Based on the lessons learned from history and articulation of paradigm change in science, this article clarifies the concept of curriculum alignment and describes the risk of curriculum disalignment between school physical education and kinesiology. Through contextualizing kinesiology as an integrated science, it explains the difference between a discipline and a field (subdiscipline) and argues that K–12 physical education is an integral and indispensable component of kinesiology. The article provides detailed discussions about the historical reasons/events that might have led to the curriculum disalignment and the ways the disalignment can be understood and addressed. Based on the analysis, a four-pillar framework (science, health, culture, and education) is proposed as a platform for “doing kinesiology” and a way to address the curriculum disalignment crisis.
Curriculum Alignment: Doing Kinesiology as We Mean It
Erratum. Do Fundamental Movement Skill Domains in Early Childhood Predict Engagement in Physical Activity of Varied Intensities Later at School Age? A 3-Year Longitudinal Study
Journal of Motor Learning and Development
Volume 6 (2023): Issue 4 (Dec 2023)
Volume 31 (2023): Issue 6 (Dec 2023)
Volume 17 (2023): Issue 4 (Dec 2023): JCSP Special Issue Burnout in Sport and Performance, Part 2
Volume 11 (2023): Issue 3 (Dec 2023)
Volume 20 (2023): Issue 12 (Dec 2023)
Kinesiology’s Passport to Success: Transcending Parallel Trenches, Nurturing Active Open-Mindedness, and Learning From the Octopus
David K. Wiggins
This essay is based on the premise that kinesiology has evolved into a field made up of disparate subdisciplinary areas contributing to fragmentation and lack of common goals and objectives since the publication of Franklin M. Henry’s famous 1964 essay “Physical Education: An Academic Discipline.” As it now stands, there is much evidence of significant disparity between kinesiology’s creed and its practice, with the field failing to fulfill its promise of an integrationist approach to the study of human movement. In order to rectify this situation, steps should be taken to encourage individuals in the field to cross subdisciplinary boundaries, practice what psychologist Jonathan Baron has referred to as “active open-mindedness,” and take seriously the cues provided in the books by Rafe Sagarin, Learning from the Octopus: How Secrets from Nature Can Help Us Fight Terrorist Attacks, Natural Disasters, and Diseases, and Sy Montgomery, The Soul of an Octopus: A Surprising Exploration Into the Wonders of Consciousness. One specific recommendation is for academicians in kinesiology to prepare students to become polymaths, a term describing individuals with a thorough knowledge of one subject and broad understanding of many others.
Mastering Motor Skills: The Contributions of Motor Learning and Motor Development to the Growth and Maturation of Kinesiology
David I. Anderson
This paper traces the evolution of scholarship in motor learning and development over the last ∼100 years, with a focus on contributions by Fellows from the National Academy of Kinesiology (NAK). It begins with a brief discussion of the centrality of motor skillfulness in kinesiology, followed by a discussion of the appropriate label for the study of motor learning and development. The bulk of the paper focuses on the important events and milestones in the field and an examination of the most influential frameworks and models that NAK Fellows have put forward to guide research. The final section looks at future prospects and challenges for the field. Two key findings emerge: (a) Considerable overlap exists in the theoretical frameworks, conceptual models, empirical questions, research methodologies, and practical applications that dominate scholarship in motor learning and development, and (b) NAK Fellows have made enormous contributions to the field.
Baseline Measures of Physical Activity and Function Do Not Predict Future Fall Incidence in Sedentary Older Adults: A Prospective Cohort Study
Justin Whitten, Rod Barrett, Christopher P. Carty, Dawn Tarabochia, David MacDonald, and David Graham
Physical activity (PA) and physical function (PF) are modifiable risk factors for falls in older adults, but their ability to predict future fall incidence is unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the predictive ability of baseline measures of PA, PF, and lower limb strength on future falls. A total of 104 participants underwent baseline assessments of PA, PF, and lower limb strength. Falls were monitored prospectively for 12 months. Eighteen participants fell at least once during the 12-month follow-up. Participants recorded almost exclusively sedentary levels of activity. PA, PF, and lower limb strength did not differ between fallers and nonfallers. Twelve participants, who reported a minor musculoskeletal injury in the past 6 months, experienced a fall. The results of this study suggest that in a cohort of highly functioning, sedentary older adults, PA does not distinguish fallers from nonfallers and that the presence of a recent musculoskeletal injury appears to be a possible risk factor for falling.