Individualisation in the Professional Preparation of the Physical Education Teacher

The present concept of the education process demands a greater orientation to each pupil. Demands are focused on the greater involvement of pupils in diagnostics, autodiagnostics, evaluation, self-evaluation and mutual evaluation, on new forms of co-operation, creativity and individualisation, on newly framed inductive learning procedures and integrative instruction including co-educational instruction etc. (Hummel, 1995; Balz, 1992; Crum, 1992). In the face of a positive shift towards school physical education we call attention to some noticed deficiencies, to the necessity of a more thorough analysis of the causes of these deficiencies and to the importance of anticipating the future development of school physical education. Registered deficiencies are immediately concerned also with problems of individualisation in the didactic process. Substantial differences between our concept of school physical education and approaches abroad (preferably in Western European states) we see in understanding the merit of physical activity and in the conception of the didactic process (Frömel, Novosad, & Svozil, 1999, 11). By using a systematic approach we want to ensure that all main factors playing a role in pedagogical training (the practising students themselves, faculty teachers, pupils at schools, conditions at the Faculty and relevant schools) and their interaction will support a new concept of pedagogical training. Urbánek (2000), Švec (2000), Svozil and Frömel (2002) focused on monitoring the professional activities of practising students during their training and that is what makes this topic current. Efforts over the long haul to improve the pedagogical training of physical education students and formation quality research “background” enables us start making revolutionary changes in our conception of pedagogical training. Preferably it includes fundamental change in “role of practising student” on pedagogical training. One possibility as to how to create better conditions for enforcing new concepts of school physical education we see in the effective enforcement of individualisation in the didactic process in continuity with other contemporary conceptions (Haselbach, 1990; Hirmke, 1996). The individualisation of the education process cannot be understood to be in conflict with co-operation, “enjoyment”, “creativity” and similar didactic demands. Similarly non-controversially we understand the role of individualised instruction within the field of didactic forms. Skalková (1999, 214) mentions that “the development of trials to carry out individualised instruction in the 20th century brought us valuable didactic findings about its advantages and limits. It was confirmed that there is no use in considering individualised and collective forms of instruction to be at odds, but it is effective to think about their mutual support”. It is mainly the tendency to connect school with practical life that leads physical education teachers, in INDIVIDUALISATION IN THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF THE PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER