Periodic Reporting for period 1 - PEP-4-QPE (Co-creating a preparatory policy engagement programme for quality physical education)
Período documentado: 2023-01-01 hasta 2024-12-31
Quality physical education develops healthy, active, and engaged citizens who form the basis of sustainable development. However, quality physical education provision is in decline globally. Suboptimal policies and policy implementation have been identified as key factors in that decline due to physical educators’ lack of preparation for policy engagement. In response, this fellowship addressed the need to build professional physical education stakeholders’ capacity to engage in policy efforts by: (a) identifying key facilitators, barriers, and content in the development of policy capacity; (b) translating complicated policy processes into practical policy lessons; and (c) developing a Preparatory Policy Engagement Programme for Quality Physical Education (PEP-4-QPE) that is evidence-based, internationally-applicable, and available as an Open Educational Resource.
This three-phase fellowship engaged international physical education stakeholders (i.e. teachers, teacher educators, government education officers, professional development providers, professional association directors) in co-design, co-creation, and co-assessment citizen science.
Specifically, the first phase addressed the first objective: What are the key facilitators, barriers, and content in the development of physical education professionals’ policy capacity? A two-round interview and survey Delphi investigation with 16 international physical education professional stakeholders with experience in policy research and/or practical initiatives was conducted. Participants were asked about key barriers, facilitators, and content in the development of their own and others’ policy capacity.
Phase two addressed objective two and translated complicated policy processes into practical policy lessons. To do so, three international physical education stakeholders were engaged in the ‘Policy Process Case Method’, a novel technique created in this fellowship. This method entails a protocol for engaging small multi-stakeholder groups from across policy spaces in sustained, reflexive dialogue where they work together to make sense of their lived policy experiences by relating them to policy theory.
Phase three addressed the third objective and mobilized the knowledge co-created in phase one and two to develop a Preparatory Policy Engagement Programme for Quality Physical Education (PEP-4-QPE) that is evidence-based, internationally applicable, and available as an Open Educational Resource in English, French, Arabic, Spanish, and Mandarin. Specifically, the PEP-4-QPE showcases the stories and perspectives of professional physical education stakeholders through short videos and infographics which address the following practical questions: What is policy and why does it matter? How can I better engage with the policy process? What does it mean to be prepared to engage intentionally with policy? How can I enhance my policy preparedness? and What are my next policy steps? This phase also entailed systematically capturing the process of the PEP-4-QPE creation to illuminate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats an (early career) academic might encounter as they attempt Open Educational Resource development for the first time.
Specifically, the first phase addressed the first objective: What are the key facilitators, barriers, and content in the development of physical education professionals’ policy capacity? A two-round interview and survey Delphi investigation with 16 international physical education professional stakeholders with experience in policy research and/or practical initiatives was conducted. Participants were asked about key barriers, facilitators, and content in the development of their own and others’ policy capacity.
Phase two addressed objective two and translated complicated policy processes into practical policy lessons. To do so, three international physical education stakeholders were engaged in the ‘Policy Process Case Method’, a novel technique created in this fellowship. This method entails a protocol for engaging small multi-stakeholder groups from across policy spaces in sustained, reflexive dialogue where they work together to make sense of their lived policy experiences by relating them to policy theory.
Phase three addressed the third objective and mobilized the knowledge co-created in phase one and two to develop a Preparatory Policy Engagement Programme for Quality Physical Education (PEP-4-QPE) that is evidence-based, internationally applicable, and available as an Open Educational Resource in English, French, Arabic, Spanish, and Mandarin. Specifically, the PEP-4-QPE showcases the stories and perspectives of professional physical education stakeholders through short videos and infographics which address the following practical questions: What is policy and why does it matter? How can I better engage with the policy process? What does it mean to be prepared to engage intentionally with policy? How can I enhance my policy preparedness? and What are my next policy steps? This phase also entailed systematically capturing the process of the PEP-4-QPE creation to illuminate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats an (early career) academic might encounter as they attempt Open Educational Resource development for the first time.
Reflexive thematic analysis of phase one data revealed the key facilitators, barriers, and content in the development of physical education professionals’ policy capacity. Specifically, it was revealed that while participants acknowledged the barriers of lacking time, professional learning, confidence, and accessible language, the barrier they identified as most consequential was misunderstanding the nature of policy as only fixed documents developed in a top-down and linear process. In contrast, participants identified their shifts to understanding policy as more than static texts and as happening in complex processes to be a key facilitator, with reflexive interactions and relationships with others being critical to facilitating that perspective shift. Other facilitators identified included the issuing of moral imperatives to ‘use’ policy to generate change, policy learning in higher education, and the interrogation of policy. These findings extend the state of the art in physical education, education, and policy studies by being among the first to empirically investigate what policy preparation should entail and ultimately highlighted that: (a) dispelling unrealistic traditional policy myths and fostering complex policy perspectives is central to policy capacity development; (b) particular configurations of policy-focused learning communities are a key mechanism to do so; and (c) one must determine their personal policy purpose to engage in such work. These findings can be used to inform the development of much-needed and desired evidence-informed policy preparation initiatives in teacher education, continuing professional development, and postgraduate education within physical education, education, and other public sector arenas.
Reflexive thematic analysis of phase two data enabled the translation of participants’ complicated policy processes into practical policy lessons and extend the state of the art by being among the first to do so. Specifically, three key lessons were identified: (a) policy is messy: accept and prepare for this through timing and compromise; (b) evidence does not always look and function as you would expect: narrative is critical for persuasion; and (c) policy involvement entails emotionally challenging ethical dilemmas: know your purpose to maintain integrity. Furthermore, the creation and testing of the novel Policy Process Case Method protocol not only contributes to the new hybrid field of applied policy process research but means the policy process experiences of others can be translated into practical policy lessons for themselves and others to learn from.
Reflexive thematic analysis of the phase three data revealed various, and often intermeshed, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that an (early career) academic may encounter when developing an Open Educational Resource for the first time. These include, but are not limited to: (a) tensions with other academic priorities necessary for career progression (e.g. publishing journal articles); (b) misunderstanding Open Educational Resources as exclusively dynamic digital products needing to be developed ‘from scratch’; (c) marked differences in the level of supports available from one institution and context to another; and (d) moral tests to forgo control over one’s educational product creation and license an Open Educational Resource as openly as possible. While previous literature on this topic offered generic ‘how to’ guides and macro-level analyses of Open Educational Resouce issues, these findings provide insight into the individual-level realities involved, which academics report the lack of being one of the key barriers to their engagement in Open Educational Resource development. This could result in more academics creating Open Educational Resources, thereby broadening educational access and impact.
This fellowship’s publication of the PEP-4-QPE extends the state of the art as it is among the first policy-focused professional learning tools for (physical) educational professionals. Importantly, its publication into multiple languages ensures broad and more equitable uptake and its nature as an Open Educational Resource means that there is no financial burden on the user/learner as, for context, textbooks and professional learning programmes on policy can cost on average €200 and €6000, respectively.
Ultimately, this fellowship’s contributions to professional physical education stakeholders’ policy capacity will benefit these professionals’ daily working lives as recent studies indicate they report management of policy to be one of the greatest challenges facing their practice. Reducing the policy burden can allow these professionals to focus on ensuring students receive quality physical education which can enable young people to develop the essential physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional skills needed to become healthy, active, and engaged citizens who UNESCO describe to form the basis of sustainable development (specifically in the areas of goal 3: good health and well-being, and goal 4: quality education).
Reflexive thematic analysis of phase two data enabled the translation of participants’ complicated policy processes into practical policy lessons and extend the state of the art by being among the first to do so. Specifically, three key lessons were identified: (a) policy is messy: accept and prepare for this through timing and compromise; (b) evidence does not always look and function as you would expect: narrative is critical for persuasion; and (c) policy involvement entails emotionally challenging ethical dilemmas: know your purpose to maintain integrity. Furthermore, the creation and testing of the novel Policy Process Case Method protocol not only contributes to the new hybrid field of applied policy process research but means the policy process experiences of others can be translated into practical policy lessons for themselves and others to learn from.
Reflexive thematic analysis of the phase three data revealed various, and often intermeshed, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that an (early career) academic may encounter when developing an Open Educational Resource for the first time. These include, but are not limited to: (a) tensions with other academic priorities necessary for career progression (e.g. publishing journal articles); (b) misunderstanding Open Educational Resources as exclusively dynamic digital products needing to be developed ‘from scratch’; (c) marked differences in the level of supports available from one institution and context to another; and (d) moral tests to forgo control over one’s educational product creation and license an Open Educational Resource as openly as possible. While previous literature on this topic offered generic ‘how to’ guides and macro-level analyses of Open Educational Resouce issues, these findings provide insight into the individual-level realities involved, which academics report the lack of being one of the key barriers to their engagement in Open Educational Resource development. This could result in more academics creating Open Educational Resources, thereby broadening educational access and impact.
This fellowship’s publication of the PEP-4-QPE extends the state of the art as it is among the first policy-focused professional learning tools for (physical) educational professionals. Importantly, its publication into multiple languages ensures broad and more equitable uptake and its nature as an Open Educational Resource means that there is no financial burden on the user/learner as, for context, textbooks and professional learning programmes on policy can cost on average €200 and €6000, respectively.
Ultimately, this fellowship’s contributions to professional physical education stakeholders’ policy capacity will benefit these professionals’ daily working lives as recent studies indicate they report management of policy to be one of the greatest challenges facing their practice. Reducing the policy burden can allow these professionals to focus on ensuring students receive quality physical education which can enable young people to develop the essential physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional skills needed to become healthy, active, and engaged citizens who UNESCO describe to form the basis of sustainable development (specifically in the areas of goal 3: good health and well-being, and goal 4: quality education).