Relocating From Easy Street: Strategies for Moving Physical Education Forward

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Maryland]On: 16 October 2014, At: 14:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

QuestPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20

Relocating From Easy Street:Strategies for Moving PhysicalEducation ForwardSean M. Bulger a & Lynn D. Housner aa College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, West VirginiaUniversity , Morgantown , WVPublished online: 14 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Sean M. Bulger & Lynn D. Housner (2009) Relocating From EasyStreet: Strategies for Moving Physical Education Forward, Quest, 61:4, 442-469, DOI:10.1080/00336297.2009.10483625

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2009.10483625

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00336297.2009.10483625

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2009.10483625

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

442

Quest, 2009, 61, 442-469© 2009 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Relocating From Easy Street: Strategies for Moving Physical Education Forward

Sean M. Bulger and Lynn D. Housner

There is broad consensus in the literature that despite dramatic gains in the knowledge-base regarding best practice in teaching, teacher education, and related pockets of effective programming in the schools, the majority of physical education programs are in disarray. In a recent article, Kretchmar (2006) referred to this dilemma as life on “Easy Street” with most physical education programs being characterized by short instructional units that afford students little chance to develop the knowledge, skills, fitness, or positive dispositions needed to main-tain a physically active lifestyle. At best this approach entertains students and informs them about the health benefits associated with regular physical activity while providing limited opportunities to experience these benefits and achieve significant learning or personal growth. In the present article we propose that the problem is a complex one and as such requires a multidimensional approach to making substantive and meaningful change in school physical education. The metaphor of relocating physical education from “Easy Street” is used to delineate strategies that can be employed by teachers, teacher educators, and professional organizations to make this change possible.

There is little debate that the knowledge base in teaching physical education has grown tremendously over the last 30 years and significant progress has been made in our understanding of effective teaching and programming in physical education (Silverman & Ennis, 2003). Thirty years ago we had no standards for P-12 physical education or the preparation of teachers (Ayers & Housner, 2008). We now have national standards for physical education (NASPE, 2004) and the preparation of beginning (NASPE, in press a) and advanced teachers (NASPE, in press b). Researchers have also identified the pedagogical strategies that can facili-tate student learning, improve levels of physical activity and fitness, and engender personal and social responsibility (Hellison, 2003; McKenzie, Marshall, Sallis, & Conway, 2000; Rink & Hall, 2008; Wright & Burton, 2008). Curricular models such as sport education (Hastie, 2003; Siedentop, 1994), health-related physical education (McKenzie, 2003), adventure/outdoor education (Dyson, 2005), integrated physical education, (Placek, 2003), and teaching games for understanding (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997), have been developed, systematically assessed, and are now available for implementation in schools. Finally, large scale programmatic and professional

The authors are with the College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

442

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4

Relocating From Easy Street 443

development initiatives have begun and we know more about the problems and possibilities associated with making change in school-based physical education (Fay & Doolittle, 2002; Rink & Mitchell, 2003; Ward & O’Sullivan, 2006).

In spite of these advances, substantive change in physical education teaching and programs has eluded us. Little of what we know has filtered down to physical education programs in schools. This is not to suggest that all physical education is done poorly. Historically, research has provided descriptions of solid programs (Siedentop, Mand, & Taggart, 1986; Wescott, 1992; Wuest & Lombardo, 1994) and skilled teachers in physical education (Griffey & Housner, 1991; Siedentop, 1989; Templin, 1983). Although these solid programs do exist, far too many physi-cal education programs are characterized by inappropriate educational practices such as punishment with exercise, students picking teams, assessment based on “dressing-out” or effort, lack of attention to national standards, and limited use of available pedagogical strategies to increase levels of student engagement and achievement (Castelli & Williams, 2007; Chen, 2006; Locke, 1992; Norton, 1987).

Recent research points to the persistent nature of these longstanding concerns in physical education. Chen (2006) examined how teachers used standards in their teaching and found that only 4 of 25 teachers integrated NASPE standards into their curriculum and instructional practices. Castelli and Williams (2007) investi-gated the fitness knowledge of 73 middle school teachers and found that they did not have the knowledge base to meet the ninth grade expectations of the South Carolina assessment program. Finally, in a recent monograph that examined if children are meeting national standards, the authors assert that there are no data available to suggest attaining standards is possible in physical education programs (Graber, Woods, & Castelli, 2007). They conclude with the familiar call to action; “it behooves all professionals—ranging from physical educators and physical activity instructors to teacher educators—to demonstrate that physical education does, indeed, make a difference” (Graber & Locke, 2007, p. 422). Perhaps these findings help to explain why the 2006 Health Policies and Programs Study (Kann, Brener, & Wechsler, 2007) found that only 4% of elementary schools, 8% of middle schools, and 2% of high schools provide adequate physical education (150 min for elementary students and 225 min for middle and high school students each week) for the entire school year. To borrow a metaphor from the recent housing market crisis, these data indicate that the physical education bubble has indeed burst in many school districts. Without a quality product to market, the public simply isn’t buying any longer.

System-wide change is needed in school-based physical education and physi-cal education teacher education (PETE) to reinvigorate our market and promote increased societal investment in our programs. Although we understand the problems in physical education, it is unclear how we should go about initiating transformational change (Locke, 1992; O’Sullivan, Siedentop, & Tannehill, 1994). We do know, however, that change will be difficult and met with resistance (Arm-strong & Sparkes, 1991). Teachers possess well-developed knowledge structures about P-12 physical education derived from years of participation as students (Schempp, 1989). This knowledge is resistant to change (Ennis, 1994) and often remains unaltered by teacher education programs (Doolittle, Dodds, & Placek, 1993). Even when knowledge is obtained, if it conflicts with what actually takes place in school physical education, knowledge disavowal can occur and the beliefs

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4

444 Bulger and Housner

accumulated from the P-12 experience can reemerge and “wash out” what was learned in teacher education programs (Faucette, 1987; Lawson, 1983; Stroot & Whipple, 2003). During the course of a teaching career this can result in a physi-cal educator’s knowledge becoming increasingly outdated and obsolete (Kelley & Lindsay, 1977, 1980; Lawson, 1993a).

There are certainly factors within the context of teaching physical educa-tion that contribute to knowledge disavowal. We have known for many years that teacher-coach role conflict (Templin & Washburn, 1981), large class sizes, lack of sufficient allocated time, and inadequate administrative support make it easier for physical education teachers to reject new knowledge and accept the status quo (Locke, 1990). Add to this the isolation (Templin, 1988; Williams & Williamson, 1998), marginalization (Curtner-Smith, 1997), and discrimination (Sparkes, Tem-plin, & Schempp, 1993) that often accompanies teaching physical education and one can understand how well-intentioned physical educators resign themselves to simply “roll out the ball” and keep the students “busy, happy, and good” (Placek, 1983; Stroot, Faucette, & Schwager; 1993).

So, what can be done in the face of these contextual impediments to effec-tive programming in physical education? Kretchmar (2006) argues that we need to avoid the allure of “Easy Street” which has become commonplace in physical education programs. Physical education programs on “Easy Street” are character-ized by introducing, informing, and entertaining. Introducing is offering students an array of short experiences in many activities with the hope that a student will discover an activity or activities in which they can participate for a lifetime. This is commonly referred to as the multiactivity model which remains the dominant approach in P-12 physical education. Unfortunately, the experiences are brief and often repeated across years of a curriculum in an identical manner, so that little competence or commitment is engendered.

Informing is providing students with brief explanations of reasons why exercise and physical education are important to an active and healthy lifestyle, but with little opportunity to actually experience the psychological, social, and physiological benefits of a challenging physical activity program; which requires “time, effort, and persistence . . . factors that are not often found on Easy Street” (p. 350). While increased knowledge remains an important learning outcome in physical education, as an isolated instructional approach it will do little to achieve the degree of personal investment needed to facilitate habitual behavior change in students.

Finally, entertaining is the pervasive perception among teachers and students that providing activities that keep students “busy, happy, and good” represents the only criteria for a quality program in physical education (Placek, 1983). Here again, Kretchmar correctly argues that physical education content is rich with activities that will invite students to experience them. But only with extended opportunities to learn, grow, and achieve competence in these activities will students be enticed to spend the time needed to make permanent lifestyle changes.

In the present paper, we will extend Kretchmar’s argument and consider what it will take to relocate from “Easy Street” to a new neighborhood where physical education is better positioned to make a difference in the lives of children and their families. We view the longstanding problems in physical education as multidimen-sional and as such, will suggest a number of possible solutions that together may make some substantive change in the way physical education is ultimately delivered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


in our communities. As we extend the “Easy Street” metaphor, we will focus on the following variables that greatly influence the quality of any new home purchase: location, curb appeal, resale value, up-to-date features, square footage, and price range (see Table 1). The conclusion includes a discussion of whether these factors provide a significant rationale for the type of relocation recommended by Kretchmar.

Table 1 Summary of Strategies for Relocating From Easy Street and Moving Physical Education Forward

Major decisions Proposed strategies for relocation

Location • Adhere to new standards for beginning and advanced teacher preparation emphasizing community involvement

• Provide leadership in county and school wellness policy com-mittees

Curb appeal • Increase expectations for preservice physical educators to develop Sport, Physical Activity, and Fitness Education Special-ists (SPAFES)

• Establish greater commitment from PETE faculty regarding the scholarship of engagement in communities and schools

Resale value • Collaborate with other professionals in the field to extend team and individual sport opportunities for all community members

• Reconceptualize the physical education curriculum to incorpo-rate “cool” alternatives that are more personally meaningful to students

Up-to-date fea-tures

• Develop standards-based curricula at all developmental levels

• Conduct regular audits of school physical education programs

• Provide regular and systematic professional development for teachers

• Encourage greater involvement in professional organizations and events

Square footage • Embrace comprehensive approaches to school physical activity that increase before, during, and after school opportunities for children

• Focus limited resources on early childhood movement education experiences as a foundation for lifetime physical activity if neces-sary

• Explore the use of web-based physical activity promotion and associated technologies as an alternative approach to traditional middle and high school physical education

• Implement more selective admissions processes in PETE pro-grams

• Free curricular space in PETE by using competency-based assessment and integrated disciplinary studies

Price range • Minimize costs through collaboration, use of existent organiza-tional, structures and public policy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Location, Location, LocationAs we try to find a new home it is important to understand that physical education “isn’t just gym anymore.” School-based physical education programs are faced with more challenges and opportunities than ever before. A major challenge is the ongo-ing obesity crisis in America (Dietz, 2004). Sedentary behavior is an acknowledged risk factor for many diseases, including heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes (Blair et al., 1995; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). Health care costs associated with diseases related to physical inactivity and poor health habits continue to increase (Pratt, Macera, & Wang, 2002).

These health challenges can be viewed as opportunities for physical education to contribute to the health and wellness of children, adolescents, and younger adults (Corbin, 2002). For example, research indicates that quality school-based physical education programs may contribute to increased levels of physical activity in child-hood that can extend into adulthood (Silverman, 2005; Taylor, Blair, Cummings, Wun, & Malina, 1999). These findings have prompted policy makers, educational leaders, and parents to establish high expectations for physical education programs to enhance the health and wellness of children (American Heart Association, 2006). As Lawson (1993b) argued many years ago, in the future the lines between health and physical education will blur and, “both teachers and teacher educators will need to become versed in the literature on exercise adherence, strategies for health-related behavioral change and maintenance, family ecologies, and the content they will be expected to teach regarding the body, nutrition, substance abuse, safer sex practices, and the like” (p. 303).

Current standards for the preparation of beginning and advanced physical edu-cators (NASPE, in press a, b) have expanded the role for teachers and require that they collaborate with parents, colleagues, and the community to create opportuni-ties for physical activity and healthy choices in and outside of school. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control have developed the Coordinated School Health Program (CSHP) in which heath and physical education programs play a prominent role (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007). According to Public Law 108–265, education agencies in the National School Lunch Program must create county wellness policy committees to assess and oversee a CSHP in every school (Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act, 2004).

CSHPs address eight dimensions of school and community health, including (a) health education, (b) physical education, (c) nutrition services, (d) health ser-vices, (e) counseling and psychological services, (f) healthy school environment, (g) health promotion for staff, and (h) family and community involvement. The program is indeed ambitious, but offers a unique opportunity for physical educators and teacher educators to become leaders and collaborators in establishing qual-ity school-based, family-based, and community-based initiatives. Both should be members of county wellness policy committees that oversee the CSHPs and physical educators should be members of the school wellness committees that function to direct the CSHPs at each school.

In any real estate market, however, the best locations come at a premium price because they are limited in supply and high in demand. If we are serious about establishing ourselves as community leaders in the area of physical activity as previ-ously suggested, we must recognize that numerous potential buyers are competing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


for the same position and our cost in terms of discretionary time and effort may be significant. Both now and in the future, it is likely that other commercial, commu-nity, corporate, and clinical entities will continue to solidify their positions related to children’s physical activity. Physical educators must be willing to demonstrate the entrepreneurial spirit and self-initiative that will lead to the development of strong relationships with these alternative providers and potential collaborators or be left behind on “Easy Street.” Furthermore, PETE researchers must display an increased willingness to partner with colleagues from related areas of study (e.g., exercise physiology, exercise psychology, medicine, community health) who have an interest in school physical activity programs and the technical expertise required to support additional large-scale, comprehensive, and coordinated interventions like Coordinated Approach to Childhood Health (CATCH) and Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids (SPARK).

Curb AppealThe endless line-up of home improvement shows on cable television reinforces the importance of maintaining an inviting outward appearance, including tasteful decorations for the exterior, freshly painted siding/trim, and a well manicured lawn/flowers/shrubbery. As we search for a new home for physical education, we must consider these factors and how they will influence the perceptions of our neighbors and potential guests. Irrespective of the home’s outward appearance at the point of purchase, however, our neighbors may be inclined to judge us less favorably if we show up with a moving truck loaded with junk from the old place on “Easy Street,” including our extensive collection of vintage garden gnomes, a complete set of overstuffed living room furniture for the front porch, and our prized 1977 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (to be stored on cinder blocks in the driveway until we find the money, time, and parts needed to rebuild that problem engine). While the lawn ornaments, porch furniture, and classic car may be fun, comfortable, and well intentioned (like many inappropriate instructional practices that persist in physi-cal education) they contribute to negative public sentiment regarding perceived home value. Unfortunately, public perceptions of traditional physical education also remain mostly negative and embarrassing. Woody Allen’s line from the 1977 movie Annie Hall, “those who can’t do teach, and those who can’t teach, teach gym” still resonates as true to many of the students and parents whom we serve. Many classroom teachers continue to view our content as little more than a break in their own schedule (Curtner-Smith, 1997).

Preservice Teachers

These perceptions can be addressed in several ways. First, we need to ramp up the expectations for preservice physical educators. To this end, it may be time for the profession to take a critical look at the quantity and quality of PETE programs within the United States. Those programs that are unwilling and/or unable to raise expectations for their students can contribute very little to our collective efforts regarding the move from “Easy Street.” It is our contention that in far too many PETE programs, the curriculum remains a collection of disjointed courses in which minimal curricular space is committed to mastering the actual subject matter related

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


to teaching physical education. Furthermore, many PETE programs continue to struggle with a variety of long-standing issues, including hiring trained teacher educators, recruiting and retaining engaged preservice teachers, integrating disci-plinary content into the curriculum, providing quality field placement experiences, developing appropriate professional dispositions among students, and documenting program effectiveness in a systematic manner.

By contrast, the field of athletic training provides a vivid example of the beneficial impact of high expectations for academic programs and their majors. Although a young field of study, athletic training has evolved into a true allied health profession because of the demands they make of their students and faculty. Athletic training produces students with deep expertise and an ongoing commitment to their profession because of a number of factors, including (a) high selectivity (entrance requirements), (b) high expectations (i.e., 600 competencies), (c) rigorous oversight of student performance, (d) certification of achievement (NATA-BOC), (e) a community of learners with strong self-regulation, and (f) a work ethic and commitment to provide service to the profession. Athletic training faculty work diligently to monitor student achievement of knowledge, skills, and dispositions and engage students in professional activities that build a cohesive, consistent, and prideful view of the professional roles and responsibilities associated with being an athletic trainer (i.e., clinical experiences, major’s club activities, community service).

Our students can reach this level of professionalism, if PETE faculty chose to ramp up expectation and hold students accountable. We agree with Zeigler (2003) who argues that PETE programs need to prepare Sport, Physical Activity, and Fit-ness Education Specialists (SPAFES) with a depth of expertise sufficient to meet the previously described expanding health, wellness, and physical activity needs of schools and communities. For example, in our view SPAFES would obtain competencies and certifications for designing school and community programs collaboratively with professionals from recreation, health, and medicine such as (a) sport, physical activity, and fitness programs for the school staff, (b) after school, weekend, and evening programs for families, and (c) summer sport, fitness, and physical activity camps.

SPAFES would also contribute to improving the quality of school-based physical education instruction. In addition to meeting beginning teaching stan-dards, SPAFES would obtain competencies/certifications from organizations like the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), the American College of Sport Medicine (ACSM), the American Council on Exer-cise (ACE), and the National Strength Conditioning Association (NSCA) in a variety of fitness areas, including (a) Physical Best fitness education, (b) group and aquatic aerobics, (c) strength and conditioning, (d) yoga for fitness, (e) Pilates, (f) personal training, and (g) cycling/spinning, to name a few. SPAFES would also receive training in technology to support programming and assess-ment such as the use of heart rate monitors and personal digital assistants (PDAs) (Wegis & van der Mars, 2006), computerized movement analysis systems, fitness testing and physical activity program design software, social networking and distance learning formats, and games for health like Dance, Dance Revolution (DDR) (Matejcik, 2007).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


In-service Teachers

To make substantive change in physical education, we also need to take into account the needs of practicing teachers. We know that without addressing the current state of school-based physical education we are doomed to continue to place reasonably equipped and well-intentioned young teachers into a system that will conspire quickly to undermine any attempts to make positive change.

PETE programs and faculty need to step up and adopt a “scholarship of engage-ment,” move beyond the “comfort zone” in higher education, and begin to make professional development for practicing teachers a cornerstone of their programs. Frankly, there is “rolling out the ball” in higher education and this needs to stop. We have witnessed teacher educators who complain about the state of teaching and teachers in physical education, but have made few attempts to actually do something about it. Siedentop and Locke (1997) have argued that, “if we aren’t a part of the solution, we will surely continue to be part of the problem” (p.33) and we agree.

PETE programs and faculty must work collaboratively with school-based programs and teachers if lasting change is to be realized. To accomplish this PETE faculty must demonstrate a commitment to the profession that goes beyond teaching classes, presenting at professional conferences, and publishing research. They must be involved in the type of scholarship that Metzler (1994) refers to as engagement. Scholarship of engagement is, “. . . assuming a leadership role for change in places where our knowledge can make a difference” (p. 452). Although some might argue that this role is inconsistent with the promotion and tenure requirements of Research I institutions and a more appropriate activity for institutions where teaching and service are the primary activities, our position is that scholarship of engagement has become a legitimate area of scholarly inquiry.

Many scholars from Research I institutions have engaged in significant service-oriented investigations that resulted in published reports representing scholarship of the highest quality. Models of collaboration with schools and school teachers (Martinek & Schempp, 1988; Sharpe, 1992; Ward & O’Sullivan, 2006), curricular innovations (Martin, McCaughtry, Kulinna, Cothran, & Faust, 2008; Ward, 1999), program improvement research (Anderson, 1988; Graham, Metzler, & Webster, 1991), state-wide reform efforts (Fay & Doolittle, 2002; Rink & Mitchell, 2003), and research on the development and validation of school-based, health-related physical education (McKenzie et al., 2000; McKenzie, Sallis, Faucette, Roby, & Kolody, 1993; Sarkin, McKenzie, & Sallis, 1997) are a few of the areas of research in PETE that can be classified as scholarship of engagement.

It is possible for PETE faculty to do meaningful professional development work, but lasting change will require attacking the problems in manageable pieces. Siedentop (2009) argues that states are the logical unit of analysis because they have different cultures, traditional recreational and sporting activities, weather, and the like that would naturally result in different curricula. We agree and challenge PETE faculty and programs; state associations for health, physical education, recreation, and dance (HPERD); state departments of education (SDE); school districts; and other stake holders to build collaborative models of program and professional development based on cooperation, collegiality, respect and trust, teacher self-assessment and ownership, and persistent mutual support (Anderson, 1988; Sharpe, Lounsbery, & Templin, 1997).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Resale ValueWhen searching for our home we need to consider what potential home buyers would be willing to pay for it in the future. We don’t want to invest in a new home with little resale value. Accordingly, we need to think about what our potential buyers (children, adolescents, and their families) need from a physical education program to become physically active for a lifetime. Unfortunately, there is an apparent disconnect between the curriculum delivered in most physical education programs and what is needed for adults to engage in lifelong physical activity. A national survey of middle and high school physical education programs (Simons-Morton, Eitel, & Small, 1999) indicated that the top five activities offered at these levels were all team sports: basketball, volleyball, baseball/softball, football, and soccer. Given this finding, coupled with the continuing rise in popularity of com-petitive team sports, it is not surprising that team sports are the preferred content for students—particularly males. Females tend to prefer cooperative activities, individual sports, fitness, and dance more so than males (Couturier, Chepko, & Coughlin, 2007; Strand & Scantling, 1994). There are also data indicating that cultural differences influence activity preferences (Tannehill & Zakrajsek, 1993), even though an overall preference for team sports is still evident.

Although team sports dominate the physical education curriculum, these are not the types of activities that are popular among adults (Corbin, 2002). Young adults and adults engage mostly in individual, noncompetitive activities such as aerobics, swim-ming, jogging, strength conditioning, and cycling. The only competitive sport in the top 10 is tennis, an individual sport. Of course, the logical question is, “why do we focus on team sports in physical education when adults engage in them so infrequently?” The answer is probably because that is the way it always has been done and students like and expect team sports in physical education. Moreover, since this is what pro-spective teachers experience in their own P-12 and PETE programs, this is what they know and what they believe the focus of physical education should be. However, the research is clear that not all students find competitive team sports attractive and many prefer to engage in individual sports or noncompetitive physical activities.

One possible solution to this curricular alignment dilemma is for physical educa-tors to work more proactively with colleagues in community, recreation, commercial, corporate, and clinical health-fitness settings to expand the number of opportunities for children, adolescents, younger adults, and older adults to participate in team and individual sports at a developmentally appropriate level. Many communities offer few, if any, organized opportunities for adults to participate in a variety of team and individual sports across a wide range of skill and ability levels. To implement this pro-posed solution, communities would obviously need to overcome a number of potential barriers, including access to facilities, equipment, instructional personnel, and so forth.

As a second possible solution, it would seem that we could best meet the physi-cal activity needs of all students in physical education by offering a wider variety of activities and giving students the ability to choose which activities they would like to take. McCaughtry (2009) has recently examined the idea of student choice and ownership of activities. He uses the concept of “cool” to identify what “moves” our primary clients (i.e., children and young adults) in deep and emotional ways, where physical movement contains so much meaning for the child that they cannot live without it (Kretchmar, 2000). He points out that many students, perhaps most, are not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


well-served by current approaches to physical education. These students “want reasons for what they’re doing, they want more than sport (even if teachers don’t have expertise beyond sport), they want equity, they want choices and ownership, they want us to see them. Coincidently, they are also the ones we need to connect with most. They are often the unfit, overweight, marginalized, sedentary, clumsy, unskilled, different—in short they are ‘the other.’ It is these students we must understand better, see more personally, and start with when we think about teaching” (McCaughtry, 2009, p. 189).

So what is “cool” to these types of potentially marginalized students? McCaugh-try (2009) argues that uncool physical education consists of only team sports offered redundantly over and over again, without student choice or ownership, and a pervasive and public competitiveness that favors the skilled and fit. Cool physical education, on the other hand, places a premium on learning activities that students choose and have a meaning to them in their world outside of school and the gym. He also contends that cool is reflected by the content we teach and that when taught well, sport education, adventure/outdoor education, personally selected and designed fitness and activity programs such as “orienteering, hiking, hip-hop dance, Dance-Dance-Revolution, Latin dance, yoga, Pilates, fit-ball, bosu, martial arts of all kinds, rock climbing, skateboarding, triathlons, [and] child-designed games” (p. 191) are cool (see Table 2).

Table 2 Uncool and Cool Alternatives in School-based Physical Education

General areas of concern Uncool physical education Cool physical education

Curricular content

• Focus on the same, boring team sports year after year

• Focus on new, more relevant activities in popular culture

Instructional methods

• Inequitable teaching practices• Use of autocratic teaching style• No student ownership, free-dom or control of choice

• Fair opportunities to learn• Decreased formal hierarchy• Student choices, decisions, and ownership of class

Social support • Uncaring teachers with no personal interest in students• Suppression of social interac-tion among students

• Playful teachers who know and connect with students• Recognition that desires and life pursuits drive learning

Contextual issues

• Policies threaten some stu-dents (e.g., showering after class)• Intimidation through vio-lence, aggression, and contact

• Policies make all students feel safe• Bullying is not tolerated and all students are respected

Student learning • Vulnerable students put on display during assessment• Traditional approaches to skills and fitness testing• Frequent harassment, teasing, or critique of students

• Vulnerable teachers deliver-ing unfamiliar content• Practicing and learning con-tent in real world settings• Learning content that has per-sonal relevance for students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


We concur with McCaughtry and believe that in addition to meeting NASPE standards, SPAFES should obtain training in activities that can be done alone or in small groups and do not require large competitive teams and expensive fields or gyms to engage in physical activity. These would be activities that adults actually do such as, hiking and camping, cycling, rollerblading, ice skating, swimming, scuba diving, sailing, games for health (i.e., DDR, exercise machines), orienteering, canoe-ing, rock climbing, golf, tennis, dance (i.e., ballroom, swing), skiing, and so forth.

As we engage in this critical process of self-reflection regarding the content delivered in our schools, we must be careful not to repeat past mistakes related to the sometimes muddled mission of physical education (Pate & Hohn, 1994). To borrow another real estate term from our “Easy Street” metaphor, we must discontinue our past practice of “flipping” homes in the pursuit of a quick profit in the form of increased public support. When “flipping” a home, the investor buys a property that is undervalued, invests in multiple upgrades, and attempts to resell in a short time frame to minimize expenses and maximize profits. As numerous investors find, this ambitious short-term investment strategy is fraught with considerable risk given the number of competing priorities and events that can go wrong during a home remodel and sale in a limited time frame. Similarly, physical educators have demonstrated a “tendency to take on, at least philosophically, far too many objectives. Perhaps in an effort to legitimize ourselves, our profession has generated a rather lengthy list of goals and objectives” (Pate & Hohn, 1994, p. 2). By constantly “flipping” focus among physical education’s numerous competing objectives (i.e., motor skill acquisition, physical fitness, cognitive learning, social development, academic performance, lifelong physical activity) we have raised unrealistic expectations and created confusion “concerning the outcomes that the profession is striving to produce” (Pate & Hohn, 1994, p. 3). As we put in place a more long-term invest-ment strategy regarding the needs of the children and adolescents engaged in school physical education, we must remain focused on our common mission of promot-ing health-enhancing levels of physical activity across the lifespan (Pate & Hohn, 1994). This physical activity can, and should, come in a variety of forms, including informal play, structured play, active transportation, work at home or for pay, and actual physical education classes (Ward, Saunders, & Pate, 2007).

As cautioned by Hawkins (2008), however, physical educators and teacher educa-tors must not lose sight of the inherent value of expressive and competitive play as an essential component of the human condition. While the public health implications of physical inactivity are serious and worthy of considerable attention, we must guard against the use of our content (physical activity in its various forms) for strictly utilitar-ian purposes. In fact, any approach to physical education that does not afford students the opportunity to discover some measure of personal meaning or relevance is unlikely to make a positive impact on their readiness to maintain a physically active lifestyle into adulthood. As you recall, this lack of personal meaning in physical education is one of the primary motivations for our recommended move from “Easy Street.”

Up-to-Date FeaturesWhile those of us who survived the 1970s might still maintain a certain affinity for Lava Lamps, Bean Bag Chairs, and Shag Carpet in an assortment of interesting colors, our new home for physical education should have up-to-date features, not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


the antiquated features of our old place on “Easy Street.” Antiquated features such as stale curricula based only on team sports, little student choice or ownership, and lack of focus on meaningful engagement and actual achievement, continue to plague physical education because there is virtually no accountability. We cannot leave it to principals, parents, or other stake holders to hold physical education accountable. Principals are not held accountable for student performance in physical education. No Child Left Behind does, however, require formal state testing in academic subjects such as math and reading, so it is no surprise that principals simply do not attend to what is happening in the gym. And parents and other stakeholders do not know what a quality physical education program should look like based on their own limited experiences. They are products of the same poor physical education programs we have been describing. So, the only conceptual framework they have is one with numerous outdated features.

As previously indicated, physical education teachers are often de-profession-alized, marginalized, and isolated as a result of this lack of accountability. PETE programs and our professional organizations like NASPE need to take the lead in this area by working with the schools in a more direct manner. There are several strategies that could be implemented immediately to address the lack of account-ability in P-12 physical education.

Standards-based Curricula

Unlike other content areas the profession has no specific curricula in physical edu-cation. NASPE has certainly moved the field forward with the creation of content standards and what generally might be accomplished through physical education at various grade levels. However, the actual design of the curricula and accompany-ing assessment strategies when addressed is left to the individual teacher, school, or school district.

According to Siedentop (2007), general standards create two primary problems for building successful programs. First, general standards make it unlikely that districts will develop coherent programs. Secondary physical educators will teach students who are the products of several middle schools and many elementary schools, bringing with them various sets of competencies (or the lack thereof) based on different programs. A standard elementary and middle school curriculum would enable the development of a consistent set of skills, knowledge, and dispositions through a sequential and coherent set of learning experiences. This would enable the high school program to offer more advanced and varied elective courses based on the improved competencies that students bring to high school.

Siedentop goes on to argue that well-delineated curricula should be state level initiatives, since states are often different in terms of popular sports, cultures, and often standards. Building these types of curricula should be a collaborative effort between PETE programs and faculty, P-12 school districts and teachers, HPERD officials, and SDE representatives. These stakeholders need to be involved in cur-riculum building so that there is coordinated statewide programming among these entities in terms of the preparation of preservice teachers and the ongoing profes-sional development of in-service teachers.

We can no longer expect teachers to construct curricula and assessments on their own. The profession needs to supply standards-based curricula consisting of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


units, lesson plans, and assessments. Moreover, these curricula need to be designed to meet standards in the variety of contexts (i.e., 1, 2, or 3 day a week elementary programs) that characterize physical education programming. We need to ask ourselves, what can reasonably be achieved in school-based programs and move forward with this effort with all due speed.

Once the curriculum is developed the implementation process would begin with piloting the model school curriculum. After the effectiveness of the curriculum is validated in a number of different schools and communities, it can be implemented widely throughout the state. How many of the 700 PETE programs in the United States have worked collaboratively with their constituents to build model programs? If 700 model P-12 programs were developed, would they contribute to modernizing the profession? We think so!

The issue of standardization raises concerns among many educators that despite numerous possible benefits, it could negatively compromise the individual unique-ness of some physical education programs. Numerous schools have developed unique and creative approaches to the delivery of physical education content and might feel stifled by a more standardized approach to curriculum development. While we readily acknowledge this concern, we argue that any attempt at standardization should be limited to exit outcomes, general content identification, and the related assessments used to document student achievement. The specific approaches used to achieve the exit outcomes and deliver the associated content would remain the choice of the local district, school, teacher, and perhaps students. For example, a state mandating that all secondary students design a personalized physical activity program before graduation could allow the involved teachers and students to make program design decisions based on a number of individual (i.e., personal goals, activity preferences, initial fitness levels, current physical activity) and contextual variables (i.e., individual and group activities/sports learned in physical education, equipment and facility access, local community resources). Furthermore, even exit outcomes related to individual and team sports would not necessarily preclude teachers from adopting an approach that incorporates student choice. A standard-ized curriculum that specifies the level of student competence required (i.e., history, rules, skills, tactics) and related assessment strategies could still allow for a variety of choices that would meet the individual and personal needs of students.

Regular Program Audits

After model programs are designed they need to be replicated and teachers need to be held accountable for maintaining the quality of their physical education programs. This accountability issue has proven to be a difficult one in physical education, however, and our profession seems perpetually entangled in the circu-larity of accountability. Only the subjects that are most valued by society are held accountable in schools; yet, physical education appears to need accountability before it can provide the critical mass of quality programs needed to significantly raise its perceived societal value. Furthermore, increased accountability can bring with it additional resources, but these resources are often accompanied by the overly structured standardization of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. As previously described, this high degree of standardization can come at the expense of program creativity, individuality, and uniqueness.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Despite these concerns (to which we have no definitive answers), we do know that without vigilant oversight and attention many school-based reforms tend to regress back to the status quo (Brown & Spangler, 2006; Dowda, Sallis, McKenzie, Rosengard, & Kohl, 2005). Given this reality and the present lack of accountabil-ity, we would willingly trade our current problem of inadequate school physical education for the potential concerns that accompany a more structured approach to accountability in the schools. Toward that end, NASPE and its state associations of HPERD need to create partnerships with SDEs and university PETE programs to conduct regular audits of P-12 programs. Teams of PETE faculty, P-12 teach-ers, and SDE representatives could visit and assess physical education programs. For example, the West Virginia SDE conducts regular audits of schools and uses a simple rubric (see Figure 1) that if implemented (and enforced) across the country would significantly improve physical education. While this type of state audit might not be in place within all the states, the NASPE STARS program provides a solid

Figure 1 — Sample evaluation form for a school physical education program audit.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


conceptual framework for the external review of school physical education programs based on accepted guidelines for developmentally and instructionally appropriate practice. The NASPE STARS program allows for various levels of program review and represents a very promising next step in holding school physical education programs responsible for following best practice.

Engaged Learning Communities

A program of accountability based only on assessment will not succeed. Teachers need to be provided with knowledge and skills to keep good programs up-to-date while improving poor ones. A collaborative approach to professional development in which PETE faculty, SDE representatives, and P-12 teachers join together as members of a learning community remains a highly desirable objective. A learning community engages participants in meaningful, interactive, and collaborative learn-ing experiences in both formal (i.e., courses, workshops) and informal (i.e., meals, recreation) settings. As participants work toward the attainment of shared goals a sense of community and professional socialization develops (LaVine & Mitchell, 2006). Researchers have argued that to assess professional development, direct observation of school-based teaching practices is required (Morris, Chrispeels, & Burke, 2003). Teachers often find professional development activities informative and interesting, but view the application of new ideas difficult and the effects on student achievement minimal. Teachers may need to witness the impact of their teaching practices on student learning for effective professional development to occur (Armour & Yelling, 2004; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Kelleher, 2003).

Working in partnership with state HPERD associations and SDE representa-tives, NASPE could provide professional development during regularly scheduled staff development days. Physical education teachers often complain that they are required to attend staff development sessions that have little relevance to their needs as physical educators. One could imagine a state-wide system of regional coordina-tors comprised of the very best P-12 teachers, university PETE faculty, and SDE representatives who would conduct workshops, courses, and other professional development activities in schools throughout the state. This system would address teachers’ professional development needs simultaneously in regions across the state.

The West Virginia (WV) Health and Physical Education Leadership Academy is an example of a collaborative approach to professional development (Housner et al., 2008). The goal of the academy was to build the capacity of teachers to improve the quality of health and physical education programming in WV. Collaborating as members of a learning community and contributing to the professional development of other educators were central objectives of the academy. A series of continuing education activities were provided over a nine month period by nine mentors; the president-elect of the WV Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (WVAHPERD), four district (Midwest AHPERD) teachers of the year (two were also NASPE national teachers of the year), the directors of Health and Physical Education for the WV Department of Education, and two university PETE professors. The activities were organized into four strands: (a) designing, imple-menting, and assessing standards-based curriculum and instruction, (b) advocat-ing for health and physical education within the school and community, (c) using

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


technology in health and physical education programming, and (d) engaging in grant writing to support program goals.

The impact of the academy has been significant. All 29 teacher leaders who completed the year-long program presented at the 2005 WVAHPERD Conference and were honored as the first graduates of the WV Health and Physical Education Leadership Academy. The teacher leaders have continued working on professional development activities after graduation under direct supervision of an assigned mentor such as developing a standards-based yearly curriculum, conducting an advocacy activity (i.e., letter to parents, newsletter, a presentation or speech, news-paper article, or project), submitting a grant, and/or assuming a leadership position at the school, local, state, or national level. Regarding this last activity, academy graduates presented nine workshops at the 2006 WVAHPERD Conference, most are members of their county wellness policy committees, seven have submitted materials for NBPTS certification (four have been certified) and six graduates are serving as mentors for Leadership Academies II and III.

The Fitness Integrated with Teaching Kids Act (FIT Kids Act, 2007) is designed to better integrate physical education into the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). FIT Kids addresses the nation’s obesity epidemic by emphasizing quality physical education for public school children. The need for ongoing professional develop-ment for teachers is a central tenet of the legislation, so the time is right for building these collaborative models of professional development as a vehicle for making the move from “Easy Street.”

Involvement in Professional Organizations

Professional conferences need to be viewed as professional development opportuni-ties and made accessible to as many teachers as possible. Although it seems obvi-ous that involvement in professional organizations would contribute significantly to the reduction of knowledge obsolescence, surprisingly few physical educators are involved in state, district, or national organizations. For example, AAHPERD estimates that nationally only 8% of physical education teachers are members (E. Berkowitz, personal communication, October 15, 2008).

This lack of professional involvement is disappointing, particularly when one considers the services available through AAHPERD. For example, each year state, district, and national AAHPERD organizations sponsor conferences designed to bring to the membership the most current thinking regarding quality programming. Unfortunately, these conventions are almost always held during the school year when it is difficult for many teachers to attend, unless they take leave without pay and finance the cost of travel themselves.

NASPE has begun to offer summer workshops designed specifically for teach-ers; the National Summer Conference series offers workshops for teachers in six states. The conference allows teachers to obtain professional development credit while learning about new curriculum and instruction strategies that can have an immediate impact on programs. This initiative is right on target and needs to be replicated by all state HPERD associations.

AAHPERD publishes a number of practitioner-oriented journals, includ-ing the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Strategies, and the Journal of Health Education that provide teachers with current ideas about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


professional practice. In addition, AAHPERD has a long history of bringing together professionals from higher education, the public schools, and the private sector to develop publications directly related to educational practice. NASPE has published two documents that should have a dramatic impact on the way physical education is delivered. First, NASPE standards and benchmarks (NASPE, 2004), provides guidelines pertaining to the outcomes that should be achieved in a quality physical education program taught by a certified specialist. The second publication, Developmentally Appropriate Physical Education (Graham, Castenada, Hopple, Manross, & Sanders, 1992), outlines the educational practices that should be used when teaching physical education.

AAHPERD has also developed brochures, videotapes, slide presentations, and other materials designed to assist the teacher in promoting physical education in their school and community. Ironically, while health and physical activity are valued by the public, physical education is often targeted for elimination during times of fiscal austerity. Given the profound prophylactic effects of moderate exercise on morbidity due to cardiovascular disease, even when other risk factors such as hypertension, high percent body fat, smoking, and high cholesterol are present (Blair et al., 1995), it is imperative that physical educators become vocal proponents of the contributions that daily, quality physical education can make to a healthy and active lifestyle.

These are only a few of the contributions that AAHPERD can make to continu-ing teacher professional development. AAHPERD can make an impact, however, only when individual physical educators become involved. AAHPERD must also make this participation possible by moving state, regional, and state conferences to the summers. These conferences should focus on supporting substantive change in physical education programs—not only on “Monday morning activities” or other trendy ideas. It is vital that PETE programs facilitate preservice teacher involvement in state, regional, and national professional organizations by addressing them in formal class settings, supporting active major’s clubs on-campus, requiring students to access and read professional publications, and providing resources to defer the cost of conference registration and travel.

PETE ProgramsPETE programs also have a responsibility to contribute to the ongoing professional development of teachers in the schools. In addition to participation in the previously mentioned activities, PETE faculty need to design Master’s degree programs that expand on, not replicate undergraduate programs. Many Master’s degree programs consist of literally the same classes taught in the undergraduate program, albeit at a more advanced level.

PETE faculty have complained about the lack of content knowledge that prospec-tive physical education teachers bring to programs and the lack of sufficient curricular space in a typical undergraduate programs to address this concern. Therefore, it stands to reason that a Master’s degree program should be a value-added experience for teachers. Our graduate programs should be designed to create reflective, innovative change agents with an expanded set of knowledge, skills, and certifications. Master’s programs should address standards-based curriculum, instruction, supervision, but also adventure/outdoor education, group and personal fitness certifications, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


community-based physical activity programming, technology applications (PDAs, heart rate monitors, pedometers, accelerometers, Internet resources), and grant writing and advocacy. The SPAFES that should be the products of undergraduate programs should also be the product of graduate programs. In this way we would be addressing preservice and in-service needs of the profession simultaneously. If this approach were adopted, the severe negative socialization that accompanies many new teachers’ induction into the profession could be greatly reduced.

PETE programs should also take advantage of new communication and web-based technology to increase accessibility of quality graduate work and continuing education. This technology provides a unique opportunity to build an ever expanding community of professionals. West Virginia University has such a program and to date we have witnessed teachers come together from all over the world to our program and continue their development in a growing network of professionals. It is important to mention that our program adopted a hybrid approach from the onset in which teachers spend two weeks each summer at the beginning, middle, and end the program, so that a sense of community is fostered among the teachers. Initial attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of this hybrid approach to teacher education at the graduate level have proved positive (Ramsey, Hawkins, Wiegand, Housner, & Bulger, in press). Like all instructional technologies, however, web-based learning has a distinct set of assets and liabilities. In moving forward, the PETE profession needs to exercise a great deal of caution in applying these technologies to the preparation of teachers. There is a defini-tive need for a clear set of standards and guidelines regarding the appropriate applica-tion of web-based technology in PETE at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Square Footage

One of the central decisions in a new home purchase remains the determination of an appropriate home size. A quick visit to any real estate website with a searchable property index helps demonstrate the importance of a number of other size-related considerations, including the actual floor plan layout, number of bed rooms and bathrooms, available storage space, and so forth. These websites allow prospective home buyers to indicate their desired specifications and search for the available properties that best match their individual needs. As a profession, we should also identify the amount of curricular space needed in our public schools and teacher education programs to make the move from “Easy Street” a reality.

Given the present focus on standardized test performance in the core academic subjects like reading and math, it will be difficult for physical education to reach its full potential in numerous school districts across the country (D. Siedentop, personal communication, March 27, 2009). Despite this contextual impediment to effective physical activity promotion in the schools, physical educators must work to maximize and expand available curricular space by (a) achieving high levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity during formal classes; (b) encouraging all teachers to incorporate more active teaching-learning strategies in the classroom; (c) facilitating physical activity during recess; (d) organizing before- and after-school programs that appeal to a broad range of children; (e) advocating for more permanent changes to the school schedule allowing for increased physical activity opportunities, and (f) encouraging increased parental involvement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


If additional school time is not allocated in response to improved programming in the schools, the most prudent course of action might be to downsize physical education’s required square footage. Siedentop (personal communication, March 27, 2009) argues that children would be better served by an exemplary P-3 physical education program rather than the current mediocre, under resourced P-12 experi-ence. Siedentop states that by providing early elementary children with frequent, enjoyable, and successful movement education experiences taught by the most qualified physical educators, we have a far greater likelihood of providing a solid foundation for lifetime activity.

Furthermore, we can expect that middle and secondary school physical educa-tion programs will continue to experiment with innovative curricular approaches that extend the school day through the application of web-based learning modules regarding a variety of physical activity and fitness concepts. These web-based physical education courses require students to independently complete cognitive-based learning activities in combination with self-report measures regarding their physical activity behavior. As a variety of physical activity measurement technolo-gies continue to become more affordable and accessible as a means for holding students accountable (i.e., digital pedometers, accelerometers, heart rate monitors, global positioning devices), it is very likely that these web-based approaches will continue to increase in popularity.

While there are seemingly no convenient solutions regarding the problem of curricular space at the elementary, middle, and/or secondary levels, questions about curricular space and teacher education are easier to answer. There are several strategies that can be employed by PETE programs to save curricular space, ramp up expectations, and move beyond the traditional sport focus.

Selective Admissions

We need to recruit candidates who bring critical competencies and dispositions into the program. Knowledgeable, skillful, and fit teacher candidates who bring not only a rich set of experiences in the content of sport and physical activity, but also a passion for working with children and young adults as coaches, summer camp counselors, and so forth could dramatically affect the quality of teachers we graduate from PETE programs. This step will necessarily involve the commitment of additional program resources in the areas of student recruitment and teacher can-didate selection. These resources might be best invested in the development of (a) program marketing resources that attract the most capable students with an affinity for physical activity in its various forms, (b) preservice teacher screening process that extends beyond measures of convenience like grade point average and standardized test scores, and (c) periodic program “gateways” that require preservice teachers to continue to perform at a satisfactory level beyond the point of program admission.

Developmentally Based Teacher Certification

Siedentop (2009) has argued that certifications based on developmental levels, rather than the traditional, broad P-12 certification, may enable PETE programs to graduate specialists who would be better prepared to meet the unique needs of children, adolescents, and young adults. For example, he argues that a certified

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


P-3 physical education teacher with the developmentally appropriate content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge needed to facilitate regular physical activity, motor skill acquisition, and enthusiasm for physical education would provide an important foundation for a lifetime of move-ment. The shift toward distinct early elementary, upper elementary, middle school, and secondary teaching certifications would necessitate the development of more highly specialized and focused teacher education programs.

Competency-based Programming

There is no need to assume that all competencies must be met via formal course-work. SPAFES could attain critical competencies as part of internships, summer employment opportunities, or even via web-based modules in a variety of content areas. Professional development workshops and seminars could be a regular part of the PETE program and would offer the flexibility to respond efficiently to new ideas and competencies that need to be added to a SPAFES repertoire. This an ideal place for bringing preservice and in-service continuing education together. Using the regional coordinator concept, it is easy to envision state HPERD associations, PETE program faculty and students, and teachers collaborating on bringing cur-rent ideas to preservice and in-service teachers via staff development workshops.

When PETE programs focus on competencies rather than courses, there can be flexibility in how content is delivered. For example, rather than offering a single course for each team sport, a teaching games for understanding approach could be adopted where sports are taught in conceptual categories (Griffin et al., 1997). Invasion games such as soccer, lacrosse, football, Frisbee, field hockey, and basketball could be taught in such a way that the central strategic and tactical elements that these games share would be emphasized. For example, the skill of guarding or marking would be emphasized as a key defensive strategy and then, specific skills for the various sports would be taught. This approach would enable more curricular space to be allocated to “cool” activities.

Integrated Disciplinary Studies

There has been a longstanding concern about the contribution that disciplinary coursework makes toward obtaining competencies needed by SPAFES. However, as the academic disciplines have evolved they have become more aligned with the needs of SPAFES and can be instrumental in professional development. The fol-lowing list includes a number of sample disciplinary concepts that are relevant to physical education teaching:

1. Biomechanics/kinesiology: movement efficiency principles (balance, force, accuracy), skill analysis (critical elements), and movement analysis technology.

2. Motor learning and development: developmental practice, modeling, cuing, feedback, and using cognitive strategies.

3. Sport and exercise psychology: goal setting, exercise adherence, coping skills, and performance enhancement.

4. Exercise Physiology: Fitness assessment, exercise prescriptions (F.I.T.T), and exercise technology.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


5. Management: Leadership, change agency, budget management, marketing, and organizations and communities

6. Sport Sociology, History, and Philosophy: Societal issues, professional ethics, gender/race/ethnicity, historic traditions and future directions in sport, physical activity, and fitness.

Kinesiology and other theory classes in both graduate and undergraduate programs should provide SPAFES with pedagogically-relevant competencies and authentic learning experiences in school programs, youth sport, community-based programs, and other physical activity contexts (McKenzie, 2007). Researchers have suggested a number of strategies for integrating disciplinary knowledge with prac-tical applications in teaching physical education (Bulger, Housner, & Lee, 2008; Bulger & Housner, 2007). These strategies can be used to make explicit connections between the various disciplines and best practice in teaching physical education: (a) making clear theory to practice connections in course work and clinical experiences through curricular stranding, (b) using a wider variety of instructional methods to increase student engagement, (c) incorporating frequent experiential learning requirements in alternative settings, and (d) increasing professional expectations.

Cost of Our New HomeHow much will our new home cost? If all of the previously mentioned strategies were implemented, our new home for physical education would be very expensive. In light of the difficulties associated with subprime lending practices in the home mortgage industry, the risk of foreclosure for underperforming school physical education programs, and our mixed credit history resulting from years residing on “Easy Street,” it is safe to assume that we are working with a limited relocation budget. However, the actual cost in terms of dollars need not be cost prohibitive and the down payment on our new home must be made in the form of sweat equity (discretionary time and effort). To that end, we must take complete advantage of the considerable number of resources already in place in many states and individual school districts. For example, the task of designing P-12 curricula for all states will require the collaboration of state HPERD leaders, PETE faculty, SDE representa-tives and teachers. Most states have content standards based on NASPE national standards, so the beginning of state-based curricula is already in place. There are many curricular models, such as SPARK (McKenzie, 2003) and sport education (Siedentop, 1994; Hastie, 2003) that have been validated in school settings and these provide a good beginning to the process of reform.

PETE faculty could also contribute more directly to improved physical edu-cation in the schools by embracing the notion of “engagement” and working col-laboratively with teachers, administrators, HPERD state associations, and SDEs in the process of providing ongoing preservice and in-service education. The cost would be even more affordable if PETE faculty serve as state HPERD officers, county wellness policy committee members, and in other capacities as the need and opportunity arises. PETE faculty would have to become more “engaged.”

Regardless of the cost, reform must begin now. The health of school-aged children and adults is rapidly deteriorating. The early onset of obesity, diabetes, cardio-pulmonary diseases brought on by lack of regular physical activity and poor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


nutritional habits have contributed significantly to skyrocketing health care costs. The associated costs to quality of life, whether work-related or family-related, are incalculable.

The response via federal and state legislation has been strong with increases in the requirements for physical education and physical activity in and outside of schools settings mounting (Siedentop, 2009). Although these requirements vary from state to state the basic assumption is that more P-12 physical education in terms of allocated minutes can contribute to the improvement of health among children and young adults and provide them with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become active adults. However, adding more physical education without insuring the quality of the programming is doomed to failure. As a profession, we need to insure that accountability efforts measure the amount and quality of physical education received along with the learning outcomes achieved.

Conclusion

Is it realistic to expect physical education teachers and teacher educators, who may be very comfortable in their current homes, to pack their belongings and make the difficult move from “Easy Street?” Why would below average and average teachers want to work harder to make this move a reality? Why in the current school climate would principals want to hold physical education accountable for a challenging teaching-learning environment characterized by supportive instructional practices, a high degree of student achievement, and personally meaningful content? The cur-rent crisis regarding childhood obesity has presented our profession with a unique opportunity to redefine our societal role. To that end, a number of professional and government organizations have highlighted the important role that school-based physical education can play in promoting improved health and quality of life (American Heart Association, 2006; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997; NASPE, 2008; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 1996, 2000). A number of states have passed recent legislation strengthening school physical education requirements by mandating required physical activity time in schools. Presumably, physical educators will be asked to assume a leadership role in putting these requirements into practice. In relation to this opportunity, Siedentop (2009) stated “we have been asked to deliver, and if we don’t do better than we have done during past health crises, we may not be asked again” (p. 13). In other words, we can move from “Easy Street” or risk foreclosure. Based on this evidence, the incen-tive for change is clear, but the question remains if it is realistic.

Is a move from “Easy Street” even possible given the numerous personal, social, and environmental barriers that exist to change in the schools? Our answer to this important question is a hopeful yes. There is a lengthy body of literature that suggests teacher professional development is possible despite numerous contextual constraints (Anderson, 1988; Armour, Makopoulou, & Chambers, 2009; Patton & Griffin, 2008). A number of effective professional development models have been described in the literature based on policy change at the state level (Rink & Mitchell, 2003), collaboration with PETE programs (Ward & O’Sullivan, 2006), and interorganizational cooperation among state departments of education, schools districts, physical education teachers, colleges/universities, and state associations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


(Housner et al., 2008). Not only is professional development possible, it should be an expectation of all teachers (Armour et al., 2009). Signature characteristics of effective professional development include (a) supporting teacher collaboration through communities of practice, (b) recognizing the challenges of teaching and working with children, (c) making education better for children is the heart of professional development, (d) emphasizing the role of personal responsibility in teacher continuing education, (e) conducting professional development in authentic settings, (f) integrating plans for follow-up as needed, and (g) offering professional development programs that match participant needs and developmental level as a teacher. In summary, as Armour et al. state “unless physical education teachers undertake challenging and effective professional learning throughout their long careers, they are unfit to be trusted with responsibility for children and young people in education, physical education, wellness, health, or anything else” (p. 213). We would extend this comment to include PETE faculty as well. Ongoing, systematic approaches to professional development for teachers are not likely to occur without the investment of significant political willpower, discretionary effort, and school district resources. PETE researchers must also play a key role by asking research questions that have relevance to practicing physical educators, disseminating results to practitioners in a usable format, and securing funding to develop large scale professional development initiatives in the schools.

What if all this doesn’t work? What if despite a wonderful architectural plan, the actual home we build is simply a more expensive version of what we have always had on “Easy Street?” Some have argued that we may need to move out of our traditional home during the school-day and build a home in community-based settings during nontraditional times (Ennis, 2006). This suggested short sale has proponents and would view schools as community centers that would be linked and coordinated with community parks and recreation centers to offer intergenera-tional sport, play, and fitness opportunities for the entire family during evenings, weekends, and summers. It would include expanded athletic and recreational sport programs for all ages and preventative wellness programs with fitness centers staffed with SPAFES to provide the most up-to-date instruction and counseling available. Although this sounds wonderful, we would argue, at least for the time being, that it is better to remain in our current neighborhood in the schools, while investing in a nice vacation property in community-based settings. The assumption is that quality physical education in all settings can be a good investment, if we start moving forward right away.

ReferencesAmerican Heart Association. (2006). Promoting physical activity in children and youth: A

leadership role for schools. Circulation, 114, 1214–1224.Anderson, W.G. (1988). A school-centered collaborative model for program development.

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 176–183.Armour, K.M., Makopoulou, K., & Chambers, F. (2009). The learning teacher in physical

education. In L.D. Housner, M.W. Metzler, P.G. Schempp, & T.J. Templin (Eds.), Historic traditions and future directions on teaching and teacher education in physical education (pp. 213–220). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, West Virginia University.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Armour, K.M., & Yelling, M.R. (2004). Continuing professional development for experi-enced physical education teachers: Towards effective provision. Sport Education and Society, 9, 95–114.

Armstrong, N., & Sparkes, A.C. (Eds.). (1991). Issues in physical education. London: Cas-sell Publications.

Ayers, S.F., & Housner, L.D. (2008). A descriptive analysis of undergraduate PETE programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 51–67.

Blair, S.N., Kohl, H.W., Barlow, C.E., Paffenbarger, R.S., Gibbons, L.W., & Macera, C.A. (1995). Changes in physical fitness and all-cause mortality: A prospective study of healthy and unhealthy men. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 1093–1098.

Brown, C.R., & Spangler, D. (2006). Creating sustainable reform. School Administrator, 63, 18–22.

Bulger, S.M., & Housner, L.D. (2007). Modified Delphi investigation of exercise science in physical education teacher education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 57–80.

Bulger, S.M., Housner, L.D., & Lee, A.M. (2008). Curriculum alignment: A view from physical education teacher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 79(7), 44–50.

Castelli, D., & Williams, L. (2007). Health-related fitness and physical education teachers’ content knowledge. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 3–19.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). Guidelines for school and community programs to promote lifelong physical activity among young people. MMWR. Recom-mendations and Reports, 46(RR-6), 1–36.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007, October). Coordinated school health program. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/CSHP/

Chen, W. (2006). Teachers’ knowledge about and views of the national standards for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 120–142.

Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act. (2004, October). Public Law 108-265. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/TN/Healthy/108-265.pro-fessional development

Corbin, C. (2002). Physical education as an agent of change. Quest, 54, 181–195.Couturier, L.E., Chepko, S., & Coughlin, M. (2007). Whose gym is it? Gendered perspectives

on middle and secondary school physical education. Physical Educator, 64, 152–158.Curtner-Smith, M.D. (1997). The impact of biography, teacher education, and occupational

socialization on the perspectives and practices of first-year physical education teacher: Case studies of recruits with coaching orientations. Sport Education and Society, 2, 73–94.

Dietz, W.H. (2004). The effects of physical activity on obesity. Quest, 56, 1–11.Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B.F. (2002). Effects of

professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitu-dinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81–112.

Doolittle, S.A., Dodds, P., & Placek, J.H. (1993). Persistence of beliefs about teaching during formal training of preservice teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Educa-tion, 12, 355–365.

Dowda, M., Sallis, J.F., McKenzie, T., Rosengard, P., & Kohl, H.W., III. (2005). Evaluating the sustainability of SPARK physical education: A case study of translating research into practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 11–19.

Dyson, B. (2005). Outdoor education. In J. Lund & D. Tannehill (Eds.), Standards-based physical education curriculum (pp. 176–197). London: Jones and Bartlett.

Ennis, C.D. (1994). Knowledge and beliefs underlying curricular expertise. Quest, 46, 164–175.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Ennis, C.D. (2006). Curriculum: Forming and reshaping the vision of physical education in a high need, low demand world of schools. Quest, 58, 41–59.

Faucette, N. (1987). Teachers’ concerns and participation styles during in-service education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 6, 425–440.

Fay, T., & Doolittle, S. (2002). Agents for change: From standards to assessment to account-ability in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(3), 29–33.

Kids Act, F.I.T. (2007, July). Bill Summary: S.2173. Fitness integrated with teaching kids act (FIT Kids Act). A bill to enhance children’s health in No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 11, 2008 from http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3051303

Graber, K.C., & Locke, L.F. (2007). Are the national standards achievable? Conclusions and recommendations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 416–424.

Graber, K.C., Woods, A., & Castelli, D. (2007). Setting the stage: Research into physical activity relationships and progress toward achievement of the national standards. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 338–349.

Graham, G., Castenada, R., Hopple, C., Manross, M., & Sanders, S. (1992). Developmentally appropriate physical education practices for children. Reston, VA: National Associa-tion for Sport and Physical Education, Council on Physical Education for Children.

Graham, G., Metzler, M., & Webster, G. (1991). Specialist and classroom teacher effective-ness in children’s physical education: A 3-year study. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10(4), [Monograph].

Griffey, D.C., & Housner, L.D. (1991). Planning, behavior, and organizational climate differences of experienced and inexperienced. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 196–204.

Griffin, L.L., Mitchell, S., & Oslin, J. (1997). Teaching tactics in games and sports. Cham-paign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hastie, P. (2003). Teaching sport within physical education. In S. Silverman & C. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruc-tion (2nd ed., pp. 227–240). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hawkins, A. (2008). Pragmatism, purpose, and play: Struggle for the soul of physical educa-tion. Quest, 60, 345–356.

Hellison, D. (2003). Teaching personal and social responsibility in physical education. In S. Silverman & C. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 241–254). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Housner, L.D., Chapman, D., Childers, S., Deem, R., Elliott, E., Klemick, P., et al. (2008). The West Virginia health and physical education leadership academy. Journal of Physi-cal Education, Recreation & Dance, 79(5), 33–41.

Kann, L., Brener, N.D., & Wechsler, H. (2007). Overview and summary: School health policies and programs study 2006. The Journal of School Health, 77, 385–397.

Kelleher, J. (2003). A model for assessment-driven professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 751–757.

Kelley, E.J., & Lindsay, C.A. (1977). Knowledge obsolescence in physical educators. Research Quarterly, 48, 463–474.

Kelley, E.J., & Lindsay, C.A. (1980). Comparison of knowledge obsolescence of graduat-ing seniors and practitioners in the field of physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 636–644.

Kretchmar, R.C. (2000). Moved and being moved: Implications for practice. Quest, 52, 260–272.

Kretchmar, R.C. (2006). Life on easy street: The persistent need for embodied hopes and down-to-earth games. Quest, 58, 345–354.

LaVine, M., & Mitchell, S. (2006). A Physical education learning community: Development and first year assessment. Physical Educator, 63, 58–68.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Lawson, H.A. (1983). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education. Journal of Teaching in Physi-cal Education, 3, 3–16.

Lawson, H.A. (1993a). Teachers’ uses of research in practice: A literature review. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 366–374.

Lawson, H.A. (1993b). School reform, families, and health in the emergent national agenda for economic and social improvement: Implications. Quest, 45, 289–307.

Locke, L. (1990). Why motor learning is ignored: A case of ducks, naughty theories, and unrequited love. Quest, 42, 134–142.

Locke, L. (1992). Changing secondary school physical education. Quest, 44, 361–372.Matejcik, M. (2007). Dance, dance revolution. NEA Today, 26(2), 43.Martin, J.J., McCaughtry, N., Kulinna, P., Cothran, D., & Faust, R. (2008). The effective-

ness of mentoring-based professional development on physical education teachers’ pedometer and computer efficacy anxiety. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 68–82.

Martinek, T.J., & Schempp, P.G. (1988). Collaboration for instructional improvement: Models for school-university partnerships [Monograph]. Journal of Teaching in Physi-cal Education, 7, 157–264.

McCaughtry, N. (2009). The child and the curriculum: Implications of Deweyan Philosophy in the pursuit of “cool” physical education for children. In L. Housner, M. Metzler, P. Schempp, & T. Templin (Eds.), Historic traditions and future directions of research on teaching and teacher education. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, West Virginia University.

McKenzie, T.L. (2003). Health-related physical education: Physical activity, fitness, and wellness. In S. Silverman & C. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 207–226). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

McKenzie, T.L. (2007). The preparation of physical educators: A public health perspective. Quest, 59, 346–357.

McKenzie, T.L., Marshall, S.J., Sallis, J.F., & Conway, T.L. (2000). Student activity levels, lesson context, and teacher behavior during middle school physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 249–259.

McKenzie, T.L., Sallis, J.F., Faucette, N., Roby, J.J., & Kolody, B. (1993). Effects of a curriculum and inservice program on the quantity and quality of elementary physical education classes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 178–187.

Metzler, M.W. (1994). Scholarship reconsidered for the professorate of 2010. Quest, 46, 440–455.

Morris, M., Chrispeels, J., & Burke, P. (2003). The power of two: Linking external with internal teachers’ professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 764–768.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE]. (in press a). National standards for beginning physical education teachers. Reston, VA: Author.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE]. (in press b). National standards for advanced physical education teachers. Reston, VA: Author.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE]. (2004). Moving into the future: National standards for physical education (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE]. (2008). Comprehensive school physical activity programs [position statement]. Reston, VA: Author.

Norton, C.J. (1987). High school physical education: Problems and possibilities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 58(2), 19.

O’Sullivan, M., Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (1994). Breaking out: Codependency of high school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 421–428.

Patton, K., & Griffin, L.L. (2008). Experiences and patterns of change in a physical education teacher development project. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 272–291.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Pate, R.R., & Hohn, R.C. (1994). A contemporary mission for physical education. In R.R. Pate & R.C. Hohn (Eds.), Health and fitness through physical education (pp. 1–10). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Placek, J. (1983). Conceptions of success in teaching: Busy, happy, and good? In T. Tem-plin & J. Olsin (Eds.), Teaching in physical education (pp. 45–56). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Placek, J. (2003). Interdisciplinary curriculum in physical education: Possibilities and problems. In S. Silverman & C. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 255–271). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Pratt, M., Macera, C.A., & Wang, G. (2002). Higher direct medical costs associated with physical inactivity. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 28, 63–70.

Ramsey, C., Hawkins, A., Wiegand, R., Housner, L., & Bulger, S. (in press).Finding the recipe for the best blend: The evolution and evaluation of a blended master’s degree program. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology.

Rink, J., & Hall, T.J. (2008). Research on effective teaching in elementary school physical education. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 207–218.

Rink, J., & Mitchell, M. (2003). State level assessment in physical education: The South Carolina experience. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 471–472.

Sarkin, J.A., McKenzie, T.L., & Sallis, J.F. (1997). Gender differences in physical activity during fifth grade physical education and recess periods. Journal of Teaching in Physi-cal Education, 17, 99–106.

Schempp, P.G. (1989). Apprenticeship-of-observation and the development of physical education teachers. In T. Templin & P. Schempp (Eds.), Socialization into physical education: Learning to teach (pp. 13–38). Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.

Sharpe, T. (1992). Teacher preparation: A professional development school approach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(5), 82–87.

Sharpe, T., Lounsbery, M., & Templin, T. (1997). Cooperation, collegiality, and collabora-tion: Reinforcing the scholar-practitioner model. Quest, 49, 214–228.

Siedentop, D. (Ed.). (1989). The effective elementary specialist study. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8(3). [Monograph]

Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport education: Quality physical education through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Siedentop, D. (2007). Research on Teaching Physical Education: Celebrating our past and focusing our future. Paper presented at the Historic traditions and future directions of research on teaching and teacher education. October 11-14, Pittsburgh, PA.

Siedentop, D. (2009). Research on teaching physical education: Celebrating our past and focusing our future. In L.D. Housner, M.W. Metzler, P.G. Schempp, & T.J. Templin (Eds.), Historic traditions and future directions of research on teaching and teacher education in physical education (pp. 3–14). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, West Virginia University.

Siedentop, D., & Locke, L. (1997). Making a difference for physical education: What profes-sors and practitioners must build together. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68, 25–33.

Siedentop, D., Mand, C., & Taggart, A. (1986). Physical education: Teaching and curriculum strategies for grades 5-12. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

Silverman, S. (2005). Thinking long term: Physical education’s role in movement and mobility. Quest, 57, 138–147.

Silverman, S., & Ennis, C. (2003). Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Simons-Morton, B., Eitel, P., & Small, M.L. (1999). School physical education: Secondary analysis of the school health policies programs study. Journal of Health Education, 30, 21–27.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Sparkes, A.C., Templin, T.J., & Schempp, P.G. (1993). Exploring dimensions of marginality: Reflecting on the life histories of physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 386–398.

Strand, B., & Scantling, E. (1994). An analysis of secondary student preferences toward physical education. Physical Educator, 51, 119–129.

Stroot, S.A., Faucette, N., & Schwager, S. (1993). In the beginning: The induction of physical educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 375–385.

Stroot, S.A., & Whipple, C.E. (2003). Organizational socialization: Factors affecting begin-ning teachers. In S. Silverman & C. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical educa-tion: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 311–328). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Tannehill, D., & Zakrajsek, D. (1993). Students’ attitudes toward physical education: A multicultural study. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 78–84.

Taylor, W.C., Blair, S.N., Cummings, S.S., Wun, C.C., & Malina, R.M. (1999). Childhood and adolescent physical activity patterns and adult physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31, 118–123.

Templin, T. (Ed.). (1983). Profiles of excellence: Fourteen outstanding secondary school physical educators. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 54, 15–36.

Templin, T. (1988). Teacher isolation: A concern for the collegial development of physical educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 197–205.

Templin, T.J., & Washburn, J. (1981). Winning isn’t everything...unless you’re the coach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 52(9), 16–17.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Promoting better health for young people through physical activity and sports. Silver Springs, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ward, D.S., Saunders, R.P., & Pate, R.R. (2007). Physical activity interventions in children and adolescents. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Ward, P. (1999). Designer of the saber-tooth project. Journal of Teaching in Physical Edu-cation, 18, 403–416.

Ward, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (2006). The contexts of urban settings. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 348–362.

Wescott, W.L. (1992). High school physical education: A fitness professional’s perspective. Quest, 44, 342–351.

Wegis, H., & van der Mars, H. (2006). Integrating assessment and instruction: Easing the process with PDAs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 77, 27–34.

Williams, J.A., & Williamson, K.M. (1998). The socialization strategies of first-year physical education teachers: Conflict and concessions. Physical Educator, 55, 78–88.

Wright, P.M., & Burton, S. (2008). Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility-based physical activity program integrated into an intact high school physical education class. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 138–154.

Wuest, D., & Lombardo, B. (1994). Curriculum and instruction: The secondary school physical education experience. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Publishing.

Zeigler, E.F. (2003). Guiding professional students to literacy in physical activity education. Quest, 55, 285–305.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

4:19

16

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Relocating From Easy Street: Strategies for Moving Physical Education Forward