What is physical education? A Siedentopian answer.
I recently came across Siedentop's (1990) book, Introduction to Physical Education, Fitness and Sport. In this book, there is a couple of chapters explaining the emergence of a 'new' physical education from the mid 1880's and the fading of physical education as training of the body through gymnastics and drill. Prior to the emergence of the 'new' physical education in the mid 1880's, Siedentop explained how physical training occuring in schools made exercise and fitness a priority, with what some described as a medicalised philosophy of education (training) of the physical body, and others a 'muscular Christianity' philosophy that made keeping the body 'healthy' compatible with a good Christian life.
In 1885, physical educators from Europe and North America met for the first time in Chicago at the International Congress on Education. Siedentop argued that this meeting commenced the symbolisation that physical education could legitimately be considered an educative endeavour - a subject matter for the school curriculum and not just a time-out for physical training. It was Stanford University physical educator Thomas Wood who presented a vision for a 'new' physical education at this meeting, stating: "the great thought of physical education is not education of the physical nature, but the relations of physical training to complete education, and then the effort to make the physical contribute is full share to the life of the individual, in environment, training and culture". From this Congress, physical education became assosciated with education rather than medicine (or what we might now call, preventive health or health promotion). The philosophy of physical education shifted from education (training) of the physical to education through the physical.
The philosophical basis for Wood's new physical education was progressive education theory, the main figure in this movement being John Dewey. According to Siedentop, "Dewey's main agenda for education was social reform" and he was a "firm supporter of physical education, especially when it was directed toward the achievement of social goals" (1990, p.72). Fundamental to the idea of new physical education was utilisation of play. I have looked at Siedentop's thesis on play as the proper grounding of physical education in a previous blog, here).
"play is the proper classification for physical education, both from a logical and psychological perspective" (Siedentop, 1980, Physical education: An introductory analysis, p.247).
Siedentop credits Hetherington, in 1910, with further developing the 'new' physical education with a clear articulation of physical education teaching objectives in a paper describing the function and place of game play, dance, and athletics in the educational process. Four objectives of physical education were established by Hetherington: organic, psychomotor, character and intellectual. According to Siedentop, Hetherington "solidified the four objectives of fitness (organic), skill (psychomotor), social development (character), and mental development (intellectual) that still today dominate the rhetoric of physical education" (1990, p.41).
Siedentop showed how the 'development model' for physical education, introduced by Wood in 1885 and further developed by Hetherington in 1910, has remained through different definitions and expressions since that time. "The language is different, but the emphases on fitness, knowledge and social development are still clear" (Siedentop, 1990, p. 217). I argue that we can still see the original Hetherington concepts for education through the physical in the recent definitions of the dimensions of Physical Literacy: social, emotional, physical, and cognitive. The 'language is different, but the emphasis is still the same'.
In this book, Siedentop is highly critical of physical education that becomes nothing more than play, and physical educators who guage their success on their students being "busy, happy, and good". He reflects on his research in the USA, describing excellent physical education programs consistently having in common that they "stood for something specific [...] Each of the programs had a main focus that defined and identified the program [...] each had a main theme that dominated the curriculum (Siedentop, 1987, High school physical education: still an endangered species, JOPERD, 58(2), p.25). In contrast, Siedentop laments the proliferation of multiactivity curriculum that teach too many activities in too short a time, a "smorgasbord approach" to curriculum that "contributes to the general lack of outcomes" (1990, p.253) in many school PE programs. Siedentop suggested, that physical education programs can be judged on whether students "get and stay fit, learn the skills and strategies of sports, enjoy playing those sports, and develop increasingly strong and independent leisure interests" (1990, p.362).
In 1885, physical educators from Europe and North America met for the first time in Chicago at the International Congress on Education. Siedentop argued that this meeting commenced the symbolisation that physical education could legitimately be considered an educative endeavour - a subject matter for the school curriculum and not just a time-out for physical training. It was Stanford University physical educator Thomas Wood who presented a vision for a 'new' physical education at this meeting, stating: "the great thought of physical education is not education of the physical nature, but the relations of physical training to complete education, and then the effort to make the physical contribute is full share to the life of the individual, in environment, training and culture". From this Congress, physical education became assosciated with education rather than medicine (or what we might now call, preventive health or health promotion). The philosophy of physical education shifted from education (training) of the physical to education through the physical.
The philosophical basis for Wood's new physical education was progressive education theory, the main figure in this movement being John Dewey. According to Siedentop, "Dewey's main agenda for education was social reform" and he was a "firm supporter of physical education, especially when it was directed toward the achievement of social goals" (1990, p.72). Fundamental to the idea of new physical education was utilisation of play. I have looked at Siedentop's thesis on play as the proper grounding of physical education in a previous blog, here).
"play is the proper classification for physical education, both from a logical and psychological perspective" (Siedentop, 1980, Physical education: An introductory analysis, p.247).
Siedentop credits Hetherington, in 1910, with further developing the 'new' physical education with a clear articulation of physical education teaching objectives in a paper describing the function and place of game play, dance, and athletics in the educational process. Four objectives of physical education were established by Hetherington: organic, psychomotor, character and intellectual. According to Siedentop, Hetherington "solidified the four objectives of fitness (organic), skill (psychomotor), social development (character), and mental development (intellectual) that still today dominate the rhetoric of physical education" (1990, p.41).
Siedentop showed how the 'development model' for physical education, introduced by Wood in 1885 and further developed by Hetherington in 1910, has remained through different definitions and expressions since that time. "The language is different, but the emphases on fitness, knowledge and social development are still clear" (Siedentop, 1990, p. 217). I argue that we can still see the original Hetherington concepts for education through the physical in the recent definitions of the dimensions of Physical Literacy: social, emotional, physical, and cognitive. The 'language is different, but the emphasis is still the same'.
In this book, Siedentop is highly critical of physical education that becomes nothing more than play, and physical educators who guage their success on their students being "busy, happy, and good". He reflects on his research in the USA, describing excellent physical education programs consistently having in common that they "stood for something specific [...] Each of the programs had a main focus that defined and identified the program [...] each had a main theme that dominated the curriculum (Siedentop, 1987, High school physical education: still an endangered species, JOPERD, 58(2), p.25). In contrast, Siedentop laments the proliferation of multiactivity curriculum that teach too many activities in too short a time, a "smorgasbord approach" to curriculum that "contributes to the general lack of outcomes" (1990, p.253) in many school PE programs. Siedentop suggested, that physical education programs can be judged on whether students "get and stay fit, learn the skills and strategies of sports, enjoy playing those sports, and develop increasingly strong and independent leisure interests" (1990, p.362).
Comments
Post a Comment