Abstract
ABSTRACT This article is a response to Backman and Barker’s Re-thinking Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Physical Education Teachers-Implications for Physical Education Teacher Education. It affords us an opportunity to correct their misrepresentation of our research. Multiple perspectives on teaching and teacher education are necessary to advance the field because they provide different lenses to help us understand a particular phenomenon. However, there is a critical difference between interpretation and misrepresentation. Interpretation is the right due to all researchers to draw inferences. Misrepresentation, in contrast, is the attributing of positions and outcomes that are not supported by the empirical record. In making their case for phronesis in a 2020 publication, Backman and Barker used our research as the basis for their critique and in doing so, they misrepresented our body of research as well as the epistemology of Radical Behaviorism. We identify misrepresentations in their paper and address them using the empirical record.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
