Does Physical literacy depart from what it means to be physically educated?

Originally published 04/09/17

Updated 18/05/2021

The philosophy of physical literacy (PL) (Whitehead, 2001) has gained a sense of momentum in recent times, to the point where advocates have a philosophy and justificatory argument and are now in search of a supportive pedagogical argument (Kirk, 2013). This has the potential to be confusing as much of what is now being associated as the pedagogy of PL by some existed before PL became "a thing" (like fundamental movement skill development), or exists in teaching for effective learning and "quality teaching" literature. 

I was teaching PE and Science in the 1990's when multi-literacy theory became the "in thing". Around the same time as the 'New London Group' were espousing multi-literacies theory and expanding the focus of literacy from reading and writing to an understanding of multiple discourses and forms of representation. It was also in the 1990's that Margaret Whitehead entered the contested territory of PE definition and direction, and the fields educational defence. Whitehead (2001, p. 131) presented a case for PL as part of the PE legitimisation debate by proposing a “description of a physically literate individual.” The case for PL is not the only or indeed first solution to an educationally defensible PE conceptualisation. Initially, Whitehead acknowledged similarities between PL and conceptualisations proposed by others, including Arnold (1979). Later,  Whitehead (2013) asserted that you ‘do not teach physical literacy’, and that PL is not a pedagogical model, rather, a rationale for the value of physical activity.

Does PL depart from what it means to be physically educated?

Hardman (2011) suggested PL departs from PE in that PE has been associated with the development of generic and specific competencies, while PL has been associated with motivation (see Whitehead, 2010). However, the definition demarcations between being physically literate and being physically educated are increasingly blurred as advocates of PL seek a supportive pedagogical construction (Corbin, 2016). Further, it has been suggested that confounding the PL proposition is the absence of empirical support for the theorising (Chen, 2015; Macdonald and Enright, 2013). Empirical work is being undertaken, however, the similarity between definitions of PE and being physically educated, and the replacement definition of PL that has occurred in some jurisdictions where the definition of PL now bears striking similarity to definitions of PE it replaced, has also added to the conceptual confusion.

There has been suggestions that the term PL has been placed upon practitioners with limited evidence of a need to do so; to the point of being described as a “profession being distracted” from the more important things it needs to focus on by PL (Lounsbery & McKenzie, 2015). There are many unsupported assumptions about PL and its educative role in the literature (Lundvall, 2015) being complicated by the substitution of PE for PL (Corbin, 2016; Hyndman & Pill, 2017).

For me, an interesting reflection is that while in Australia ideas about effective teaching have generally moved on from multi-literacies theory to teaching for effective learning, PE in Australia is being urged in some quarters towards PL. This potentially puts conversations in PE "out of step" with conversations occurring in other learning areas. While curriculum frameworks, such as the Australian Curriculum for HPE and the recently Board approved revised SACE Senior Years PE Curriculum frame valuing movement and the educative intent of PE through an Arnoldian perspective of education in, through and about movement, some assert the alternative to be PL. All the while, PL is defined as an attribute that is attained across the lifecourse and not achieved from PE. 

Personally, I feel PL has much to offer as a General Capability across the curriculum that encourages schools to be physically active and healthy environments because all teachers take ownership of constructing an active school day, and the provision of a school environment that encourages incidental and unstructured physical activity. However, the Australian definition of PL bears much in common with definitions of physical education and the learning domains of the PE, and is presented similarly to models of learner wellbeing which preceded the Australian PL. On the one hand, that might mean it is straightforward to accommodate the concept of PL in Australian PE as quality HPE programs were doing the things suggested by the PL strategy already. On the other hand, 'the physical education profession' wasn't asking for PL and arguably the delivery of PL doesn't add anything to help the work of physical educators already cognizant of teaching for effective learning across the domains of learning. 

Figure: The definition of PL in Australia alongside the definition of HPE of the Australian Curriculum, alongside the domains of PL which are very similar to (perhaps the same as) the domains of learning in HPE and also similar to the domains of learner wellbeing frameworks - which begs the question: what is new or added by this PL?

What is interesting (intriguing) is that like some other countries, in Australia physical literacy gains momentum from sport and physical activity sectors and is not grasped upon as eagerly by many in education as it is by sport and physical activity providers. What is also interesting, is that research from Canada, where PL has been pushed for over a decade, suggests that teachers show limited understanding of the concept and connection of it to their work (see Stoddart & Humbert's work). Research Stephen Harvey and I undertook found a naïve 'everyday' understanding of physical literacy by PE teachers. 

The concept of physical literacy has much to be considered. Margaret Whitehead's work has made a valuable contribution in assisting understanding of the place and potential that becoming physically educated through PE has in encouraging the lifetime pursuit of active and healthy living. However, The concept with the most relevance connected to physical literacy is ‘education’, the very term that is commonly being replaced by ‘literacy’ in physical literacy scholarship.

Adapted from the paper What’s in a concept? A Leximancer text mining analysis of physical literacy across the international literature, presentations given at the ACHPER International Conference 2019, SA HPE Conference 2019, WA HPE Conference 2019, and the paper Exploring physical education teachers ‘everyday understandings’ of physical literacy.