|
CHAPTER II CHAOS IN THE FIELD There is a transcendent power in example. Physical Education has been described as "the modification and adjustments that occur in an individual as he moves and as he learns about movement. . . . It is concerned with the ultimate improvement of both the individual and the society of which he is a part" (Frost, 1975, p. 33). The quality and quantity of human movement within a society are of great importance because the human body is the very vehicle which houses the senses through which the life experience is perceived. Gray (1966) wrote that "movement is an anthropological necessity for the human race. In this increasingly motorized, mechanized, and anesthetized world, movement has become more important to human physiology than ever before" (p. 22). Cheffers and Evaul (1978) wrote: If human movement is an academic discipline incorporating a body of knowledge about human beings in motion, then physical education is a profession that applies that knowledge. (p. xii) Human motion is tied into human needs, wants, motivations, and rewards; and it is influenced by internal and external factors. Environmental factors determine the quality and quantity of motion as do the physical, intellectual, social, emotional, and spiritual conditions of the mover(s). Recent critics have charged that leaders in physical education focus on the intellectual aspects of the field at the expense of practical application (Bressen, 1982; Ellis, 1988; Hoffman, 1985; Newell, 1990; Siedentop, 1990). This shift began in the 1960s (Newell, 1990). The impact has been subsequently felt throughout the field, and particularly in elementary and secondary schools where physical educators and coaches are themselves often physically unfit (Brandon & Evans, 1988). There is currently considerable debate concerning the dominance of academic theory over practical application. Newell (1990) argued as follows: No matter what the nature of the programmatic structure in physical education departments, most academicians would agree that the field does not produce as good a teacher of physical education as it used to. Indeed, the quality of teaching in physical education (and other domains in education) is viewed by many scholars and teachers to be abysmal. (p. 234) Thomas (1991) has drawn attention to researchers who live far removed from the human movement they study and about which they profess expertise: Academics prone to quantitatively reduce the phenomena from a distance and objectify what they don't know subjectively set limits on their work that should carry disclaimers like "I don't really move/play/compete but this is how it seems to be." (p. 219) Corbin (1991) also questioned the value of a physical education curriculum model that places academic discipline over practical preparation: In the last two decades, universities have adapted a "top-down" model that emanated in the sciences. "Our people" in these universities have committed to this model rather than to the goals of our field. Some . . . actually believe that if we act like scientists and do things that scientists do, then we will be embraced as equal partners by those in other sciences such as physics and chemistry . . . ."Top down" is a phrase used to describe a hiring plan in which professors are hired first because of their abilities to publish, secure grants, and mentor graduates (the top). Other competencies, such as the ability to teach professional classes to undergraduate students, are of lower priority or altogether unimportant. (p. 227) According to Wade (1991), "the reputation for quality teaching in physical education is poor and reflects a more general view of American education as being deficient compared with other industrial nations" (p. 207). Ironically, turmoil and self-doubt smolder within the physical education profession while societal interest in personal health and fitness continues to grow. Thomas (1991) points to the absence of a common vision shared by members of the physical education profession: The lack of a paradigm to serve as a point of departure in our studies has led to a growing failure to communicate with each other at a departmental level about what we are collectively doing. The only outlet for scholarship of many faculty is a small cadre of like-minded specialists or academic "arrogants" who meet annually and exchange jargon or publish in esoteric or basic-science journals. (p. 220) Jager (1985) wrote "it is widely accepted as fact that theory and research represent the foundation on which programs of physical education should be built" (p. 167), while critics respond that theoretical discussions and research have not translated into a curriculum that transforms American youth and adults into fit citizens. Blackwell (1990) charged: We have failed to emphasize the positive benefits of regular exercise. We have not provided adequate knowledge about fitness, nor have we provided the skills necessary to make regular fitness activities a part of the lifestyle of the average American family. What explanation can we give our country and the parents of the students who have grown fat, unfit, and increased their risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] under our tutelage? (Blackwell, 1990) This confusion and disharmony within the physical education profession may be connected to an overall crisis in American culture. Ferguson (1991a) called attention to the "advancing wave of grief and confusion [that] has its roots in our customary way of thinking, in our assumptions about ourselves" (p. 1). She called for a radical shift in awareness: People everywhere have long hoped that someone, somewhere, sometime would pull together the best of old and new knowledge. Nations, disciplines, institutions, families and society in general would benefit from a more integrated paradigm or pattern of understanding. (p. 1) Ferguson (1991b) described the old (or current) paradigm as: . . .the defense of rickety institutions, a chorus of claims from competing politicians, scientists, economists, advertisers and religious leaders, not to mention schools of psychology. This particular paradigm has no intellectual capital or consistency. It is held together by nothing more than the tension of warring ideas . . . and one great theme--separation. The idea of winners and losers, mind and body, past and future, cause and effect, things and other things. (p. 4) Literature within the physical education profession traditionally supports education of the "whole person" (Bain, 1988; Greene, 1978; Lidstone & Feingold, 1991), but Woody (1949) commented that throughout history "the ideal of harmony of mind and body has been admired and praised, held in contempt, disputed, and ignored" (p. 6). Cassidy (1965) spoke for the skeptics in noting: We have known, even though we quite often do not act upon this fact, that the organism is by its very nature unified. This unity is manifest not only in psychosomatic functioning, but also in the interrelationships and interactions with the organism's environments. These concepts have given us the term sociopsychosomatic even though unfortunately we, quite often, do not apply this reality in our current programs. (p.12) Health and Wellness (Edlin & Golanty, 1988) suggested that "health comes from the harmonious integration of body, mind, and spirit" (p. 126); and the World Health Organization has defined health as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" (Russell, 1975, p. 126). Such unity appears difficult to cultivate in an educational environment where "research and analysis have tended to focus on only a portion of the person/event and thus neglect the complexity of the situation, environment, or individual" (Lidstone & Feingold, 1991, p. 241). Cassidy (1965) argued that "the long view of history shows the fascinating truth that beliefs and values within a given society, held in relation to man and his body, have resulted in quite different concepts and programs in what we call physical education" (p. 11). Barrow (1983) added that "the influences which have been responsible for modern physical education are like threads running through the fabric of all history dating back to preliterate times" (p. 59). He included in these "almost all aspects of society--political, economic, religious, social, educational, and military [and noted that] while physical education has been shaped by historical influences, it has also been influential in shaping some history" (p. 60). So it seems that within the unimaginably vast and complicated history of humankind, there are threads of influence and patterns of cultural wisdom with which to weave a rational paradigm that can bring order and meaning to a currently chaotic, misdirected, and impotent model of American physical education. These patterns certainly deserve reconsideration. Chapter 1.
Introduction |