Research in brief: Disciplinary literacy and verbal language in PE

I haven’t come across many studies into disciplinary literacy development in PE, so this action research from Lindberg (2024) is fascinating. 

Here’s a very brief summary – logging it here for my own reference more than anything!

The action research centres on a ten-lesson unit of work in a PE class with ten-year-olds. Lindberg reports on their various attempts to embed a disciplinary literacy focus within the unit.

It also feels hugely random in parts – Biesta’s concept of risk, a unit on circus activities, action research using a field diary… it’s a fun journey! Messy qualitative, but there some interesting learning points for Lindberg (and us!) in there:

  • Vocabulary instruction in PE is often delivered through physical activity, which has advantages for making it stick, but…
  • There’s only so much disciplinary literacy you can tap into when learners expect to be physically active and want to’ get on with it’
  • Starting PE lessons in a typical classroom setting can help get more academic language and metacognition into play, but does that mean extending lesson time to ensure there’s still adequate amounts physical activity?
  • ‘disciplinary literacy was overshadowed by generic language skills’, a blocker that PE teachers under their time constraints may not be prepared for. 
  • Limitations regarding generic language skills (possibly referring to BICS or Tier 2 vocab?) pose a ‘dialogic threat’, yet engagement in the subject content creates ‘dialogic potential’! 

Anyhow, a super honest read. Recommended.

(Image by Kevin Hessey)



Categories: General, teacher development

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.