Young female competitive athletes have a comparatively high prevalence of taking painkillers on their own and therefore run the risk of damaging their health and athletic performance in the long term. It should be noted here that young female athletes have more non-sport-related causes of pain than male athletes due to the accompanying symptoms of the menstrual cycle. The research project therefore comprises a theory- and empirically-based development and evaluation of an athlete-specific painkiller prevention programme for young female athletes.

The aim of this project (running from July 2024 to June 2026), which is funded by the Federal Institute of Sport Science, is to support young female athletes in their self-directed use of painkillers, reduce excessive use and strengthen their health literacy. The project is being carried out in co-operation with the elite sports schools of the Lower Saxony and Hamburg/Schleswig-Holstein Olympic training centres and the Oberschule an der Ronzelenstraße (Bremen).

Project partners:

• Lower Saxony Olympic Training Centre, Elite School of Sport Hanover
• Olympic Training Centre Hamburg Schleswig-Holstein, Elite School of Sport Hamburg
• Oberschule an der Ronzelenstraße Bremen

Scientific advisory board:

• Prof Anne-Marie Elbe (University of Leipzig)
• Prof Jochen Mayer (University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd)
• PD Dr Carsten Bantel (Klinikum Oldenburg AöR)

Project leader:

• Department "Sport and Education" (Dr Katharina Pöppel)
• Department of "Sport and Training" (Prof Dr Dirk Büsch)

Project funding by the Federal Institute for Sports Science (FKZ 2524BI0302, reference number: 070302/24-26)

Contact person: Dr Katharina Pöppel, Noelle Storck

Project leader: Prof Dr Jan Erhorn

Project staff: Maria Rücker

Funding volume: € 145,000

Project duration: January 2022 - December 2025

Funded by: Friedel & Gisela Bohnenkamp Foundation

Brief description

More and more primary school children are non-swimmers. The already pre-pandemic precarious situation has been significantly exacerbated by the closure of swimming pools and the cancellation of swimming lessons in the last 1.5 years. Children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds are particularly affected.

The primary target group of the project is therefore children without water skills, with a special focus on children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. In order to reach these children systematically, access is chosen via the daycare centre setting or daycare groups.

Secondary target groups are educational professionals from daycare centres and sports students who are to be qualified to carry out activities in the area of water awareness.

The aims of the project are:

a) the development of a scientifically based format for the implementation of water mastery programmes with KiTa groups,

b) the development of a scientifically based qualification concept for course leaders for the daycare centre setting (variant 1: further qualification of sports students; variant 2: qualification of educational specialists)

c) the development of training material (in particular a collection of video case studies and a training reader)

d) the qualification of 30 educational professionals from daycare centres and 30 sports students for the implementation of water mastery activities with daycare groups.

PLACE: Physical Literacy and Children Enrichment (Dr Katharina Pöppel, Dr Johannes Carl, Louisa Schmittwilken)

Introduction

In sport pedagogical-didactic discourses, the concept of reflection appears as a central element of physical education that is aimed at empowerment (Serwe-Pandrick, 2013), education (Beckers, 2013), competence-oriented (Messmer, 2014) or good physical education (Wolters et al., 2009), although it is neither uniformly defined nor operationalised. This makes it difficult to clearly differentiate it from other terms and conceptual approaches (Bates, Ramirez & Drits, 2009). Nonetheless, physical education teachers are expected to fulfil a wide range of requirements with regard to the guidance and support of reflection phases in physical education lessons, which, according to the findings of empirical studies (Hapke, 2018; Lüsebrink & Wolters, 2017), they rarely meet. Serwe-Pandrick et al. (2019) show that there is a desideratum with regard to the question of how reflective practices in physical education are different or similar under variable conditions. Against the background of the research question of how and why reflection discussions are conducted in everyday physical education lessons, the dissertation aims to identify the forms and functions of reflection processes in discussions in physical education lessons at lower secondary level. On the one hand, the results should enable a more precise use of the term "reflection talk" and, on the other hand, serve as an empirically based contrast to the predominantly normative discourses on the legitimisation and methodological implementation of reflection phases in physical education.

Theoretical framework

Reflection and reflexivity are ascribed a mediating function across disciplines. Through reflection, "realisation" (Ehni, 1979, p. 191), a "deeper understanding" (Wolters et al., 2009, p. 70) or "competence" (Reis, 2009, p. 100) can be achieved. Reflection following motor activity is therefore linked to the expectation of being able to achieve general educational goals of physical education by enabling students to act in society not only operationally but also reflexively (Schierz & Thiele, 2013). Here, reference points in philosophy and general pedagogy become visible, in which there are diverse definitions and concepts for reflection (Lenske & Lohse-Bossenz, 2023). However, these are often essentially based on approaches by John Dewey ("reflective thinking", 1910) and Donald Schön ("reflective practitioner", 1983). Irritating, i.e. unsettling, surprising or disturbing experiences can serve as the starting point for reflective thinking (Dewey, 1910). The subsequent intellectual debate is often depicted in reflection models in the form of successive phases. The EDAMA model according to Aeppli and Lötscher (2016), which is used as a heuristic to identify reflection processes in the data material, divides reflection processes into five phases (experience, representation, analysis, development of measures, application), which are fed by various prominent models of reflection cycles and involve different operations (Aeppli & Lötscher, 2016, 83). Within these phases, different perspectives can be adopted and aspects of thought can be thematised. The model is also considered to be sufficiently open, as it is a framework model that can vary under specific conditions.

One justification for the consideration of dialogue sequences is that teaching is produced situationally by the actors through conversations, understood as language in interaction contributions (Imo, 2023). A further justification is the assumption that reflection processes can be verbalised in conversation and (co-)constructed by teachers and students (Vogel, 2022). Following a typological view of classroom conversations (Hundsnurscher, 1989), the focus is placed on the forms and functions of different conversations in the classroom in which reflection processes can be reconstructed. In order to narrow down the subject area, the following working definition was developed for the term reflective dialogue:

"Reflection talk is defined as a conversation between at least two people that is held on the occasion of an irritating incident to which a conscious reference back is made in the subsequent conversation" (Meister, 2024, p. 55)

Methodology

The data basis of the study is formed by 23 physical education lessons (in lower secondary level at six classes at Hamburg district schools), which were videographically documented as part of the QiS project (Erhorn, Langer & Möller, 2019). The choice of this field is justified on the one hand by the broad basis of the data corpus for lower secondary level and on the other hand by the observation that the framework curricula of the field explicitly require reflection phases at this level. During the participant observation, one camera was focussed on the teacher (incl. radio microphone) and one camera on the entire sports facility. In order to identify reflection discussions, the data material was first viewed against the background of the work definition. Suitable scenes, which were also of sufficient recording quality to be analysed, were processed using the conversation analysis transcription system GAT2 (Selting et al., 2009). As part of the individual case analyses, the scenes were first analysed sequentially and then interpretatively using an adapted form of the Grounded Theory coding paradigm (Strauss & Corbin, 1990/1996). In order to systematise the conversations across cases, they were contrasted with regard to conversation and reflection-related characteristics and typified according to interpretatively developed characteristics (Kelle & Kluge, 2010).

Results

The four or The four or five types of conversation formed (proprio-operative problem-solving reflection monologue; semi-cooperative and cooperative problem-solving reflection dialogue; cooperative reconsidering and cooperative reviewing reflection dialogue) differ in the area of the characteristics of the occasions for reflection with regard to the degree of certainty and problematisation of the teachers, in the area of the characteristics of the conversation with regard to the degree of openness for the pupils:inside and in the area of characteristics for the consequences with regard to the degree of (co-)determination of the students in subsequent measures.

In the proprio-operative problem-solving reflection monologue and in the semi-cooperative problem-solving reflection dialogue, only measures are determined by the teacher, so that the degree of (co-)determination of the students in the measures to be taken was classified as low. The proprio-operative problem-solving reflection monologue is also characterised by the fact that only the teacher expresses their view of the events in the retrospective presentation phase. This form of "clarification" (Kokemohr, 1985) is seen as an indication that the conversation aims to encourage the students to reflect on their own behaviour, e.g. by "denouncing" it, but not to involve them at the level of the conversation.

This is different in the (semi-)cooperative problem-solving reflection dialogues, in which the students are involved at the level of the conversation in phases in which reference is made to the irritating experiences. In the reflection dialogues described as cooperative-problem-solving, the students are also heavily involved in the development of measures by the teacher.

The cooperative-reviewing reflection dialogue is characterised by the fact that although there is a review in the retrospective phase of the presentation, e.g. of a counter-statement made, this is not followed up afterwards and therefore no measures are developed. The cooperative-reflective dialogue is also characterised by a lack of action development in a prospective phase. Here, however, it is assumed that the teacher directs the conversation to past events with certainty of interpretation and intention, which may be categorised but not associated with future action. The processes in everyday physical education conversations in these last two types deviate from the prototypical form of retroactive and prospective phases of the EDAMA model.

Discussion and outlook

Although dialogue structures are also visible in the observed conversations, forms of "unambiguation" (Kokemohr, 1985) are evident across all types in the teachers' conversational actions, which prove to be functional for the purpose of maintaining or establishing orders of interaction, but rarely allow for in-depth, interactive content processing. Against the background of normative reflection level models (e.g. Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005), which assume, among other things, that the effect of a reflection is influenced by its depth, it can be criticised with regard to the teachers' conversational actions that only rarely are conversational phases opened up in which the students are encouraged to (self-)critically analyse, to reasoned argumentation or to develop appropriate measures. This criticism is also formulated based on evidence from empirical learning research on the effectiveness of dialogue-oriented conversations (Lipowsky & Rzejak, 2022).

Limitations of the work can be identified both in the data collection in the area of sampling strategy (data collection already completed due to a re-analysis of an existing data corpus), as well as in the data evaluation in the area of operationalisation and categorical selectivity. Further investigations should be aimed in particular at validating the interpretative development using research formats such as the stimulated recall interview (e.g. Messmer, 2015). There are also opportunities for follow-up research in the area of modelling the reflective discussion skills of (prospective) teachers (Meister, Brandes & Erhorn, 2024) and identifying moments of irritation from the students' perspective. With regard to the professionalisation of professionals, it is becoming apparent that the acquisition of dialogue-oriented conversation management skills, especially in cases of uncertainty (Hinzke, Boldt & Damm, 2023), is not a "didactic no-brainer" (Lipowsky & Rzejak, 2022, p. 66). In terms of professionalisation, the typology developed can serve as a starting point for expanding reflective discussion skills by sensitising students to their own discussion practices and expanding the range of potential discussion activities.

Literature

Aeppli, J., & Lötscher, H. (2016). EDAMA - A framework model for reflection. Contributions to teacher education, 34(1), 78-97.

Bates, A. J., Ramirez, L., & Drits, D. (2009). Connecting University Supervision and Critical

Reflection: Mentoring and Modelling. The Teacher Educator, 44(2), 90-112.

Beckers, E. (2013). Principles of educational physical education. In H. Aschebrock & G. Stibbe (Eds.), Didactic concepts for school sport (pp. 178-196). Meyer & Meyer.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Company.

Döhring, V., & Gissel, N. (2016). Sportunterricht planen und auswerten: Ein Praxisbuch für Lehrende und Studierende (4th corr. ed.). Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.

Ehni, H. W. (1979). Action-orientated sports didactics. In S. Größing (Ed.), Spektrum der Sportdidaktik (pp. 173-206). Limpert.

Erhorn, J., Langer, W., & Möller, L. (2019). Inclusive physical education as a starting point for (higher) didactic research and qualification. In F. Borkenhagen et al. (Eds.), Abstract volume of the 32nd annual conference of the dvs section Sport Pedagogy. Movement and sport in the horizon of youth and school pedagogical research (pp. 52-56). Feldhaus Edition Czwalina.

Hapke, J. (2018). Pedagogical perspectives in the actions of physical education teachers - a central didactic idea between claim and reality. Journal of sport pedagogical research, 6(1), 29-48.

Hinzke, J.-H., Boldt, V.-P., & Damm, A. (2023). Uncertainty as a 'driver' of professionalisation processes? Interpretations of group discussions with student teachers at the beginning of research-based learning programmes. In J-H. Hinzke & M. Keller-Schneider (eds.), Professionalism and professionalisation of teachers. Perspectives, theoretical frameworks and empirical approaches (pp. 73-93). Julius Klinkhardt.

Hundsnurscher, F. (1989). Typological aspects of classroom discussions. In E. Weigand & F. Hundsnurscher (Eds.) Dialogue Analysis II: Papers from the 2nd Workshop, Bochum 1988 (Vol. 1, pp. 237-256). Max Niemeyer.

Imo, W. (2013). Language in interaction. Methods of analysis and fields of investigation. De Gruyter.

Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (2010). From the individual case to the type. Case comparison and case contrasting in qualitative social research (2nd, revised ed.). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Kokemohr, R. (1985). Modalisation and validation in school teaching-learning processes. In R. Kokemohr & W. Marotzki (Eds.), Interaktionsanalysen pädagogischer Absicht (pp. 174-234). Peter Lang.

Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in refleciton: core reflection as a means to enhanc professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 11(1), 47-71.

Lenske, G., & Lohse-Bossenz, H. (2023) Keyword: Reflection in the pedagogical context. Journal of Educational Science, 26(1), 1133-1164.

Lipowsky, F., & Rzejak, D. (2022). Conducting classroom discussions successfully. A central core practice of teachers. Journal for Teacher Education, 22(3), 58-73.

Lüsebrink, I., & Wolters, P. (2017). Reconstruction of reflection occasions in everyday physical education. Journal of sport pedagogical research, 5(1), 27-44.

Meister, A. (2024). Reflection dialogues between teachers and students in physical education at lower secondary level. Draft of an empirically supported typology. Unpublished dissertation, University of Osnabrück.

Meister, A., Brandes, B., & Erhorn, J.(2024). Reflecting with students on the dimensions of demands of inclusive physical education - Development of a requirement situation-related competence profile for physical education teachers. QfI - Qualification for Inclusion, 5(3), doi: 10.21248/QfI.145

Messmer, R. (2014). Tasks between knowledge and skills. In M. Pfitzner (Ed.), Task culture in physical education (pp. 111-133). Springer VS.

Messmer, R. (2015). Stimulated recall as a focussed approach to teachers' action and thought processes. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 16(1), 160-169.

Reis, O. (2009). Through reflection to competence: a study on the relationship between competence development and reflective learning in higher education. In R. Schneider, J. Wildt, B. Szczyrba, & U. Welbers (Eds.), Changing teaching and learning cultures (pp. 100-120). Bertelsmann-Univ. publishing house.

Schierz, M., & Thiele, J. (2013). Think further - rethink - rethink? Arguments for the further development of the sport didactic guiding principle of the ability to act. In H. Aschebrock & G. Stibbe (Eds.), Didactic concepts for school sport (pp. 122-147). Meyer & Meyer.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J. R., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M. et al. (2009). Conversation analytic transcription system 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung - Online Journal of Verbal Interaction, 10, 353-402.

Serwe-Pandrick, E. (2013a). "The reflective turn?" Didactic positions on a "reflective practice" in physical education. Journal of sport pedagogical research, 1(2), 25-22.

Serwe-Pandrick, E., Wolff, D., & Frei, P. (2019). (Inter-)action in the sports hall - Empiricism on the practice of reflection. In K Verrière, L Schäfer (Eds.), Interaction in the classroom (pp. 165-187). Springer VS.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990/1996). Grounded Theory: Fundamentals of qualitative social research. Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.

Vogel, C. (2022). Reciprocity and reflection in conversations between children and students. In E. Gläser, J. Poschmann, P. Büker & S. Miller (Eds.), Reflection and reflexivity in the primary school context. Perspectives for research, teacher education and practice (pp. 261-267). Julius Klinkhardt.

Wolters, P., Klinge. A., Klupsch-Sahlmann, R., & Sinnig, S. (2009). What do we think is good physical education? Physical Education, 58(3), 67-72.