What Goes Around Comes Around … Or Does It? Disrupting the Cycle of Traditional, Sport-Based Physical Education

Abstract

As typically taught, sport-based, multiactivity approaches to physical education provide students with few opportunities to increase their skill, fitness, or understanding. Alternative curriculum models, such as Sport Education, Teaching Games for Understanding, and Fitness for Life, represent a second generation of models that build on strong statements of democratic, student-centered practice in physical education. In the What Goes Around section of the paper, I discuss the U.S. perspective on the origins of alternative physical education curriculum models introduced in the early and mid-20th century as a response to sport and exercise programs of the times. Today, with the help of physical educators, scholars are conducting research to test new curricular alternatives or prototypes to provide evidence-based support for these models. Yet, the multiactivity, sport-based curriculum continues to dominate in most U.S. physical education classes. I discuss reasons for this dogged persistence and propose reforms to disrupt this pervasive pattern in the future.

Physical education teacher educators’ views regarding the purpose(s) of school physical education

“…(Sara, Ireland) This reflection aligns with recent calls by scholars for a pluralist incarnation of physical education which serves a variety of purposes (Cothran, 2010;Ennis, 2014;Kirk, 2013;Penney, 2013), embracing what McNamee (2005, p. 17) refers to as the 'inherent openness of the concept of physical education: pluralism in activities; pluralism in values'. Although this participant was the only one to articulate the need to attend to context and individuality in terms of the purpose of physical education, the importance of tailoring physical education to meet the needs of individual students and contexts was touched on by all participants.…”

The Role of Students and Content in Teacher Effectiveness

“…When they are willing to give effort and appear to enjoy physical education, physical educators feel a sense of satisfaction that they are in fact effective teachers. However, when these bellwether students resist or refuse to participate in the lesson, the teaching enterprise becomes substantially more challenging (Ennis, 1996, in press; Ward, 2013). Clearly, these most vocal students in physical education classes thrive in the current multiactivity, recreation-oriented sport culture that dominates many U.S. physical education programs.…”

“…Clearly, these most vocal students in physical education classes thrive in the current multiactivity, recreation-oriented sport culture that dominates many U.S. physical education programs. They expect lessons with minimal skill and tactical instruction and with maximum opportunities to play ball (Ennis, in press). …”

“…In examining this phenomenon further, we asked teachers in our current NIH research studies (e.g., Sun et al, 2012), “ Which students are you most concerned about liking the new [concept-oriented, fitness-based] curriculum?” (Ennis, in press). The reply often was, “Our athletes and students who like sport.…”

Resistance Training in Youth - Benefits and Characteristics

“…Nevertheless, almost one third of a representative sample of Dutch parents stated that they would not allow their 12-to 15 year-old offspring to participate in RT due to concerns about the impact on linear growth, while only 4% would prohibit participation in aerobic exercise [49]. Physical education programs also focus predominantly on team sports, and provide only limited exposure to RT [61]. Accordingly, only a small number of young people report regular participation in RT [62] and only a few adolescents appear to be competent in RT skills [63].…”