|
CHAPTER IV MODERN FABRIC The best protection of a nation is its men; The restorative, martial, and pedagogical content areas of physical education are fueled by personal, interpersonal, and transpersonal influences. Together they provide a content-motivation pattern for the physical education concept. When combined with classical definitions of culture and leisure, a paradigm begins to emerge. This paradigm can be used to evaluate the nature and value of the current physical education curriculum and emphasis. Paradigms either old or new are difficult to recognize. Ferguson (1991b) wrote: The old paradigm can be hard to see. As Kuhn observed, we are not usually aware of the dominant assumptions until they are challenged. Historically, "paradigm shifts" occurred very gradually in specific research areas as advocates of the old view died off. (p.1) Lawson (1991) referred specifically to physical education in suggesting that researchers are not concerned with transcending the old paradigm: Only rarely do they engage in problem setting. Problem setting is initiated in the face of disagreements and anomalies that cannot be reconciled within the dominant frame of reference, which Kuhn alternately called paradigm and theory. (p. 287) The current turmoil, confusion, and fragmentation within the physical education profession further complicate any attempt to identify precisely any one acceptable paradigm for the entire field, but numerous physical educators have suggested that physical activity should be the primary focus (Kenyon, 1986; Kroll, 1982; Metheny, 1986). This might seem ironic in light of the previously discussed emphasis on theory at the expense of practical application, poor teaching programs, and troubling indications that physical educators are often unfit and inadequate role models; but careful scrutiny of the literature reveals an interesting undercurrent. Rintala (1991) wrote, "In physical education, the focus of our study and understanding is on humans engaged in movement activities such as play, games, sport, dance, and exercise" (p. 260). The first four categories are generally understood, and Newell (1990) defines exercise as "a subset of physical activity when it is viewed as bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness" (p. 245). Play, games, sport, dance, and exercise represent a recurring agreement in the mainstream understanding of modern physical activities as emphasized in American physical education, with motor skills often mentioned in conjunction with physical activity: Motor skill development, as part of the curriculum, performs two functions. First, it represents an opportunity for movement experiences that are valuable in and of themselves. Second, it provides the foundation for the inclusion of sports, games, and dance in the lives of students. These two functions make motor skill development the primary justification for including physical education in the school program. (Fox, 1991, p. 6) While exercise is continually emphasized in the physical education curriculum, sports and games have been dominant since the early to middle 1900s (Hackensmith, 1966; Van Dalen et al., 1953). Formal exercise, such as stretching, running, calisthenics, and weight training, has endured for years as the ugly stepchild of physical education. Physical fitness is sometimes promoted as an essential element of physical education curriculum, but many senior physical educators were trained during a time when it was not. Gray (1966) noted that "when physical education is mentioned, most people immediately think of sports" (p. 22), and Lawson (1982) agreed that: For most of the Twentieth Century, programs of physical education in the public schools have had a clear set of missions. The goals of these programs have been to develop skill in sports and, in the process, to develop physical fitness and psycho-social traits in students. The assumption which formed the cornerstone of the sports curriculum was that physical fitness and psycho-social traits were derivatives of learning and performance in selected sports. That is, fitness and social learnings were assumed to be among the outcomes which occurred automatically in connection with sport instruction and participation. (p. 59) Gillam (1985) represents the relatively recent and limited voice given to physical fitness and basic motor skills in a physical education curriculum dominated by sports and games: Mankind must possess, maintain, and develop the "basics" of movement to be, or continue to be productive members of society. Consequently, it would appear that physical education programs should be directed toward development of these components. . . .The transition from the traditional sports and games to the health related physical fitness and motor performance approach would necessitate only a change in the approach to physical education. Instead of directing attention toward the development of sport and game skills, attention would be directed toward the development of the health related physical fitness and motor performance components. (p. 129) McSwegin (1991) also called for a fitness-related shift in the physical education curriculum: American society today clearly values health, clearly has increasingly serious health problems, and clearly needs the tremendous positive impact that physical education can have on changing activity habits of children. We must assume our important role in promoting the skills, knowledge, and values underlying lifelong active lifestyles. It is time for physical education leaders to step forward and assert that role as the new priority for physical education. (p. 14) Games, sports, theoretical disciplines, and dance dominate the content domain of the current physical education paradigm. Personal and interpersonal interests are used as the primary motivators (Hellison, 1991). Beyond these two relatively safe observations, the paradigmatic waters grow murky as fragmentation begins to centrifuge the physical education curriculum into its current disunity. Chapter 1.
Introduction |