Physical education as praxis

Orginally published December 2016

Updated June 2026

Schools are under increasing pressure to show that they are providing every student with a comprehensive and appropriate education. As part of the school curriculum, Physical Education is not immune to this pressure and in recent times Physical Education has been caught up in the politics of sport, physical activity and obesity.   

From a historical lens, Gateman (2005) and NASPE (2005) suggested that heightened attention on children’s physical activity and weight levels resulted in confusion between the terms “physical education” and “physical activity”, and in more recent times I would add "physical literacy" (for example, see this text analysis of international physical literacy literature click here) in school settings. This past work, Gateman and NASPE provided useful distinctions between physical education and physical activity. Both focus on an attempt at distinguishing between physical activity in curriculum time and outside curriculum time to define the educative positioning of activity in Physical Education.

It needs to be recognised that Physical Education, like all school subjects and curriculum, is influenced by societal expectations and pressures and therefore subject to continuous revision. 

Many years ago, Tinning and McCuaig (2006, p8) suggested that a spotlight on the role curriculum plays in the construction of  “physically educated citizens” enables questions about what is assumed in initiatives from within education, one's own practice of physical education, and about what is pushed into the education space by health and physical activity activists.  To that end, I argue there is a need to continually consider what it means to be "physically educated" in order to ensure two outcomes:

1. The Physical Education profession, through an ability to articulate and  express an educative purpose that is situated within the broader goals of education, is able to provide leadership in curriculum direction through critically considered and reasoned responses to initiatives from outside the profession.
2. Students physical education experiences are making a difference to their  lived reality now, and in the future through a curriculum that is being more than reproductive of practice and tradition.

Several years ago I suggested a praxis for physical education from a constructivist view of education as a means of going some way towards meeting those two outcomes. I will return to this later

I'll declare my bias at this point. I understand the "business" of schools to be education and I agree with Kirk (1996) that Physical Education should be able to justify its presence in the curriculum on its educative purpose. Therefore, my thoughts resonate with Penney and Chandler (2000) who asserted that student learning needs to be the explicit defining feature of the subject and the framework for physical education curriculum development. Before I lay out Physical Education as praxis I will first consider what it means to be physically educated.

The Physically Educated person

If learning in Physical Education is "the main game", then Physical Education programs can be planned for the deliberate construction of environments that enhance learning.

Consider this Physical Education example from a school I use to visit on teaching practice supervision, where the child’s first Physical Education lesson in High School is the Coopers 12 minute run to test aerobic fitness. What is the child who struggles in such an activity having reinforced about social inclusion in movement experiences, the necessary pre-requisites for success in that schools Physical Education program and future inclusion in movement culture - what are they learning about self and self in relation to others in Physical Education if this is their first lesson in high school physical education? 

But what does it mean to be a "physically educated person"? We can consider that from an "outcomes" perspective. In 1986 NASPE asked "What should physically educated students know and be able to do?" and in 1995 declared that a physically educated person:

*has learned skills necessary to perform a variety of physical activities,

*is physically fit,

*participates regularly in physical activity,

*knows the implications of and the benefits from involvement in physical activities,

*values physical activity and its contribution to a healthful lifestyle

Before physical literacy was in vogue, NASPE (1995) defined a physically educated person: Demonstrates competency in many movement forms and proficiency in a few movement forms. Applies movement concepts and principles to the learning and development of motor skills. Exhibits a physically active lifestyle. ICHPER.SD used the following definition: A physically educated person HAS learned skills necessary to perform a variety of physical activities; IS physically fit; DOES participate regularly in physical activity; KNOWS implications of and benefits from involvement in physical activities; and VALUES physical activity and its contributions to a healthful lifestyle. (National Association for Sport and Physical Education, AAHPERD, 1992).

Borrowing from the philosophies of Reid, Peters and Aristotle, MacAllister (2013) considered what it meant to be physically educated from a "life" perspective and concluded that physically educated persons should be defined as those who have learned to arrange their lives in such a way that the physical activities they freely engage in make a distinctive contribution to their long-term flourishing.

It is a recent assumption that physical education is something that only occurs in schools in physical education lessons. "Back in the day", the fitness coaches at my football clubs were called the "phys edders", and what are now called "personal trainers" were the "phys edders at the gym". A recent CEO of the AFL referred to the sport scientists at football clubs as the "phys edders". I am not one who shares a belief that physical education is something that can and does only occur in a physical education class in a school with a physical education teacher. However, the praxis for physical education I drafted back in 2007 was for the school subject called Physical Education.

Physical Education - a Praxis Model

Praxis in education is a way of describing the realisation of theory, or the practicing of ideas. The praxis for physical education I lay out here starts with the end in mind - education. 

Education is Learning about Self – physical, social, emotional, cognitive, spiritual

Physical Education is the development of the physically educated person

whose state of mind gives witness to the lived belief in and value of movement as

an essential element of life

These beliefs are supported by Essential Learnings which are the habits of mind of the physically educated person

They are matured through Learning Contexts

- Learning in the physical

- Learning about the physical

- Learning through the physical

They are taught via Guiding Pedagogies and Principles

(for example, Mosston's Spectrum)

Through which students engage with Learning Content:

- Skills, Knowledge, Attitudes and Values

And experience Learning Activities

The Praxis Model for Physical Education is intentionally structured as a cascade. It is designed to prevent physical education from becoming a series of disconnected physical activities, ensuring instead that every lesson is explicitly anchored in human development.

The cascade flows from a philosophical ultimate goal down into the concrete realities of daily lesson planning.

The Peak: Education as Learning about Self

At the very top of the model sits the ultimate educative purpose: Learning about Self across five holistic dimensions—physical, social, emotional, cognitive, and spiritual.

This establishes that the "main game" of physical education is not the sport itself, but what the student discovers about their own identity, capabilities, and values through that sport. The model posits that this self-knowledge is realized through the maturation of Habits of Mind (such as learning to transfer skills, managing physical change, and respecting others).

Why the Cascade Matters: Flipping the Traditional ‘Physical Education’ Method

In what Metzler (2011) described as the traditional physical education method, teachers plan from the bottom up: they pick a sport or activity (Content), tell the students what to do (Pedagogy), and anticipate (hope) that some fitness or social skill happens as a byproduct.

Habits of Mind

In my development of a praxis model for Physical Education, Costa and Garmston’s (2002) “Maturing Outcomes” model was foundational. I first encountered it during a curriculum professional development experience in 2004. Costa and Garmston provided a framework focused on “states of mind” - enduring, essential learnings which are, “as appropriate for adults as they are for students” (Costa & Garmston, 2002, p. 1). While knowledge and skills are essential for children to learn and the pedagogical practices employed are essential in this provision, skills and knowledge are only meaningful to the lived reality of a student if they are connected to how the student understands and feels about self in a way that actually makes a difference to their lived reality. Costa and Garmston’s model also emphasis learning founded around processes which challenge student’s cognitive reasoning and beliefs. Costa and Kallick (2008) set out 16 habits of mind across the curriculum. The Praxis model I proposed in 2007 presents a broader conceptualisation of essential learnings as the maturation of the ‘habits of mind’. The ‘habits of mind’  within the Praxis model for physical education to develop the physically educated person are -

The habits of mind required to: 

• effectively transfer learning through, about, and in the physical to other areas and means of learning.
• critically examine and take action on social issues.
• understand how one’s own body (and that of others) moves, changes and adapts in space and time.
• understand that as we learn through, about in the physical we interface with values and beliefs.
• understand and respect the holistic person – physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and spiritual.
• develop and maintain meaningful right relationships with others and the world.
• demonstrate unconditional respect for others identity.
• understand the social construction of physical self identity, and that of others.
• work effectively and confidently with change, including physical change.
• maximise opportunities to be physically active and healthy now, and in the future.
• understand how one’s actions influence and impact on others and the world around them
•  construct and deconstruct meaning and, to critically understand visual, verbal and physically literacy, the power of communication and technology.

The Praxis Model requires shifting the focus from what activities are we doing? (coverage) to what enduring understandings are we building about the self through movement? (transfer).

I wrote the Praxis model before I had come across the Understanding by Design (UbD) planning, which now informs my curriculum planning practice. While the Praxis Model establishes that knowledge and skills are only meaningful if they connect to a student's "states of mind" or "habits of mind", UbD’s "backward design" from intend learning outcomes ensures these deeper outcomes remain the explicit driver of the curriculum.

Here is a breakdown of how a PE teacher can plan a unit using this integrated Praxis-UbD approach.

Stage 1: Desired Results (Aligning "Habits of Mind" with Curriculum)

In Stage 1, you look past the sport or physical activity itself and identify the long-term takeaways. Instead of choosing a sport first, you select the specific Habits of Mind from the Praxis Model you want to mature.

• Established Goals: Align your unit with national curriculum standards but view them through the lens of the Praxis Model's goal: Learning about Self (physical, social, emotional, cognitive, spiritual).
• Essential Questions (EQs): Craft open-ended, thought-provoking questions that students will revisit throughout the unit.
• Example: "How do the choices I make in a dynamic environment affect my relationships with my team?"
• Example: "How does understanding space change the way my body moves?"
• Enduring Understandings: What should stick with students years from now?
• Example: Students will understand that developing and maintaining right relationships requires communication, empathy, and unconditional respect for others' identities during competitive tension.

Stage 2: Assessment Evidence (Measuring "States of Mind")

Traditional PE assessment often relies on isolated skill tests (e.g., testing a tennis volley against a wall). In a praxis-oriented UbD unit, assessment must capture the realisation of theory into practice; how students behave, adapt, and reflect within context.

• Performance Tasks (Authentic Assessment): Design a scenario where students must apply their physical skills alongside their socio-emotional habits of mind.
• Example: A student-led Sport Education tournament. Students aren't just assessed on gameplay; they are assessed on their role performance (e.g., Coach, Referee, Captain) and how they cultivate inclusive environments, manage conflict, and negotiate tactical challenges with their peers.
• Other Evidence (Formative & Reflective): Because the Praxis Model values cognitive reasoning and beliefs, reflection is essential.
• Example: Digital reflection journals or post-game peer feedback loops where students analyse tactical data or self-assess their adherence to the chosen Habits of Mind.

Stage 3: The Learning Plan (Guiding Pedagogies & Contexts)

With the destination (Stage 1) and evidence (Stage 2) locked in, you design the daily experiences. This is where the core elements of the Praxis Model - Learning Contexts and Guiding Pedagogies - dictate the teacher's instructional choices.

1. Structuring the Three Learning Contexts

Your daily lessons must deliberately weave through the three dimensions of movement defined in the model:

• Learning in the physical: Developing motor competence, agility, and spatial awareness through active gameplay.
• Learning about the physical: Understanding the cognitive concepts of the game (e.g., physiological adaptations to exercise).
• Learning through the physical: Using the game or activity as a vehicle to experience and navigate personal values, ethics, communication, and emotional self-regulation.

2. Selecting Guiding Pedagogies

To challenge students' cognitive reasoning, the teacher must move away from purely direct instruction (teacher-dominated replication) and utilise more inquiry-based pedagogies that give the cogntive load to the students. For example:

• Play with Purpose: Instead of running mostly closed and open drills, place students in modified games from the start of the lesson. Use targeted, game-consequent conditions/constraints to bring the chosen Habit of Mind to life.
• The Spectrum of Teaching Styles: Deliberately shift along the spectrum (Mobility Ability). Utilise discovery Styles E-G, so i Instead of telling students where to move, you ask questions like: "Where is the space opening up, and how can your teammate help you exploit it?" This forces the maturation of cognitive processes.

The 2007 concept paper Physical Education - what's in a name: A praxis model for holistic learning in physical education, Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 54(1), 5-10, was one of my first peer reviewed publications as an academic. I'm interested in any thoughts about how the concept and ideas "hold up". Is there anything that you would change or contest? 

(The 2007 publication is available via Research Gate click here or email me and I will provide you with a copy)

References

Costa, A. & Garmston, J. (2002). Maturing Outcomes. New Horizons for Learning.

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (Eds.). (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success. ASCD.

Gateman, V. (2005). Physical Activity and Physical education within Health and Physical Education in New Zealand Curriculum: A primary school teachers perspective. New Zealand Ministry of Education.

Kirk, D. (1996). The crises in school physical education - an argument against the tide. ACHPER National Journal, 43 (4), 25-28.

NASPE. (2005). understanding the difference: Is it physical education or physical activity?

MacAllister, J. (2013). The ‘physically educated’person: Physical education in the philosophy of Reid, Peters and Aristotle. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(9), 908-920.

Penney, D., & Chandler, T. (2000). Physical education: What future (s)? Sport, education and Society, 5(1), 71-87.

Pill, S. (2007). Physical Education - what's in a name: A praxis model for holistic learning in physical education, Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 54(1), 5-10.

Tinning, R., McCuiag, L. & lisahunter (2006). Teaching health and physical education in Australian schools. Pearson Australia.

Thanks for stopping by and reading this blog. If you would like to connect with the ideas here or any of the ideas I have blogged about, you can contact via my email here