantangan pedagogis

       Pendidikan  inklusif adalah 'reformasi yang mendukung dan menyambut keragaman di antara semua peserta didik' dan harus mengarah pada penghapusan pengucilan sosial yang bermula dari 'sikap dan tanggapan terhadap keragaman dalam ras, kelas sosial, etnis, agama , gender, dan kemampuan '. Dalam tulisan ini kami mengadopsi konseptualisasi pendidikan inklusif yang serupa dan memandangnya sebagai terjemahan dari hak asasi manusia dan fondasi penting untuk masyarakat yang adil. Penggunaan kami atas istilah ini juga berlabuh dalam pengakuan nilai sosial perbedaan (Evans dan Davies 1993; DeLuca 2013) dan menyertai pengakuan bahwa kurikulum, pedagogi dan penilaian adalah mekanisme utama yang saling terkait untuk transmisi nilai sosial (Bernstein 1990; Penney et al. 2009). Kerangka teori Bernstein (1990) membuat eksplisit cara rumit di mana pendidikan, dan lebih khusus lagi, struktur kurikulum yang dinormalisasi, praktik peda-gogik, dan proses penilaian dibentuk oleh wacana dominan, dan secara serentak berfungsi untuk menegaskan kembali atau menantang wacana dan sosial tersebut.

 

Pendidikan jasmani: sejarah berkelanjutan praktik eksklusi

Lebih dari dua dekade lalu Evans, Davies, dan Penney (1996, 167) mencatat bahwa:

... [anak muda] yang paling banyak ... pelajari [di dalam dan dari pendidikan jasmani] adalah bahwa mereka tidak memiliki kemampuan, status atau nilai, dan bahwa tindakan paling bijaksana yang harus diambil untuk melindungi identitas fisik pendidikan mereka yang rapuh adalah untuk mengadopsi penghindaran seperti aktivitas yang merusak.

 Seperti ditunjukkan di atas, pendidikan jasmani telah berulang kali ditunjukkan untuk menyelaraskan dan memperkuat jenis-jenis wacana hegemonik tertentu yang mengistimewakan sekelompok kecil siswa (berkulit putih, kelas menengah, terampil motor, maskulin). Ditetapkan dalam kurikulum, pedagogi dan penilaian, ini berarti banyak guru yang berfokus pada berbagai kemampuan dan keterampilan yang relatif sedikit siswa dapat unggul dalam melakukan (Penney dan Evans 2013). Namun, di samping pengamatan semacam itu, penting untuk mengakui garis besar penelitian dalam pendidikan jasmani yang telah berusaha untuk semakin memajukan pemahaman tentang kesetaraan dan inklusi (lihat, misalnya, Evans 1993; Hayes dan Stidder 2003; Evans dan Davies 2004 ; Dowling, Fitzgerald, dan Flintoff 2012; Hay dan Penney 2013). Literatur ini sangat menonjol dalam banyak kursus pendidikan guru dan tetap merupakan fondasi penting bagi pekerjaan kita sendiri. Di dunia internasional, berbagai perkembangan kebijakan juga berupaya memberikan dasar untuk memajukan inklusi dalam pendidikan jasmani dan setidaknya menuju beberapa cara menuju tantangan ketidakadilan yang melekat (UNESCO 2015; Wilkinson 2017). Namun demikian, penelitian terus menunjukkan dampak terbatas yang dimiliki oleh perkembangan kebijakan dan dapat diharapkan memiliki, dalam praktiknya. Terhadap latar belakang ini, kami mengusulkan pendekatan trans-formatif dan menyajikan kerangka kerja yang membawa perspektif teoretis baru untuk berpikir tentang inklusi dalam pendidikan jasmani.

Memajukan inklusi: pendekatan transformatif

       Dalam pengantar Kurikulum Australia, ditekankan bahwa ‘Semua siswa berhak untuk program pembelajaran yang ketat, relevan dan menarik yang diambil dari kurikulum yang menantang yang membahas kebutuhan belajar individu mereka '(ACARA 2016). Teks-teks kurikulum negara bagian baru yang mengikuti jejak kebijakan nasional, seperti Kurikulum Victoria (VCAA 2015), telah menggemakan penekanan ini.

      Di bidang pembelajaran Kesehatan dan Pendidikan Jasmani, teks-teks kurikulum baru memberikan peluang yang berbeda untuk perspektif sosiokultural dan sosial-kritis untuk dibawa ke depan perencanaan kurikulum, pendekatan pedagogis dan penilaian dalam PE (lihat, misalnya, Leahy, O'Flynn , dan Wright 2013). Teks-teks resmi baru tetap, bagaimanapun, pasti terbuka untuk interpretasi dan tanggapan yang beragam dan tidak mengubah kenyataan bahwa dalam konteks kebijakan yang lebih luas, struktur sekolah dan budaya sekolah, guru memberikan pengaruh yang cukup besar terhadap keterlibatan anak muda dengan pendidikan jasmani dan pendidikan mereka. perasaan inklusi / eksklusi yang berurutan.

      Kebijakan  dan praktik. Di tengah berbagai wacana yang timbul dari disiplin ilmu yang berbeda per-perspektif dan dari minat pada berbagai kelompok yang terpinggirkan (didefinisikan berdasarkan gender, kelas, kemampuan, etnis) dalam pendidikan jasmani, kami beralih ke kerangka kerja interdisipliner untuk memberikan titik referensi untuk menyatukan secara prospektif dan memperluas pemikiran tentang inklusi dalam pendidikan jasmani.

Kerangka inklusi untuk pendidikan

      Di sini kita mengeksplorasi potensi yang ditawarkan oleh kerangka kerja interdisipliner DeLuca (2013) untuk pendidikan inklusif untuk menata kembali dan mentransformasikan kurikulum, pedagogi dan penilaian dalam pendidikan jasmani, dipahami sebagai tiga mekanisme yang saling terkait melalui mana mengacaukan inklusi (dan nilai-nilai sosial yang lebih luas). ) dikomunikasikan kepada orang muda. Kami menganggap kerangka kerja DeLuca (2013) sebagai salah satu dari sedikit yang telah berupaya memberikan gambaran menyeluruh tentang inklusi, daripada berfokus pada praktik inklusif untuk kelompok siswa tertentu yang dikategorikan, diberi label, dan ditargetkan (misalnya, mereka yang 'cacat') . Kerangka kerja dengan demikian membantu mengungkap sifat cacat kategorisasi sebagai dasar untuk berpikir tentang inklusi dalam pendidikan. Menggambar perspektif dari studi disabilitas, multikultur-alisme dan pendidikan anti-rasis, jender dan studi wanita dan queer, DeLuca menguraikan empat konsepsi inklusi: normatif, integratif, dialogis dan transgresif, yang mewakili rangkaian pendekatan inklusif.

Inklusi normatif dan integratif

       Sebagian besar dari apa yang terjadi di ruang kelas pendidikan jasmani, kami berpendapat, terletak di antara konsep inklusi normatif dan integratif. Dengan konsepsi normatif, peran pendidikan pada dasarnya adalah untuk memastikan kesesuaian dengan identitas standar tertentu yang secara eksplisit dan implisit 'ditulis ke dalam' dan dilegitimasi oleh kurikulum, sebagaimana diwakili dalam teks resmi dan program pendidikan jasmani di sekolah.

     Pendekatan  dengan guru yang berusaha mendukung siswa untuk mencapai kemahiran yang selaras dengan standar keterampilan motorik, kebugaran atau kompetensi taktis tertentu, sering dikaitkan dengan serangkaian kegiatan olahraga yang spesifik budaya dan gender (Evans 2004; Penney dan lisahunter 2006; Flintoff 2008; Kirk 2010). Pendekatan ini bergantung pada gagasan 'akses yang sama' ke standar minimum kinerja fisik, teknis atau taktis yang dianggap perlu untuk membuka akses ke upaya olahraga seumur hidup dan seperti yang sebelumnya telah diidentifikasi, secara inheren cacat sebagai dasar untuk berpikir tentang kesetaraan dan inklusi dalam pendidikan jasmani (Evans dan Davies 1993; Wilkinson 2017).

         Pendekatan integratif telah muncul sebagian sebagai tanggapan terhadap kritik terhadap sifat ekslusif kurikulum pendidikan jasmani. Alih-alih mengubah konten secara radikal, pendekatan terintegrasi menghadirkan adaptasi untuk mengakomodasi lebih banyak anak muda dalam struktur yang ada. Penyediaan kurikulum yang dibedakan berdasarkan jenis kelamin (dengan, misalnya, anak perempuan ditawari netball sementara anak laki-laki ditawari rugby) dan praktik streaming berdasarkan kemampuan yang didefinisikan dalam kaitannya dengan kriteria kinerja berbasis olahraga, mungkin yang menjadi ciri terbaik kurikulum PE 'inklusif' yang didukung oleh prinsip integratif (Hills dan Croston 2012; Wilkinson 2017).

 

Inklusi dialogis dan transgresif dalam PE

       Dalam konseptualisasi dialogis dan transgresif inklusi, apa yang dianggap sebagai pengetahuan yang sah dan dihargai tidak datang secara eksklusif dari serangkaian permainan, kegiatan, tarian atau bentuk gerakan yang direproduksi secara historis. Sebaliknya, apa yang diprioritaskan adalah memajukan ‘... pengetahuan yang berakar pada pengalaman budaya yang dialami siswa yang beragam, apakah sudah hadir dalam lingkungan belajar atau tidak’ (DeLuca 2013, 334). Bergerak menuju pendekatan dialogis dan transgresif dalam pendidikan jasmani memerlukan apresiasi bahwa ada banyak cara yang berbeda untuk bergerak, menjadi sehat dan aktif secara fisik dan komitmen terhadap keragaman ini tercermin dalam kurikulum. Artinya, pergeseran dalam konseptualisasi menuntut agar kita meninjau kembali keterampilan, pengetahuan, pemahaman dan konteks gerakan yang dianggap secara sah memegang panggung utama dalam kurikulum pendidikan jasmani. Terkait dengan ini, DeLuca (2013) lebih lanjut menyoroti bahwa pendekatan dialogis dan transgresif harus mempromosikan ruang untuk pembelajaran yang mendalam dan kritis. Dalam pendidikan jasmani kami mengaitkan ini dengan upaya untuk mendukung siswa untuk mempertanyakan hal-hal seperti apa artinya menjadi 'sehat', 'aktif' atau 'fit', melalui penawaran kurikulum, pendekatan pedagogis, dan tugas penilaian yang semuanya selaras dengan sikap kritis ini. Selain itu, konseptualisasi transgresif menyerukan kurikulum yang melegitimasi dan memprioritaskan eksplorasi jenis pengalaman gerakan yang secara pribadi bermakna dan bermanfaat bagi siswa.

        Mendukung siswa dalam proses yang mempromosikan keterlibatan siswa dalam kritik dan penataan ulang kreatif pengalaman pendidikan jasmani mereka untuk merangkul bentuk-bentuk gerakan, alasan untuk bergerak dan cara-cara bergerak yang bermakna bagi siswa. O'Connor, Jeanes, dan Alfrey (2016) pengembangan kurikulum berdasarkan pembelajaran berbasis inkuiri dan menampilkan co-konstruksi dan negosiasi pembelajaran adalah contoh baru lainnya yang menggambarkan bagaimana siswa dapat didukung untuk mengeksplorasi dan menciptakan peluang gerakan yang otentik dan secara prospektif, berkelanjutan di luar ruang kelas. Khususnya, dalam hal ini, visi gerakan yang mendasari kurikulum 'penglihatan kembali' diperluas melampaui olahraga terorganisir hingga olahraga informal dan aktivitas fisik yang dapat memiliki tempat yang sah dalam kehidupan siswa sebagai sarana transportasi, rekreasi, dan hubungan sosial.

       Sebagai pendidik guru, kami mengakui bahwa inklusi dipengaruhi oleh struktur yang jauh di luar jangkauan guru dan bahwa perkembangan seperti yang dibahas di atas sama sekali tidak mudah untuk maju. Meskipun demikian, kami tetap berinvestasi dalam menemukan cara untuk mendukung para guru untuk secara aktif mengacaukan pola-pola ketidakadilan yang telah lama terbentuk dalam pendidikan fisik dan dengan demikian memajukan inklusi sebagai aspek sentral dari penyediaan kualitas (UNESCO 2015). Menggambar wawasan dari analisis konseptual kami, kami mengusulkan serangkaian prinsip untuk guru masa depan dan pendidik guru untuk mengadopsi sebagai dasar untuk mengubah gagasan praktik inklusif dalam pendidikan jasmani.

Mendefinisikan ulang praktik inklusif dalam PE

       Seperti yang ditunjukkan di atas, di bagian ini kami berusaha untuk membuat eksplisit implikasi praktis dari perubahan paradigma yang kami berpendapat diperlukan dan bahwa kerangka kerja DeLuca (2013) memberikan landasan untuk. Mengikuti Penney et al. (2009) kami mempertahankan penekanan bahwa pendekatan apa pun harus terlibat dengan, dan mencari keselarasan, kurikulum, pedagogi dan penilaian.

Memperluas kurikulum pendidikan jasmani

       Menurut Penney dan Jess (2004, 275), seperti yang telah disajikan secara tradisional, pendidikan jasmani 'ditakdirkan untuk memiliki relevansi parsial dan berumur pendek dengan kehidupan banyak orang'. Melangkah ke depan Perspektif transgresif DeLuca (2013) khususnya menantang kita untuk memikirkan kembali titik awal untuk perencanaan kurikulum dan secara khusus, mulai dari eksplorasi dan pemahaman tentang bagaimana berbagai jenis gerakan memiliki fitur berbeda dalam kehidupan masyarakat. Oleh karena itu, kami berpendapat bahwa mengembangkan praktik inklusif perlu didukung oleh kemauan dan komitmen untuk mengeksplorasi bagaimana cara belajar yang lebih beragam ‘dalam, melalui dan tentang’ gerakan (Arnold 1979) 1 dapat tercermin dalam kurikulum, pedagogi dan penilaian.

 

Bagikan pengambilan keputusan dan gunakan pedagogi berbasis kekuatan

         Seperti yang ditunjukkan sebelumnya dalam makalah ini, bergeser ke arah visi inklusif dialogis dan / atau transgresif juga membutuhkan perpindahan dari pemikiran berbasis defisit tentang kebutuhan belajar siswa dan menuju semacam pendekatan pedagogis yang sejalan dengan orientasi berbasis kekuatan. Kami mengakui bahwa tidak mudah untuk menolak konsep linear dan hierarkis tentang 'pengembangan' (pengembangan keterampilan, pertumbuhan, kebugaran) sebagai dasar untuk berpikir tentang pengelompokan prospektif dan diferensiasi pembelajaran. Pendekatan semacam itu juga didukung oleh keprihatinan yang sangat tulus untuk 'melayani semua siswa' dan memperluas kesempatan untuk belajar. Namun, kami berpendapat bahwa secara aktif mengeksplorasi perbedaan individu dalam kaitannya dengan keterampilan, pengetahuan, pemahaman dan minat dalam cara-cara yang dibahas di atas, seharusnya tidak hanya membingkai ulang kurikulum - itu juga harus membingkai kembali pedagogi dan penilaian.

 

Perluas apa yang diperhitungkan dan sebagai penilaian

         Penilaian dalam pendidikan jasmani, seperti dalam mata pelajaran lain, sangat kuat dalam mengkonversikan nilai diferensial dari keterampilan, pengetahuan, dan pemahaman tertentu kepada siswa. Selain itu, penilaian formal dan informal dalam pendidikan jasmani seringkali mengkomunikasikan gagasan kemampuan yang sangat sempit di depan umum (Evans 2004; Penney dan lisahunter 2006; Hay dan Penney 2013). Dalam mencari kemajuan dalam praktik penilaian inklusif, kami menggemakan Hay dan Penney (2013) menekankan perlunya memeriksa secara kritis keterampilan, pengetahuan, dan pemahaman apa yang dituju oleh penilaian, hak istimewa dan marginalisasi dan secara paralel, membahas bagaimana penilaian terjadi dalam PE, dan khususnya, bagaimana siswa terlibat. Melangkah ke depan DeLuca (2013) konseptualisasi transgresif jelas mensyaratkan bahwa pengembangan praktik penilaian inklusif perlu dimulai dengan pemahaman pribadi siswa dan analisis kekuatan dan aspirasi mereka sebagai pelajar dalam pendidikan jasmani. Kemudian perlu melibatkan proses negosiasi kolaboratif untuk mengidentifikasi tugas-tugas penilaian dan cara-cara penilaian yang akan menginformasikan dan mendukung pembelajaran yang sedang berlangsung, sementara juga memungkinkan siswa untuk menunjukkan perkembangan dalam pembelajaran yang sejalan dengan ekspektasi kurikulum formal tetapi juga tetap sangat tinggi. asli.

Terlibat dalam refleksivitas kritis

         Pekerjaan kami untuk mengeksplorasi praktik inklusi dan inklusif dalam pendidikan jasmani juga terkait dengan proses refleksivitas kritis yang berkelanjutan. Kami tidak membuat klaim besar untuk 'menyelesaikan masalah' inklusi dalam pendidikan jasmani, tetapi, mengakui bahwa terlibat dengan inklusi dan mengembangkan praktik inklusif harus menjadi aspek yang konstan dan dinamis dari pekerjaan profesional kami. Literatur dalam pendidikan jasmani mencerminkan bahwa pemahaman tentang apa tantangan inklusi adalah, dan apa praktik inklusif 'adalah', telah berubah dari waktu ke waktu dan juga bervariasi dalam konteks nasional, budaya, kebijakan, dan kelembagaan yang berbeda (lihat Wilkinson 2017). Di tengah fluiditas ini, kami berpendapat bahwa guru, guru pendidik, dan peneliti perlu terus mengajukan pertanyaan kritis yang menantang asumsi yang mendukung praktik saat ini. Seperti yang ditunjukkan di atas, kami melihat perlunya pertanyaan ini untuk mencakup masalah kurikulum, pedagogi dan penilaian.

E. Kesimpulan

       Makalah ini telah berfokus pada bagaimana praktik inklusi dan inklusif dalam pendidikan jasmani dikonseptualisasikan dan tercermin dalam praktik kontemporer. DeLuca (2013) conceptualisation asi inklusi dan khususnya, artikulasi pendekatan dialogis dan transgresif untuk inklusi, telah digunakan sebagai kerangka kerja dan stimulus untuk analisis kritis dari pendekatan saat ini untuk inklusi dalam pendidikan jasmani dan untuk menginformasikan pengembangan seperangkat prinsip-prinsip yang dapat menginformasikan pemikiran dan praktik di masa depan. Sementara masing-masing prinsip - Memperluas kurikulum pendidikan jasmani; Bagikan pengambilan keputusan dan gunakan pedagogi berbasis kekuatan; Perluas apa yang diperhitungkan dan sebagai penilaian; dan Terlibat dalam refleksivitas kritis - dalam dan dari dirinya sendiri itu penting, kami berpendapat bahwa kekuatan kolektif mereka sebagai kerangka kerja untuk mengubah kurikulum, pedagogi dan penilaian, jauh lebih signifikan. Oleh karena itu, kami mengedepankan seperangkat prinsip sebagai kerangka kerja yang berdasarkan konsep yang pada saat yang sama, secara sengaja memiliki orientasi yang diterapkan secara eksplisit. Analisis dan diskusi kami dirancang untuk membantu para pembuat kebijakan, guru, pendidik guru, dan peneliti untuk secara aktif berkontribusi pada jenis perubahan paradigma yang menurut kami diperlukan untuk memajukan praktik inklusif secara bermakna dalam pendidikan jasmani dan untuk menyampaikan niat kebijakan yang dinyatakan kontemporer. cur-ricula. Sebagai pendidik guru, kami sedang mengeksplorasi cara-cara di mana kami dapat menerapkan prinsip-prinsip dan dalam melakukannya, keduanya mendorong dan memungkinkan guru di masa depan untuk menantang tetapi juga menanggapi praktik-praktik yang tidak adil di sekolah. Penelitian di masa depan dengan guru, dan pengalaman siswa dari program pendidikan jasmani yang direvisi, jelas akan menjadi tes lakmus untuk kerangka kerja yang disajikan.

F. Komentar Jurnal

1.      Kelebihan  :

Jurnal ini disusun dengan sangat luas dan dengan bahasa yang sudah ahli dibidangnya.

2.      Kekurangan :

Isi jurnal terlalu banyak pembahasan sehingga pembaca sulit untuk mengambil kesimpulan dari isi jurnal serta bahasa yang digunakan sulit untuk dipahami.

 

BAB III

PENUTUP

 

A.    KESIMPULAN

Dalam pendidikan jasmani khususnya, penelitian terus menyoroti bahwa praktik saat ini sering menegaskan kembali daripada tantangan ketidaksetaraan yang ditetapkan. Makalah ini secara kritis mengeksplorasi pemahaman tentang inklusi yang berkontribusi pada situasi ini dan membahas tantangan memajukan inklusi dalam pendidikan jasmani dari sudut pandang konseptual dan pedagogis.

Analisis menginformasikan penyajian seperangkat prinsip yang dirancang untuk membantu guru dan pendidik guru untuk mengubah praktik inklusif dalam pendidikan jasmani dan dalam melakukannya, mewujudkan visi untuk pendidikan jasmani yang diartikulasikan dalam pedoman kebijakan internasional dan pengembangan kurikulum kontemporer.

 

B.     SARAN

Untuk jurnal selanjutnya, semoga penulis bisa memberikan pembahasan lebih ringan, sederhana dan mudah dimengerti oleh pembaca.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

 

ACARA. 2016. “Student Diversity Advice.” Australian Curriculum. Accessed April 9, 2016. http:// www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/studentdiversity/student-diversity-advice.

 

Ainscow, M. 2005. “Developing Inclusive Education Systems: What are the Levers for Change?”

 

Journal of Educational Change 6 (2): 109–124.

 

AITSL. 2015. “Professional Standards for Teachers”. Accessed December 10, 2016. http://www.aitsl.

 

edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list#.

 

Alfrey, L., and M. Gard. 2014. “A Crack Where the Light Gets In: A Study of Health and Physical Education Teachers’ Perspectives on Fitness Testing as a Context for Learning About Health.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 5 (1): 3–18.

 

Arnold, P. J. 1979. Meaning in Movement, Sport and Physical Education. London: Heinemann.

 

Artiles, A. J., N. Harris-Murri, and D. Rostenberg. 2006. “Inclusion as Social Justice: Critical Notes

 

on Discourses, Assumptions, and the Road Ahead.” Theory Into Practice 45 (3): 260–268.

 

    Azzarito, L., D. Macdonald, S. Dagkas, and J. Fisette. 2017. “Revitalizing the Physical Education Social-justice Agenda in the Global Era: Where Do We Go from Here?” Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich ) 69: 205–219.

 

   Azzarito, L., M. A. Solmon, and L. Harrison. 2006. “‘ … If I Had a Choice, I Would … .’ A Feminist Poststructuralist Perspective on Girls in Physical Education.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 77 (2): 222–239.

    Azzarito, L., and M. A. Solomon. 2005. “A Reconceptualization of Physical Education: The

 

Intersection of Gender/Race/Social Class.” Sport, Education and Society 10 (1): 25–47.

 

     Bernstein, B. 1990. The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Volume IV Class, Codes and Control.

 

London: Routledge.

 

    Brock, S. J., I. Rovegno, and K. L. Oliver. 2009. “The Influence of Student Status on Student Interactions and Experiences During a Sport Education Unit.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14 (4): 355–375.

 

    Brown, T. D. 2013. “A Vision Lost? (Re)Articulating an Arnoldian Conception of Education ‘in’ Movement in Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 18 (1): 21–37.

 

    Brown, D., and J. Evans. 2004. “Reproducing Gender? Intergenerational Links and the Male PE Teacher as a Cultural Conduit in Teaching Physical Education.” Journal of Teaching Physical Education 23 (1): 48–70.

 

    Brown, T. D., and D. Penney. 2018. Examination Physical Education. Policy, Practice and Possibilities. London: Routledge.

 

    Bunker, B., and R. Thorpe. 1986. “The Curriculum Model.” In Rethinking Games Teaching, edited by R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, and L. Almond, 7–10. Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough.

 

    Casey, A. 2017. “Models-based Practice.” In Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies, edited by C. D. Ennis, 54–67. London: Routledge.

 

    Culpan, I., and J. Bruce. 2007. “New Zealand Physical Education and Critical Pedagogy: Refocusing

 

the Curriculum.” International Journal of Sport and Health Science 5: 1–11.

 

    DeLuca, C. 2013. “Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Educational Inclusivity.” Canadian Journal of Education 36 (1): 305–348.

 

    Department of Education and Training. 2015. Measuring the Success of the Education State.

 

Factsheet: Targets. Melbourne: Victorian State Government.

   Dowling, F., H. Fitzgerald, and A. Flintoff. 2012. Equity and Difference in Physical Education, Youth Sport and Health: A Narrative Approach. London: Routledge.

 

    Ennis, C. D. 1999. “Creating a Culturally Relevant Curriculum for Disengaged Girls.” Sport, Education and Society 4 (1): 31–49.

 

    Enright, E., and M. O’Sullivan. 2010. “‘Can I Do It In My Pyjamas?’ Negotiating a Physical Education Curriculum with Teenage Girls.” European Physical Education Review 16 (3): 203– 222.

 

    Evans, J., ed. 1993. Equality, Education, and Physical Education. London: Routledge.

 

     Evans, J. 2004. Body Knowledge and Control: Studies in the Sociology of Physical Education and

 

Health. London: Routledge.

 

   Evans, J., and A. Bairner. 2012. “Physical Education and Social Class.” In Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport, edited by G. Stidder and S. Hayes, 159–175. Abingdon: Routledge.

 

     Evans, J., and B. Davies. 1986. “Sociology, Schooling and Physical Education.” In Physical Education, Sport and Schooling: Studies in the Sociology of Physical Education, edited by J. Evans, 11–37. London: Falmer Press.

 

    Evans, J., and B. Davies. 1993. “Equality, Equity and Physical Education.” In Equality, Education and Physical Education, edited by J. Evans, 11–27. London: The Falmer Press.

 

    Evans, J., and B. Davies. 2004. “Sociology, the Body and Health in a Risk Society.” In Body, Knowledge and Control, edited by J. Evans, B. Davies, and J. Wright, 35–51. London: Routledge.

 

     Evans, J., B. Davies, and D. Penney. 1996. “Teachers, Teaching and the Social Construction of Gender Relations.” Sport, Education and Society 1 (2): 165–183.

 

     Fitzgerald, H. 2005. “Still Feeling Like a Spare Piece of Luggage? Embodied Experiences of (Dis) Ability in Physical Education and School Sport.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10

(1): 41–59.

 

     Flintoff, A. 2008. “Targeting  Mr Average: Participation, Gender Equity and School Sport

 

Partnerships.” Sport, Education and Society 13 (4): 393–411.

 

     Flintoff, A. 2012. “‘Miss Whitney’ and ‘Miss, Are You a Terrorist?’: Negotiating a Place Within Physical Education.” In Equity and Difference in Physical Education, Youth Sport and Health:

A Narrative Approach, edited by F. Dowling, H. Fitzgerald, and A. Flintoff, 78–83. London:

 

Routledge.

 

Flintoff, A., and H. Fitzgerald. 2012. “Theorizing Difference and (In) Equality in Physical Education, Youth Sport and Health.” In Equity and Difference in Physical Education, Youth Sport and Health: A Narrative Approach, edited by F. Dowling, H. Fitzgerald, and A. Flintoff, 11–36. London: Routledge.

 

Flintoff, A., H. Fitzgerald, and S. Scraton. 2008. “The Challenges of Intersectionality: Researching

 

Difference in Physical Education.” International Studies in Sociology of Education 18 (2): 73–85.

 

Florian, L., and M. Rouse. 2009. “The Inclusive Practice Project in Scotland: Teacher Education for

 

Inclusive Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (4): 594–601.

 

Gerdin, G., R. Philpot, and W. Smith. 2016. “It Is Only an Intervention, But It Can Sow Very Fertile Seeds: Graduate Physical Education Teachers’ Interpretations of Critical Pedagogy.” Sport, Education and Society 31: 1–13. doi:10.1080/13573322.2016.1174846.

 

Grimminger, E. 2014. “Getting Into Teams in Physical Education and Exclusion Processes Among Students.” Pedagogies: An International Journal 9 (2): 155–171.

 

Hay, P. J., and Lisahunter. 2006. “‘Please Mr Hay, What Are My Poss(Abilities)?’: Legitimation of

 

Ability Through Physical Education Practices.” Sport, Education and Society 11 (3): 293–310.

 

Hay, P., and D. Penney. 2009. “Proposing Conditions for Assessment Efficacy in Physical Education.” European Physical Education Review 15 (3): 389–405.

 

Hay, P., and D. Penney. 2013. Assessment in Physical Education: A Sociocultural Perspective.

 

London: Routledge.

 

Hayes, S., and G. Stidder. 2003. “Social Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport: Themes and Perspectives for Practitioners.” In Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport: Contemporary Issues for Teachers, Trainees and Practitioners, edited by S. Hayes, and G. Stidder, 1–14. London: Routledge.

 

Hills, L. A., and A. Croston. 2012. “‘It Should Be Better All Together’: Exploring Strategies for “Undoing” Gender in Coeducational Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 17 (5): 591–605.

 

Kirk, D. 2010. Physical Education Futures. London: Routledge.

 

Kulinna, P. H., and D. J. Cothran. 2017. “Teacher Beliefs and Efficacy.” In Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies, edited by C. D. Ennis, 530–540. London: Routledge.

 

Leahy, D., G. O’Flynn, and J. Wright. 2013. “A Critical ‘Critical Inquiry’ Proposition in Health And Physical Education.” Asia Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 4 (2): 175–187.

Lewis, K. 2016. “Social Justice Leadership and Inclusion: A Genealogy.” Journal of Educational Administration and History, 1–18. doi:10.1080/00220620.2016.1210589.

 

Light, R. 2012. Game Sense: Pedagogy for Performance, Participation and Enjoyment. London:

 

Routledge.

 

McCuaig, L., M. Quennerstedt, and D. Macdonald. 2013. “A Salutogenic, Strengths-based Approach as a Theory to Guide HPE Curriculum Change.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 4 (2): 109–125.

 

Ministerial Council for Education, Early Child Development and Youth Affairs. 2008. Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Canberra: MCEECDYA.

 

Mintah, J. K. 2003. “Authentic Assessment in Physical Education: Prevalence of Use and Perceived Impact on Students” Self-concept, Motivation, and Skill Achievement.” Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 7 (3): 161–174.

 

Morley, D., R. Bailey, J. Tan, and B. Cooke. 2005. “Inclusive Physical Education: Teachers’ Views of Including Pupils with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities in Physical Education.” European Physical Education Review 11 (1): 84–107.

 

Munk, M., and S. Agergaard. 2015. “The Processes of Inclusion and Exclusion in Physical Education: A Social-relational Perspective.” Social Inclusion 3 (3): 67–81.

 

Noddings, N. 1993. “Politicizing the Mathematics Classroom.” In Math Worlds: Philosophical and Social Studies of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, edited by S. Restivo, J. P. Van Bendegem, and R. Fischer, 151–161. New York: State University of New York Press.

O’Connor, J., R. Jeanes, and L. Alfrey. 2016. “Authentic Inquiry-based Learning in Health and Physical Education: A Case Study of ‘R/Evolutionary’ Practice.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21 (2): 201–216.

 

Penney, D. 2013. “From Policy to Pedagogy: Prudence and Precariousness; Actors and Artefacts.”

 

Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 4 (2): 189–197.

 

Penney, D., R. Brooker, P. Hay, and L. Gillespie. 2009. “Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment: Three Message Systems of Schooling and Dimensions of Quality Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 14 (4): 421–442.

 

Penney, D., and J. Evans. 2013. “Who Is Physical Education For?” In Debates in Physical Education, edited by S. Capel and M. Whitehead, 157–170. London: Routledge.

 

Penney, D., and M. Jess. 2004. “Physical Education and Physically Active Lives: A Lifelong

 

Approach to Curriculum and Development.” Sport, Education and Society 9 (2): 269–287.

 

Penney, D., and lisahunter. 2006. “(Dis) Abling the (Health and) Physical in Education: Ability,

 

Curriculum and Pedagogy.” Sport, Education and Society 11 (3): 205–209.

 

Petrie, K., L. Burrows, M. Cosgriff, S. Keown, J. Naera, D. Duggan, and J. Devcich. 2013. Everybody Counts? Reimagining Health and Physical Education in Primary Schools. Wellington: Teaching and Learning Research Initiative.

 

Siedentop, D. 1994. Sport Education: Quality PE Through Positive Sport Experiences. Champaign,

 

IL: Human Kinetics.

 

Slee, R., and J. Allan. 2001. “Excluding the Included: A Reconsideration of Inclusive Education.”

 

International Studies in Sociology of Education 11 (2): 173–192.

 

Spaaij, R., J. Magee, and R. Jeanes. 2014. Sport and Social Exclusion in Global Society. London:

 

Routledge.

 

Stolz, S., and M. Thorburn. 2017. “A Genealogical Analysis of Peter Arnold’s Conceptual Account of Meaning in Movement, Sport and Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 22 (3): 377–390.

 

UNESCO. 2015. Quality Physical Education Guidelines for Policy-makers. Paris: UNESCO. http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231101E.pdf.

 

VCAA. 2015. Victorian Curriculum F-10. Revised Curriculum Planning and Reporting Guidelines.

 

Melbourne: VCAA.

 

Wilkinson, S. 2017. “Equity and Inequity Amidst Curriculum Reform.” In Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogy, edited by C. D. Ennis, 187–199. London: Routledge.