Search Results

Doctoral Programs for Physical Education Teacher Education (D-PETE) and D-PETE faculty are key components in the physical education system. They can be viewed as drivers of this system because their potential impacts are pervasive. For example, D-PETE programs and faculty are instrumental in the

opportunities presented within edTPA for curricular autonomy, Edmundson notes, “in a high-stakes situation, ‘opportunities’ mean nothing—it’s what is scored that matters” (p. 149). Furthermore, some faculty are punished by their institutions for disagreeing with and resisting edTPA due to the high stakes of the

investigation revealed that the majority of PETE faculty members were female (56.00%), and 46.10 was the average age. At that time, 51.00% of PETE faculty held a doctorate degree, 67.00% had achieved tenure, and the average work week was 50.30 hr. Faculty reported publishing fewer than four refereed articles

designing effective teacher recruitment, education, and continuous professional development programs ( Richards, Pennington, & Sinelnikov, 2019 ). In contrast, research related to the socialization of physical education teacher education (PETE) faculty members working in higher education contexts remains

mattering ( Richards et al., 2019 ), that can build resilience to better cope with stress and prevent burnout ( Richards, Levesque-Bristol, Templin, & Graber, 2016 ). Compared with in-service teachers, little is known about the socialization experiences of physical education teacher education (PETE) faculty

, 2009 ). Therefore, calls for further examining the quality of PETE programs in preparing PPETs for HRFT remain sound ( Keating & Silverman, 2009 ; Liu & Keating, 2021 ). The PPETs and PETE faculty’s perspectives may help shed light on the current status, structure, and effectiveness of PETE programs

Within the U.S. context, higher education faculty members engage in a variety of work roles related to research, teaching, and service that position them as stewards for their respective disciplines ( Golde & Walker, 2006 ). In physical education teacher education (PETE), this disciplinary

rubrics, curriculum mapping, local evaluation scores, academic language, and an overview of Tasks 1–3. Treadwell et al. ( 2017 ) addressed tips for TCs, cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and faculty. Martin et al.’s ( 2018 ) work centered on academic language in physical education, and Olson

general, and for physical education teacher education (PETE) faculty in particular, and who is responsible for asking, much less answering, these questions with action strategies? For example, how can physical education programs best meet the needs of the students, families, communities, and schools we

contributed greatly to a market-based educational system, which has led to a focus on funding based on results, standardization, and privatization of public education ( Assaél et al., 2011 , 2015 ). The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of PETE faculty members and undergraduate (UG