of how diverse activities related to the outdoors, and the adventure and ... popularity is growing so rapidly that sport centres, especially designed for parkour, are ... which are fully integrated in many schools' curriculum, also help students cope with .... the teacher was following the prescribed tasks, activities, games, and ...
1 Article published in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy (2014), DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2014.946008
Title Feasibility and students’ preliminary views on Parkour in a group of primary school children Abstract Background: Adventure Education is an instructional model where students participate in adventurous activities to acquire physical, cognitive, and affective skills. It also has strong connections with cooperative learning. Parkour is a fast-growing sport practiced by thousands of youngsters all over the world. The media does not portray it as an educational content, but resourcefulness, maturity, cooperation, and respect are among its basic principles. It also appears to have a direct connection with risk-taking, selfdiscipline, and autonomy. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to assess students’ ideas, views and/or feelings after experiencing a parkour learning unit. Participants and settings: The research project was conducted in an intact, sixth-grade physical education class in an elementary school located in the northern part of Spain. A total of 26 students with ages ranging between 11 and 12 years (mean age 11.4 ± 0.6) participated in the study. There were 14 boys and 12 girls. Data collection: At the end of the intervention program, all participating students were asked to `Describe your feelings, your thoughts, and your ideas on the parkour learning unit that you just experience in physical education´. Data analysis: MAXQDA 11, a qualitative software package, was used to assist with data management. All participants’ answers were analyzed via thematic content analysis and constant comparison. Findings: Five major categories emerged from data analysis: enjoyment, fear, social skills, problem-solving skills and integration. Our findings agree with previous researchers who believe that parkour could be considered an educational content due to all the different positive outcomes that it brings to the physical education class. It seems to promote the development of social and problem-solving skills in the students. Both are competences that should be encouraged and fostered in our youngsters. Furthermore, it is considered a fun activity, it promotes students’ integration and it teaches them how to cope with fear. Conclusion: In contrast to popular views portrayed by the media, the sport of parkour can be a safe, educational content. School cannot turn its back on sports or contents whose popularity is rapidly increasing. Key words: Adventure education, physical education, cooperative learning
2
Introduction For most people, the word adventure evokes images of National Geographic expeditions to the Nile, the Himalayas or the great coral barrier, but adventure is as old as humankind. However, `some would accept the idea that an adventure experience can be ordered, paid for and delivered by a professional service provider as an adventure tourism product. Others would argue that this cannot possibly be an adventure in their conception of the meaning of the term´ (Varley 2006, 174). Adventure Education can be described as an instructional model where students participate in adventurous activities to acquire physical, cognitive, and affective skills (Dort, Evaul and Swalm 1996). Its roots can be traced as far as the 19th century, when the Outing Clubs had the `ability to provide training, access and equipment´ to individuals with the desire to explore the wilderness (Webb 2001, 42). In the 20th century, pioneers such as Hahn, Miner or Petzoldt `developed and promoted methods of using the outdoors to successfully teach leadership, character development and environmental stewardship to students of all ages´ across North America (Wells 2007, 77). However, limitations such as costs or location (the wilderness), as well as the interest of some to bring its basic positive ideas into the classroom, influenced those methods to evolve into programs such as Project Adventure in the 1970s (Newton, Sandberg and Watson 2001). Over the last three decades, Adventure Education has been successfully introduced into schools all over North America through many different activities. Orienteering (Hammes 2007), low-ropes (Cluphf 2003), high-ropes and canoeing (Latess and Walker 2011), or indoor climbing (Martinez and Fader 2004) are examples of how diverse activities related to the outdoors, and the adventure and excitement that it brings, can be developed in physical education. Adventure Education has become so popular in the U.S. that `it has been included within the benchmarks and content standards for school physical education produced by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education´ (Zmudy, Curtner-Smith and Steffen 2009, 320). People in North America `have always been passionate about the benefits of their wilderness and recreation experiences´ (Webb 2001, 40) and their governments have also valued them and legislated favouring those ideas. In Britain, outdoor and adventure activities have also been valued and they have been included in the National Curriculum for Physical Education (Zmudy, Curtner-Smith and Steffen 2009). In Bostwana, the `Ministry of Education and Skills Development introduced a module on outdoor adventure education in the junior secondary school Physical Education syllabus´ (Moreri 2011, 103). All over the world, countries such as Australia, South Africa or Taiwan have introduced outdoor adventure education in their schools (Munge 2009; Weilbach, Meyer and Monyeki 2010; Wu, Hsieh and Wang 2013). Raise environmental consciousness (Moreri 2011), increase leisure time (Clocksin 2006), develop social values (Schoel, Prouty and Radcliffe 1988), lifelong learning (Fenwick 2010) or enjoy the outdoors with friends (Henton 1996) could be considered reasons behind this interest. Unfortunately, in some European countries such as Spain, the impact of Adventure Education in the educational system has been limited due to its novelty (BaenaExtremera, Campos-Gallegos and Ortiz-Camacho 2012). Students’ growth, learning, and understanding of their potential have been highlighted as major outcomes of Adventure Education (Priest and Glass 2005). They can be achieved through team building and group development, which, in turn, promote social skills (Bisson 1999). However, Adventure Education also involves risk
3
(perceived and created), fear, uncertainty of outcome and decision making, which seems to foster participants’ self-expression, self-efficacy, self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-worth (McKenzie 2003). Finally, environmental learning is a key element in Adventure Education, since it teaches students how to enjoy the outdoors, while developing wilderness appreciation (Hattie, Marsh, Neill and Richards 1997). The term Parkour was introduced by David Belle in the 1990’s. It derives from the French word parcours, which means route or course. It is also known as the art of displacement, which portrays the ultimate goal of this activity: go anywhere you choose, challenging yourself. Witfeld, Gerling and Pach (2010) describe Parkour as a movement discipline where practitioners choose their own way through the natural or urban space, and run along a path they set for themselves, clearing any obstacles that may arise as quickly and efficiently as possible. As described by Saville (2008, 892) parkour `…is always a quest, a search for new and more elaborate imaginings, it is an opening out of possible, but not necessarily attainable, mobilities´. Therefore, the aim seems to be the development of physical skills such as balance, strength or endurance, but also cognitive abilities such as creativity or problem-solving skills. It is not difficult to picture ourselves, in our early years, climbing up and down trees, jumping over fences or balancing on walls. We were able to use any element available in the area to climb, jump, slide, or run while having fun. Nowadays, some youngsters climb up statues, jump over gates, leap over fences…, and they call it `parkour´. This activity could be considered as something childlike and playful, because the only goal is to move playfully in the streets (Ameel and Tani 2012). However, the media (i.e., television, newspapers, documentaries) portrays images of parkour associated with highly skilled, fearless individuals that risk serious injuries overcoming the obstacles that any street of any city in the world provides them (Attwood 2013; Saville 2008). However, this view could be misleading (McLean, Housjian and Pike 2006). Ameel and Tani (2012) believe that parkour can be considered a playful and childlike activity. Moreover, some authors believe that it has all the positive ingredients (i.e., child-centred, problem solving skills, positive socialization, developmentally appropriate, maximum participation) to be considered an educational activity (Grineski 1996; Johnson and Wroe 2009; Witfeld, Gerling and Pach 2010). Nowadays, parkour is practiced by thousands of youngsters all over the world. Its popularity is growing so rapidly that sport centres, especially designed for parkour, are being built in many different countries: Denmark, Finland, France, Great Britain, Poland and USA (Ameel and Tani 2012). Moreover, big companies are investing huge amounts of money on its promotion through different events such as the Barclaycard Freerun 2009 World Championships in London, the Red Bull 2012 Art of Motion in Santorini or the Axis World Parcouring Championship in Berlin (Attwood 2013). This type of physical activity is drawing the interest of thousands of children all over the world, who attend these events or watch them via youtube, and later try to perform the different exercises they witness in their neighbourhoods (Clegg and Butryn 2012). Considering all these different facts, one question arises almost immediately: why we, as physical educators, should not try to teach youngsters how to practice parkour in a safe and supervised environment? It seems wiser to learn any activity in the school than on the streets (Cornford 2008), linking the physical education curriculum with the students’ community. Moreover, authors such as Saville (2008, 903) believe that `the practice of parkour is a good example of how people can begin to explore, refine, and even enjoy fearful emotions´. The experience of fear, and the emotions produced by the
4
mismatch between `real´ and `perceived´ danger, can be very valuable for the development of the whole child (Saville, 2008). Learning to cope with fear could be a good goal for students in physical education, as well as an excellent reason to include parkour in its curriculum. Other adventure-type activities such as indoor climbing, which are fully integrated in many schools’ curriculum, also help students cope with fear and risk ((Martinez and Fader 2004). Unfortunately, parkour has had a mixed reception within the physical education profession. The 2008 bulletin of the Association for Physical Education Professionals (afPE) included a strong note stating that it `…cannot support an activity that appears to fly in the face of safe practice and acceptable risk on several counts. …in short, it is inappropriate, misguided and dangerous´ (Beaumont 2008, 18). However, contrary to the image depicted by popular videos, parkour can be considered a safe activity, because every action is revised, supervised, and undertaken bearing in mind the ideas of responsibility and safety (Gilchrist and Wheaton 2011). Consequently, serious injuries are unusual, and tend to take place when untrained beginners try difficult tricks without the necessary training and supervision (Miller and Demoiny 2008). Moreover, parkour promotes the importance of being safe at all times while performing any movement (Gilchrist and Wheaton 2011). In a second bulletin, a few months later, the afPE showed a different view on parkour: `…has the potential to offer young people an alternative movement experience that is both challenging and fulfilling in both its skill and aesthetic demands´ (Beaumont 2008, 18). Finally, in 2009, the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance Examination Board recognized parkour as part of the national curriculum for gymnastics (Johnson and Wroe 2009). Following the new Physical Education curriculum introduced in 2009, a few schools in England expanded their provision introducing parkour in their classes, and/or as an after school activity. These experiences have showed that parkour is a flexible activity that allows students to be self-directed, increasing their confidence and maturity (Gilchrist and Wheaton 2011). Cooperative learning has been defined as an instructional model where students work together in small, heterogeneous groups, helping each other learn and achieve group goals (Dyson, Linehan and Hastie 2010). Metzler (2005, 257) summarizes it brilliantly: “students learning with, by and for each other”. Moreover, Dyson and Casey (2012), following Haerens, Kirk, Cardon, and De Bourdeaudhuij’s (2011) concept of pedagogical models (interconnections among learning, teaching, content and context), believe that the special bonds between students and teachers, which emphasize learning over teaching, make cooperative learning a true pedagogical model. On the other hand, Johnson and Johnson (1999) showed the basic elements that represent the essentials of cooperative learning: interpersonal and small group skills, positive interdependence, group processing, individual accountability and promotive face-to-face interaction. The effectiveness of this pedagogical model in different educational contexts is irrefutable (Johnson and Johnson 2009). Among others, cooperative learning has been proven to enhance peer interaction (Fernandez-Rio 2003), encourage participation and improve motor skills (Dyson 2001), develop interpersonal skills (Dyson and Stratchan 2000), foster group accountability and increase the number of correct trials in practice (Barrett 2005). Adventure education promotes intra- and interpersonal development through risk taking and management, uncertainty, self-confidence and self-expression (Louw, Meyer, Strydom, Kotze and Ellis 2012), but also through communication and the ability to cooperate with others (Newton, Sandberg and Watson 2001). Certainly, `adventure
5
activities, by their nature, are cooperative´ (Henton 1996, 92). Most of them are usually structured to incorporate the previously mentioned five basic elements of cooperative learning: students must talk and listen to each other during the different activities (interpersonal and small group skills), they rely on each other to be able to perform the task (positive interdependence), they articulate ideas and integrate various view points to find the best solution for the challenge proposed by the teacher (group processing), they feel that each individual in the group is responsible for his/her mates’ success (individual accountability), and, finally, students are in direct contact with each other while trying the different challenges (promotive face-to-face interaction). Therefore, cooperative learning could be considered at the heart of Adventure Education. For this reason, it was selected as the basic pedagogical model to introduce parkour in elementary physical education. Authors such as Zmudy, Curtner-Smith, and Steffen (2009) believe that there is a need to increase research on the effects of Adventure Education activities, such as parkour, on students. It is necessary to analyze their outcomes and compare them with populations from different countries, ages, ethnicities, etc.. To our knowledge, there are no published studies on the integration of parkour in Primary Education. Based on the aforementioned, we decided to conduct a parkour learning unit in an elementary school program. The rationale was to bring its positive goals (physical, cognitive and social) into the school’s physical education curriculum for a holistic approach to physical activity. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess students’ feelings and thoughts after experiencing a parkour learning unit in primary physical education. Methods Participants and setting The research project was conducted in an intact, sixth-grade physical education class in an elementary school located in the northern part of Spain. A total of 26 students with ages ranging between 11 and 12 years (mean age 11.4 ± 0.6) participated in the study. The number of boys and girls involved was about even: 14 boys and 12 girls. None of them had experienced parkour before the beginning of the project. Intervention program The main goal of our parkour proposal for elementary school was to help all children refine their basic locomotor skills (i.e., run, hop, jump, slide, roll, land…) on different surfaces and scenarios using adventure-type activities. Safety was a priority in our scheme. Before we describe the different skills and activities used in the intervention program, we want to highlight several safety considerations that were fundamental to ensure students’ protection while performing parkour in physical education: all kinds of mats were used to cover any hard surface, enough room was provided around each working space, enough time for task practice was granted to all students, selection of each activity’s risk level was allowed for each individual student, and, finally, taking turns and respect classmates’ working time and space was stressed at all times. Parkour can be a risky locomotor experience if it is not correctly introduced to the students. Therefore, a progressive, developmentally appropriate intervention program was designed and implemented through a 12-lesson format (55 minutes each session). Lessons 1-4: The teacher worked on Basic Skills. They were simple and easy skills that students had practiced in previous learning units. However, they had to be reviewed and readjusted to fit the specific demands of the new content. They also had to
6
be mastered before students could try to learn any parkour specific skill. They were also considered essential for students’ safety while performing the different tasks. They included landing, dismounting, rolling, and straight/precision jumping tasks from and/or on different elements. Lessons 5-9: Specific Parkour Skills were introduced and practiced in different scenarios: from very simple ones (floor, low balance beam…) to difficult ones (high balance beam, high bars…). The idea was to use traditional resources available in any physical education gymnasium (wall-bars, benches, ladders, hurdles, horses, bars...), but organizing and using them differently to meet the demands of parkour (Fernandez-Rio 2010). They included tasks with fun names such as cat leap, step vault, two-handed vault, monkey vault, and tic-tac. Lessons 10-12: Combination Tasks were designed for students to use the different skills learned throughout the learning unit. Once the basic parkour skills had been practiced, the teacher, as well as the students, created scenarios where a combination of the previously learned skills could be used. Imagination and safety were the only limits: tic-tac and cat leap, step vault from a bench over a vault box, cat leap and frontal dismount... (for a full description of the tasks see Suarez and Fernandez-Rio 2012). Every skill (basic or specific) was introduced using learning cues. These are words or short sentences that identify and communicate to the students the critical features of a movement, skill or task (Rink 1998). Therefore, they can be easily remembered and used during practice. All cues were introduced to the students through task sheets. The goal was to have them available during practice to provide feedback on each other (Fernandez-Rio 2006). During the whole learning unit, students worked in small, heterogeneous cooperative groups to capitalize on learning (Johnson, Johnson and Johnson-Holubec 1994). Teacher selection was based on the willingness of the candidate to implement new contents such as parkour, as well as his teaching experience (more than 10 years in Primary Education). The participating teacher underwent a specific seminar on parkour (carried by the researchers) prior to the beginning of the whole experience. It consisted of 10 hours of theoretical and 6 hours of practical training, which included pre-designed lessons to be practiced, discussed and analyzed. During the implementation phase of the project, the teacher attended another seminar (1-hour session every week) to share his views, the difficulties faced and his doubts with the university researchers. Several lessons were videotaped and analyzed by the researches, who gave feedback to the teacher during the seminars based on them. Therefore, as suggested by Braithwaite, Spray and Warburton (2011), a combination of different strategies (training seminars, pre-designed sessions, and video analysis) was used to provide an adequate training to the participant teacher. To guard against potential problems, both researchers (with more than 5 years of experience on Adventure Education) carefully prepared all lessons considering the resources available in the target-school. The implementation of the learning unit was also closely supervised by the researchers (videotaping several lessons) to assure that the teacher was following the prescribed tasks, activities, games, and instructional format. In conclusion, researchers tried to establish trustworthiness of the Adventure Education approach and the cooperative learning pedagogical model through teacher preparation, reflective practice and comparison between planned materials and observation of the implementation through video analysis (Hastie and Sinelnikov 2006; Parker and Curtner-Smith 2005).
7
Procedure Before collecting any data, researchers explained to all participants (students, teachers and administrators) the study to be conducted. Prior to the beginning of the intervention, a written consent, approved by the University Ethical Advisory Committee, was obtained from all participants’ parents. Researchers conducted data collection at the end of the intervention program. All participants were asked via an open-ended question to `Describe your feelings, your thoughts, and your ideas on the parkour learning unit that you just experience in physical education´. The goal was to gather information regarding students’ perceptions of the different parkour sessions, as well as the whole experience. Students were told that their responses would be kept confidential. They were also informed that their teachers would not have access to their answers. Researchers encouraged students to respond as truthfully as they could, highlighting that their answers would not influence their physical education grades. Data collection and analysis MAXQDA 11 (Verbi GmbH, Berlín, Germany), a qualitative software package, was used to assist with data management. All participants’ answers were analyzed via thematic content analysis (Libarkin and Kurdziel 2002) and constant comparison (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). Thematic content analysis focuses on searching for patterns in the text. Descriptive and pattern coding were used to analyze both within-case and cross-case patterns (Saldaña 2009). Thematic content analysis related to specific topics was simply a matter of determining which ideas were exhibited by students in their open-ended response. First, participants’ comments were read several times to get a sense of the meaning of the experience as a whole (Dale 2000). Peer reviews conducted by an expert in qualitative methods helped establish objectivity throughout the data analysis phase (Sparkes 1998). Themes or categories were identified inductively as they emerged naturally from the data. The themes that emerged in the first independent analysis were then critically examined by both authors through a reflective dialogue, which included discussed interpretations of the transcripts (i.e., perceived meanings of certain phrases or statements). Trustworthiness was supported through continuous feedback and participative analysis on the part of the two researchers as they reviewed and refined the emerging categories, so that the findings could be considered dependable, credible, and transferable (Lincoln and Guba 1985). The goal was to use the information obtained to enhance the potential contribution of the paper to a wider educational community. Results and discussion Data represents students’ ideas, thoughts and/or feelings after experiencing a parkour learning unit in elementary physical education. Several themes emerged naturally from the data. Categories are discussed below and quotes are used to exemplify them. Five major categories emerged from the analysis: enjoyment, fear, social skills, problemsolving skills and integration. To our knowledge, there are no published studies on the effects of the implementation of parkour in elementary physical education students. Therefore, our results must be compared with similar Adventure Education interventions. Enjoyment
8
This was the dominant theme found. All students agreed that the parkour learning unit and the different tasks experienced had been fun: `It is one of the best activities that I have ever tried in physical education´ (Marta). Previous research works have highlighted that Adventure Education activities can increase students’ enjoyment and satisfaction (Baena-Extremera, Granero-Gallegos and Ortiz-Camacho 2012; Bisson 1999). Moreover, Doering and Veletsianos (2008) found that students who experience adventure projects are happy and motivated. Henton (1996) believes that there is a feeling of satisfaction when an individual meets the challenges of an adventurous activity, which leads him to pursue new challenges. The success of the parkour learning unit could be, at least, partially explained by the novelty of the content. The use of new contents such as parkour to increase students’ situational interest seems to enhance their motivation to learn (Subramanian 2010), making those novel programs valuable for educational purposes. However, the type of activities (adventurous), the instructional approach (cooperative learning) and the suitability of the intervention program could have amplified this positive effect. As previously described, every activity was designed to be: a) developmentally appropriate for primary education students, and b) open-ended. Both elements could have helped students be successful while performing the different activities. Previous research works found that students in cooperative learning structures increase their percentage of correct trials during practice (Barret 2005). When students are successful, they have fun, they enjoy the activity because they feel competent (Fairclough 2001). The intervention program could be considered a real success, because the participating students enjoyed the experience and it showed in their writings: “It was like being in an amusement park” (Pedro). Fear This was another important theme that emerged from the participating students’ responses: `At times, I was scared, because many activities looked so difficult and dangerous´ (Felipe). Risk (perceived and created) is inherent to Adventure Education, potentially evoking feelings of dissonance, uncertainty, anxiety, and even fear (Dort, Evaul and Gehris 2005; Lee and Ewert 2013). However, in our intervention, students were allowed to select each activity’s level of difficulty and risk, which helped diminish the fear factor. `The individual experiences a state of disequilibrium by being place in a novel setting that purposely incorporates unpredictability, suspense and some level of psychological and physical risk´ (Newton, Sandberg and Watson 2001, 486). Nevertheless, the managed risk promotes the development of competencies that allow individuals to adapt to any novel environment (Priest and Gass 2005), which is an extremely important skill in life. We agree with Dort, Evaul and Swalm (1996) that one of the goals of Adventure Education should be to learn to cope with fear, with uncertainty of outcome, and work on decision making and personal courage: `At first, a few activities seemed risky, but once you tried them, they were ok and fun´ (Tomás). Parkour activities, when adapted to educational contexts, seem to help physical education teachers develop these skills in their students, while having fun. However, it is extremely important to modify all the different tasks to make them developmentally appropriate and safe, but also challenging, since they can provide opportunities for students to manage risk-taking and develop self-expression, self-efficacy, self-confidence, and self-esteem, like many other Adventure Education activities (McKenzie 2003).
9
The cooperative learning structure used in the parkour learning unit could have also helped the students handle their feelings of fear. One critical element of cooperative learning is face-to-face promotive interaction among group members (Johnson and Johnson 1999). It means that individuals must support their group mates, help them achieve the common goals, and, in adventure activities like parkour, this means coping with the fear to perform the proposed tasks. Social skills Students highlighted that parkour had helped them develop their social skills: `We worked really well together. We helped each other in the different tasks during the unit, no matter how difficult they were´ (Sergio). Previous research works have found that Adventure Education can improve students’ social relationships as well as group cohesion (Benshoff and Glass 2002). Certainly, adventure is not just jumping, sliding or climbing, but also `a matter of support, significance, stimulation and satisfaction´ (Henton 1996, 5). Participants (students and teachers) considered that the working atmosphere was excellent during the whole experience. There were no significant behavioural problems, and children worked cooperatively sharing resources, taking turns, and helping each other. Adventure Education programs seem to fulfil the learners’ need for relatedness through the development of interpersonal skills such as communication, cooperation and trust (Priest and Gass 2005). Previous studies have shown that parkour can help develop youngsters’ maturity and behaviour, even among at-risk students (Beaumont 2008), which tend to lead to better social skills: “I learned to support my classmates, to help them finish the task” (Juan). Gilchrist and Wheaton (2011) reported that beginners and newcomers to parkour are welcomed, embraced, and supported. They are not ridiculed, harassed or expelled as in many traditional sports. Every individual takes responsibility for training other participants, for showing them what they know, for supporting rather than competing with them, emphasizing friendly and constructive behaviour (Ameel and Tani 2012). The idea that Adventure Education can fulfil an individual’s need for relatedness derives from the interpersonal skills that it promotes (Priest and Gass 2005). During the intervention program, students worked in cooperative learning groups, which could have helped nurture these positive conducts that led to all these positive outcomes. Rooted in social interdependence theory (Deutsch 1968; Johnson and Johnson 1989; Lewin 1935) cooperative learning tends to promote a positive social interdependence among individuals, because they perceive that they can attain their goals if they help their group mates reach the common goal (i.e., perform a certain task). Previous research works on cooperative learning found significant improvements in social skills and social relations among students in many different contexts (Dyson and Stratchan 2000; Fernandez-Rio 2003; Casey, Dyson and Campbell 2009). Therefore, both structures, Adventure Education and cooperative learning, could have had an additive effect to foster the participating students’ social skills. Problem-solving skills This positive outcome was frequently mentioned by the students: `You may think that you are not going to be able to make it, but if you think carefully how it can be done, you do it´ (Ana). Previous research has showed that Adventure Education helps develop decision making and problem-solving skills because of the open-ended character of its activities (Bisson 1999; Schoel, Prouty and Radcliffe 1988). In the different learning
10
tasks of the parkour intervention program, students were asked to overcome the obstacles designed by the educators, or in the final stages on the unit, by their classmates. Initially, they were given specific instructions to perform the necessary skills. Gradually, teachers provided students with tasks where they had to solve different motor problems, and find a solution with the help of others. Group processing is one of the basic elements of the cooperative learning pedagogical model, and it was fostered in the parkour intervention program (Johnson and Johnson 1999). It meant briefing and processing within the working groups. These two related actions could have also helped the development of problem-solving skills in the participating students. The different types of activities experienced in the parkour learning unit could have helped the students see the potential of using an object in many different ways for their benefit, of turning limitations into opportunities to achieve a certain goal, of using their creativity to find a different solution: `I found a different way to jump over a mat, and it worked´ (Isabel). These abilities seem to promote the development of problemsolving skills, which is a very important and helpful competency to develop in our youngsters, and parkour seems to foster them. Inclusion Surprisingly, not only high-skilled boys enjoyed the parkour learning unit. Girls and low-skilled boys found the different activities challenging, but also enjoyable: `I usually have lots of problems with many sports in physical education, but I was able to do the different tricks and I enjoyed them´ (Daniel). The tasks selected by the teacher caught the participants’ attention right from the beginning. They were all carefully designed and/or modified to be developmentally appropriate for every student in the class. Therefore, they allowed each student to work at his/her own pace, be successful and have fun while performing the different activities, regardless of his/her initial skill level. Sklars, Anderson, and Autry (2007) believe that adventure education focus on the strengths and positive competences that youngsters have, instead of overemphasizing their limitations, which helps them feel integrated in class. We strongly believe that the proposed parkour activities’ open-ended character also helped students accomplish these outcomes. Additionally, cooperative learning has been found to promote a positive social interdependence among group mates, which results in promotive face-to-face interaction (Johnson and Johnson, 1989). Researchers were able to observe high and low-skilled students working together in their groups, encouraging and facilitating each other’s work to complete the different tasks. Heterogeneous grouping based on skill level (among other characteristics such as gender or race) is another basic feature of cooperative learning (Dyson and Casey 2012), and it helps students’ integration through an improvement in their social skills (Grenier 2006). Previous research works have reported that hard-to-reach youth such as girls, overweight children or socially disadvantaged youngsters, many of those who have turned their back on traditional school-based sport practices such as team-sports, find parkour appealing and become motivated by this new type of sport (Beaumont 2008). This idea was also transmitted by several of the participating students: `I don´t like physical education, but parkour is different, you can work at your own level´ (Luis). The teacher and the setting could have influenced them to believe that effort and attitude, not ability or strength, were rewarded during the parkour learning unit, since the designed tasks did not require students to exhibit their physical capacities. Parkour
11
participants seem to embrace the aesthetic side of this activity, valuing feminine physical skills such as balance and agility, and not heroic displays of strength, speed or power (Beaumont 2008). Values such as non-competitiveness, supportiveness, and responsibility are also key elements to engage a wide-range of participants in any sport activity (Beaumont 2008), and all of them were carefully included in our intervention program. The present study also holds some limitations. First, the number of participants was very limited (just one physical education class). Larger sample sizes are needed to find out if the information obtained through this work can be used in other settings. Second, data was obtained only through qualitative research methods. Input from quantitative methods is needed too. Third, the study failed to assess specifically any changes in the pupils’ perceptions of their physical competence, which is important to consider the inclusion of parkour as part of the physical education curriculum. Conclusions This study shows how parkour can be successfully integrated in primary physical education. It provides a preliminary view on the students’ reactions to the introduction of this new sport in a school’s curriculum. Our findings agree with previous researchers who believe that parkour could be considered an educational content due to all the different positive outcomes that it brings into the physical education class. It seems to promote the development of social and problem-solving skills in the students (both competences should be encouraged and fostered in our youngsters). Furthermore, it is considered a fun activity, it promotes students’ integration and it teaches them how to cope with fear. If we, as physical educators, want our students to become physically active, they need to become competent and autonomous in many different motor skills and activities. Parkour is a sport whose popularity among youngsters is increasing very rapidly. Physical education cannot turn its back on new activities; especially the ones that are attractive and motivating to our students. On the contrary, it has the duty to prepare children to deal with these urban sports, and to be able to practice them safely. References Ameel, L., and S. Tani. 2012. Parkour: Creating loose spaces. Geografiska Annaler series B: 17-30. Attwood, E. 2013. Overcoming obstacles. Athletic Business January: 48-50 Baena-Extremera, A., A. Granero-Gallegos, and M.D.M. Ortiz-Camacho. 2012. Quasiexperimental Study of the Effect of an Adventure Education Programme on Classroom Satisfaction, Physical Self-Concept and Social Goals in Physical Education. Psychologica Belgica 52(4): 369-386. Barrett, T. 2005. Effects of cooperative learning on the performance of sixth-grade physical education students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 24: 88-102. Beaumont, G. 2008. Parkour–Related activity: afPE’s position statement and recommendations. http://www.afpe.org.uk/public/news_archive_november.htm (Accessed 17 March 2013). Benshoff, J., and J. Glass. 2002. Facilitating group cohesion among adolescents through challenge course experiences. Journal of Experiential Education 25: 268-277. Bisson, C. 1999. Sequencing the adventure experience. In J. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 205-214). State College, PA: Venture.
12
Braithwaite, R., C.M. Spray, and V.E. Warburton. 2011. Motivational climate interventions in physical education: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12: 628-638. Clegg, J.L., and T.M. Butryn 2012. An existential phenomenological examination of parkour and freerunning. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 4(3): 320-340. Clocksin, B.D. 2006. Sequencing low adventure activities in elementary physical education. Teaching Elementary Physical Education May:16-22 Cluphf, D. 2003. A low-ropes initiative unit for at-risk students. Strategies 17(1): 13-16. Cornford, C. 2008. Circular 099/2008: guidance on parkour. CZone. https://czone.eastsussex.gov.uk/county_information/virtual_schoolbag/document.as p?item¼2801 (Accessed 24 february 2013). Dale, G.A. 2000. Distractions and coping strategies of elite decathletes during their memorable performances. The Sport Psychologist 14: 17-41. Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 1994. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Doering, A., and G. Veletsianos. 2008. What lies beyond effectiveness and efficiency? Adventure learning design. Internet and Higher Education 11: 137-144. Dort, A., T. Evaul, and J. Gehris. 2005. The heart of adventure. Adventurer winterspring issue: 1-2. Dort, A., T. Evaul, and R. Swalm. 1996. Adventure on a shoestring. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern District Association of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Stamford, CT. Casey, A., B. Dyson, and A. Campbell. 2009. Action research in physical education: Focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning. Educational Action Research 17(3): 407-423. Deutsch, M. 1968. Field theory in social psychology. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, 412–487). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Dyson, B. 2001. Cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 20(3): 264-281. Dyson B., and A. Casey. 2012. Cooperative learning as a pedagogical model in physical education, in B. Dyson and A. Casey (eds) Cooperative Learning in Physical Education. A research-based approach (1-12). Abigdon, Ox: Routledge. Dyson, B.P., N.R. Linehan, and P.A. Hastie. 2010. The Ecology of Cooperative Learning in Elementary Physical Education Classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 29(2): 113-130. Dyson, B., and K. Strachan. 2004. The ecology of cooperative learning in a high school physical education programme. Waikato Journal of Education 10: 117-39. Fairclough, S. 2003. Physical activity, perceived competence and enjoyment during high school physical education. European Journal of Physical Education 8(1): 518. Fenwick, A.J.J. 2010. Outdoor learning within the Formal Scottish Secondary Curriculum: Oportunities and Challenges. Paper presented at the 10th conference of the European Institute for Outdoor Adventure Education and Experiential Learning, Planica, Slovenia, September 22-25. Fernández-Río, J. 2003. El aprendizaje cooperativo en el aula de Educación Física. Análisis comparativo con otros sistemas de enseñanza y aprendizaje [Cooperative
13
learning in physical education. Comparative analysis with other instructional models]. Valladolid: La Peonza. Fernández-Río, J. 2006. Estructuras de trabajo cooperativas, aprendizaje a través de claves y pensamiento crítico en la enseñanza de los deportes en el ámbito educativo [Cooperative learning structures, learning through clues and critical learning in games teaching in educational contexts]. Paper presented at the 5th International Congress on Cooperative Physical Activities, Coruña June 1-3. Fernandez-Rio, J. 2010. Viejos y nuevos materiales y espacios en educación física: aprovechamiento y nuevas posibilidades [Old and new resources in physical education: usage and possibilities]. Tándem 32: 64-72. Gilchrist, P., and B. Wheaton. 2011. Lifestyle sport, public policy and youth engagement: Examining the emergence of parkour. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 3(1): 109-131. Glover, D.R., and D.W. Midura. 1992. Team Building through Physical Challenges. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Grenier, M. 2006. A social constructionist perspective of teaching and learning in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 23: 245-260. Grineski, S. 1996. Cooperative learning in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Haerens, L., D. Kirk, G. Cardon, and I. De Bourdeaudhuij. 2011. Toward the development of a pedagogical model for health-based physical education. Quest 63(3): 321-338. Hammes, R. 2007. Orienteering with adventure education: New games for the 21st century. Strategies 20(5): 7-13. Hastie, P.A., and O.A. Sinelnikov. 2006. Russian students’ participation in and perceptions of a season of sport education. European Physical Education Review 12(2): 131–50. Hattie, J., H.W. Marsh, J.T. Neill, and G.E. Richards 1997. Adventure Education and Outward Bound: out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research 67(1): 43-87. Henton, M. 1996. Adventure in the Classroom. Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt. Johnson, D.W., and R. Johnson. 1989. Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D.W., and R.T. Johnson. 1999. Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D.W., and R.T. Johnson. 2009. An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher 38(5): 365–379 Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and E. Johnson-Holubec. 1994. Cooperative learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD publications. Johnson, A., and S. Wroe. 2009. Free running could be taught in secondary schools. Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/freerunning-couldbe-taught-in-secondary-schools-1515326.html (Accessed 16 February 2013). Latess, D.R., and R.L. Walker. 2011. Using the adventure model to teach about diversity and tolerance. Strategies 24(3): 29-32. Lee, K., and A. Ewert. 2013. Adventure Programs and Diverse Family Styles. Journal of Experiential Education 36(2): 123-138.
14
Lewin, K. 1935. A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. Libarkin, J.C., and J.P. Kurdziel. 2002. Research Methodologies in Science Education: The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate. Journal of Geoscience Education 50(1): 7886. Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, London: Sage. Louw, P.J., C.D. Meyer, G.L. Strydom, H.N. Kotze, and S. Ellis. 2012. The impact of an adventure based experiential learning programme on the life effectiveness of black high school learners. South African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance 18(1):55-64. Martínez, R., and T. Fader. 2004. Developmental bouldering for elementary students. Strategies 18(1): 7-9. McKenzie, M. 2003. Beyond the outward bound process: Rethinking student learning. Journal of Experiential Education 26: 8–23. McLean, C.R., S. Houshian, and J. Pike. 2006. Pediatric fractures sustained in Parkour (free running). Injury 37(8): 795-797. Metzler, M.W. 2005. Instructional models for physical education. Scottsdale, Az: Holcomb Hathaway. Miller, J.R., and S.G. Demoiny. 2008. Parkour: a new extreme sport and a case study. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 47(1): 63–65. Moreri, A.B. 2011. Challenges in the delivery of adventure education: The case of Botswana Junior Secondary Schools. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation 33(3):103-112. Munge, B. 2009. From the outside looking in: A study of Australian employers’ perceptions of graduates from outdoor education degree programs. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education 13(1): 30-38. Newton, M., J. Sandberg, and D.L. Watson. 2001. Utilizing adventure education within the model of moral action. Quest 53(4): 483-494. Parker, M.B., and M.D. Curtner-Smith. 2005. Health-related fitness in sport education and multiactivity teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(1): 1–18. Priest, S., and M. Gass. 2005. Effective leadership in adventure programming (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Rink, J. 1998. Teaching physical education for learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Saldaña, J. 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Saville, S.J. 2008. Playing with fear: parkour and the mobility of emotion. Social and Cultural Geography 9(8): 891-914. Schatzman, L., and A. Strauss. 1973. Field research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schoel, J., D. Prouty, and P. Radcliffe. 1988. Islands of healing: A guide to adventure based counseling. Hamilton, MA: Project Adventure. Sklars, S.L., S.C. Anderson, and C.E. Autry. 2007. Positive youth development: A wilderness intervention. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 3: 223-243. Sparkes, A.C. 1998. Validity in qualitative inquiry and the problem of criteria: Implications for sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist 12: 363-386. Suárez, C., and J. Fernandez-Rio. 2012. El parkour en la escuela [Parkourt in the school]. Madrid: Lulú.
15
Subramanian, P.R. 2010. Unlocking the power of situational interest in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 81(7): 38-41. Varley, P. 2006. Confecting adventure and playing with meaning: the adventure commodification continuum. Journal of Sport & Tourism 11(2): 173-194. Watson, D.L., and B.D. Clocksin. 2011. Process is everything! Enhancing student learning in adventure education. Strategies 24(5): 19-22. Webb, D.J. 2001. The Emergence and Evolution of Outdoor Adventure Programs, 1863-2000: A History of Student Initiated Outing Programs. http://scholar.google.es/scholar?hl=es&q=The+Emergence+and+Evolution+of+Out door+Adventure+Programs&btnG=&lr= (Accessed 10 February 2014). Weilbach, T., C. Meyer, and M.A. Monyeki. 2010. The effect of adventure-based experiential learning on personal effectiveness of adolescents. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance 16(4):.131-140 Wells, D. 2007. Organizational Collaboration in Outdoor Adventure Education – Executive Summary. Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education Conference Proceedings 77-89. Witfeld, J., I.E. Gerling, and A. Pach. 2010. Parkour and Freerunning: Discover your possibilities. London: Meyer and Meyer. Wu, C.-C., C.-M. Hsieh, and W.-C. Wang. 2013. Possible mechanisms of the benefit of one-day challenge ropes courses. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation 35(1): 219-231. Zmudy, M.H., M.D. Curtner-Smith, and J. Steffen. 2009. Student participation styles in adventure education. Sport, Education and Society 14: 465-480.
