Developed, articulated, and refined through the field work and writing of Hellison (1973, 1978, 1986), the teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR) model1 adopts a humanistic approach by integrating the principles of youth development into physical education and physical activity (Metzler, 2011). Practitioners using the TPSR model seek to utilize young people’s enjoyment of movement to explicitly practice and initiate discussions related to personally and socially responsible behavior both inside and outside of the gym (Gordon & Doyle, 2015). Don viewed physical activity spaces as a way to connect with underserved and alienated youth at a time when working toward affective goals in physical activity settings was viewed critically by some members of the physical education community (Hellison, 1978). In fact, his own personal reflections indicated that the focus on personal and social responsibility had “to share a home base located somewhere in the margins of kinesiology/physical education” (Hellison & Martinek, 2009, p. 267).
Although TPSR may have been at the margins during much of Don’s career, recent years have seen a shift whereby personal and social responsibility instruction has become more centrally located within the discipline (Wright, 2009). This connection is clear in the recent push toward social and emotional learning in physical activity spaces (e.g., Gordon, Jacobs, & Wright, 2016). The national standards for physical education have, however, included an emphasis on personal and social responsibility as they were first introduced (National Association for Sport and Physical Education, 1995), which highlights the influence of TPSR and Don’s work and legacy. Furthermore, what Don started through work with youth in Portland, OR, and subsequently Chicago, IL (see Jacobs & Templin, 2020), has since developed into an international phenomenon with researchers and practitioners engaging with TPSR around the world (Hellison, 2011). With Don’s recent passing and in the spirit of this special issue dedicated to his life and legacy, we sought to understand the development and proliferation of the TPSR model from Don’s initial conceptualization through present day. We begin with a brief overview of the current version of TPSR as articulated in the most recent edition of Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity (Hellison, 2011). We do not comment on research evidence supporting the model as this topic is explored elsewhere in the special issue (Wright, Fuerniss, & Cutforth, 2020).
Overview of the TPSR Model
Several different pedagogical models have been introduced, field tested, and researched within the field of physical education in the last several decades as an alternative to more traditional, teacher-centered pedagogies (Casey, 2014). These models are generally composed of interdependent, defining features related to curriculum, teaching, and learning that facilitate the interplay between the subject matter and teaching context. Different pedagogical models have diverse defining characteristics that make them unique and allow a differential focus on affective, cognitive, and psychomotor goals within physical education (Metzler, 2011). The TPSR model has an explicit focus on integrating social and emotional learning into physical education, and is globally recognized as a best practice model in this area (Pozo, Grao-Cruces, & Pérez-Ordás, 2018). This focus on affective outcomes does not come at the expense of the psychomotor domain as practitioners using TPSR focus on the dual goals of affective and psychomotor development (Hellison, 2011).
The TPSR model includes five primary goals that have been linked to social and emotional learning outcomes (Gordon et al., 2016). The first goal focuses on respect for the rights and feelings of others while showing restraint and control over one’s own behaviors and emotions. The second highlights the importance of meaningful participation in lesson activities and showing effort when things get difficult or challenging, whereas the third encourages motivation and showing self-direction through activities such as goal setting. The fourth goal relates to developing a sense of empathy, the capacity to help others, and leadership. Together, the goals related to participation, effort, and self-direction map to personal responsibility, whereas those focused on respect and helping others are more aligned with social responsibility (Li, Wright, Rukavina, & Pickering, 2008). The fifth and final goal is then to transfer lessons learned through lesson activities to other arenas of participants’ lives, including the broader school, home, and community spaces. Transfer is often viewed as the overarching or primary goal of the model (Hellison, 2011). The TPSR model employs a student-centered approach built around values associated with putting children first, empathy, care, and compassion. Youth are encouraged to voice their opinions related to the program and to practice making choices while considering the positive and negative consequences of those decisions in a safe environment (Li et al., 2008). This transition to a student-centered approach may be difficult for some teachers because it requires them to relinquish some control (i.e., decision making) and allow youth to make mistakes and learn from them (Richards & Gordon, 2017). As a result, it can require time, commitment, and reflection for successful implementation (Hellison, 2011).
In addition to the goals and philosophical stance, the TPSR model offers a flexible, five-phase lesson format that can be adapted to meet the particular contextual demands of a teaching environment (Hellison, 2011; Pozo et al., 2018). Lessons typically begin with relational time, which is a few minutes of unstructured time during which youth are encouraged to interact with one another and the instructor. Following relational time, instructors typically lead an awareness talk during which they set the stage for responsibility learning by introducing and discussing one or more TPSR goals for the day. This typically involves a series of questions in which youth are asked to consider the goal (e.g., helping others) and what it may look like or sound like in a physical activity space. Next, the instructor transitions into the lesson focus, which takes up the majority of the lesson time during which physical activity instruction is paired with a focus on the selected responsibility goals. This focus on responsibility needs to be explicit so as to provide youth with overt opportunities to practice the selected TPSR goals as they concurrently work toward physical activity outcomes (Richards, Ivy, Wright, & Jerris, 2019). Toward the end of the lesson, the instructor engages participants in a group meeting by asking them to collectively discuss their performance for the day in relation to the TPSR goals. This is usually paired with self-reflection time during which participants are asked to consider their personal performance on the specific goals for the day. If discussions of transfer have been introduced, they may be highlighted at this point as well (Hellison, 2011).
Although these features generally define the current version of the TPSR model, as is the case with many pedagogical innovations, it did not begin this way. Tracing the evolution of TPSR from its inception as an idea for humanistic teaching (Hellison, 1973, 1978) to its development as a teaching model in his later works (2011) and the relatively recent surge of scholarship (Pozo et al., 2018) make for a case study that can inform the future of TPSR as well as the spreading of pedagogical practices more generally. On a more personal note, a historical analysis of development and evolution of TPSR provides an opportunity to preserve the history of the model and honor Don’s contributions to the fields of physical activity and positive youth development. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to use qualitative historiography (Thies, 2002) to understand the historical development of the TPSR model including its inception, evolution, and ascension to being recognized as a best practice teaching model (Metzler, 2011).
Methods and Materials
Research Design
According to Hatch (2002), historiography involves “the collection and analysis of data for the purpose of reconstructing events or combination of events that happened in the past” (p. 25). It is, however, important to distinguish nostalgia from historical research. Whereas the former involves the recounting of past pleasantries without the rigor of research, the later implies the use of a systematic process that attempts to reconstruct past events while accounting for the people, meanings, events, ideas, and nuances that have helped to shape the present time (Berg & Lune, 2011). In other words, “if we want to understand why social change takes place it may be a good strategy to begin by examining how it takes places” (Burke, 1992, p. 139). The role of the historical researcher is then to develop new insights into the process of social change over time. Data are typically gathered from both primary (e.g., original documents, photographs, written and oral testimony) and secondary (e.g., journal articles, newspaper accounts) materials (Hatch, 2002; Thies, 2002) that aid in understanding of the phenomenon. Interpretations are then made based on the data sources, and a narrative is crafted to describe insights learned (Thies, 2002).
Collection of Evidence
In accordance with best practices in qualitative historiography (Hatch, 2002; Thies, 2002), data were gathered from primary and secondary sources that included books, book chapters, journal articles, and doctoral dissertations that Don either wrote or were deemed central to understanding the development of the TPSR model. Sources were collected from the TPSR archives maintained by the TPSR Alliance (http://www.tpsr-alliance.org) at Northern Illinois University. We identified three categories of resources that included (a) books written by Don about the model and its evolution; (b) sources that discussed the evolution of the model at various points in time; and (c) supplemental texts that are important to the TPSR literature, but less important to tracing the development of the model. The first set of sources included sources such as (a) Humanistic Physical Education (Hellison, 1973), (b) Beyond Balls and Bats: Alienated (and Other) Youth in the Gym (Hellison, 1978), (c) Goals and Strategies for Teaching Physical Education (Hellison, 1985), (d) A Reflective Approach to Teaching Physical Education (Hellison & Templin, 1991), (e) Youth Development and Physical Activity: Linking Universities and Communities (Hellison et al., 2000), and (f) the three editions of Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity (Hellison, 1995, 2003, 2011). These texts are foundational to tracing the evolution of the model because they were written by Don as he was (re)developing the TPSR model through his own practice and interactions with others (Hellison & Martinek, 2006).
In addition to these seven central sources, we drew upon additional sources that spoke specifically to the evolution of the model. These included reflective and empirical pieces in which Don and others traced the model evolution up to various points in time, including (a) “It only takes one case to prove a possibility . . . and beyond” (Hellison, 1983a), (b) Practical Inquiry in Physical Education: The Case of Hellison’s Personal and Social Responsibility Model (Geogiadis, 1992), (c) “Social and personal responsibility programs” (Hellison & Martinek, 2006), (d) “Living on the margins of our field” (Hellison & Martinek, 2009), and (e) Oral History of Retired American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) Leaders: Presidents and National Award Recipients, Interview with Dr. Donald R. Hellison (Van Oteghen, 2010). These resources helped provide perspective on the evolution of TPSR through others’ writing, which both added to and triangulated the insight we gathered through the first set of sources in which the evolution of the model developed in Don’s primary writings. Finally, a third set of sources included supplemental texts that added to our interpretations or were used to triangulate with other sources previously mentioned. These included articles published in practical journals by Don and others (e.g., Compagnone, 1995; Hellison, 1983b, 1990c; Parker & Hellison, 2001) as well as books and book chapters (e.g., Hellison et al., 2000; Lund & Tannehill, 2010; Martinek & Hellison, 2009; Metzler, 2011) that were viewed as important to the TPSR literature but were not as central to tracing the development of the model itself.
Tracking the Development of the TPSR Model
Once all of the resources were gathered, we met over the course of 3 days to examine the materials and identify key turning points related to the evolution of TPSR from the perspective of historiography (Hatch, 2002; Thies, 2002). We began by ordering all of the materials temporally and then worked through the three categories of resources previously referenced beginning with books written by Don about the model and its evolution and then moving through sources that discussed the evolution of the model at various points in time. Finally, we reviewed supplemental texts that are important to the TPSR literature but were less important to tracing the development of the model. As we conducted this analysis, we noted the experiences and processes that led him to develop the model as well as changes to the levels and goal structure, teaching strategies and behaviors, suggested lesson format, and name modifications. We cataloged key turning points within a shared Google Doc and documented key quotations and passages from the various texts. After reviewing all of the relevant materials, we studied all of our notes and identified developmental phases. We then developed these turning points into a narrative that serve as the results of this study.
Results
Based on qualitative analysis, we identified four turning points relative to the (re)development of TPSR. We begin with Don’s early work during his doctoral studies at Ohio State University and then trace the development of TPSR through his time as a faculty member and youth program developer at Portland State University and his work with inner city youth during his time at the University of Illinois at Chicago (see Jacobs & Templin, 2020). Specifically, the narrative is broken into the following phases: (a) setting the stage for a humanistic approach through practical inquiry, (b) moving beyond balls and bats to developing a model focused on the affective domain, (c) further defining humanistic goals and teaching strategies, and (d) continuous tinkering in the context of a living model. To complement this narrative, Table 1 overviews developments in the TPSR model across Don’s writing beginning with Humanistic Physical Education (Hellison, 1973) and culminating with Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Through Physical Activity (Hellison, 2011).
Primary Texts Portraying the Evolution of the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility
Source | Goals | Lesson structure | Teacher behaviors | Considerations |
---|---|---|---|---|
Humanistic Physical Education (Hellison, 1973) | • Self-esteem • Self-actualization • Self-understanding • Social consideration | No clearly identified structure | • Self-esteem • Nonthreatening environment • Treat students as individuals • Opportunities for success • Physical activity competence • Sensitive to student needs • Warmth and sense of concern • Mutual respect • Self-actualization • Self-understanding • Group and discussions • Individual guidance sessions • Special projects | Ideas projecting change in physical education based on Don’s frustration with the system. For change to occur, one must have self-culture reflection and be flexible. Change in one realm imparts change in another. We must address acculturation and create a social movement. |
Beyond Balls and Bats: Alienated (and Other) Youth in the Gym (Hellison, 1978) | Goals • Help students make self-body-world connections. • Provide a sense of community. • Facilitate an active playful spirit. Levels of awareness • No awareness • Self-body awareness • Self-other awareness • Integration of the first three levels | No clearly identified structure | Affective • Charm, concern/warmth, empathy, genuineness, being accepting, expressing feelings, and listening Behavioral • Being accepting, listening, teachers identity, and confronting Cognitive • Asking questions, being concrete, and limited talk | Don acknowledged that the humanistic approach was fuzzy. He sought to provide structure and guidance through Beyond Bats and Balls. He saw the book as monograph of his practice. Five steps to implement the model were presented: • Characteristics of the teacher • Curriculum • Teaching methods • Subgoals and strategies • Evaluation |
Goals and Strategies for Teaching Physical Education (Hellison, 1985) | • Level 0: irresponsibility • Level 1: Self-control • Level 2: Involvement • Level 3: Self-responsibility • Level 4: Caring | No clearly identified structure | • Interaction strategies • Teacher talk • Modeling • Reinforcement • Reflection time • Student sharing • Specific strategies | Don provided an example of a structure that he utilized and encouraged others to try it. The schedule included 2 days of the week focused on skill activity, two on fitness, and one on cooperative games. The “bag of tricks” begins to develop with the Talking Bench, Grandma’s Law, and Self-officiation. |
A Reflective Approach to Teaching Physical Education (Hellison & Templin, 1991) | • Self-control and respect • Participation and effort • Self-direction • Caring and helping • Transition from levels to goals because goals are not sequential. | Beginning to reference the format, but only in a limited sense | Behaviors • Relate to kids, size up kids and situations, value the levels, teach by example, give responsibility, and be vulnerable Strategies • Awareness, experience, choice, problem solving, self-reflection, counseling time, and teaching qualities | Though this text was a part of a larger project, an updated version of the teaching personal and social responsibility model is described in one of the chapters. This provided insight into change that occurred between the 1985 and 1995 decade of Don’s practice. |
Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity (Hellison, 1995) | • Level 0: irresponsibility • Level 1: respect • Level 2: participation • Level 3: self-direction • Level 4: caring • Level 5: taking it outside the gym | • Awareness talk • Teaching personal and social responsibility levels built into physical activity • Independent decision making and group meetings when issues arise during lessons • Group meeting then reflection time | • Sense of purpose • Respect for students • Listening • Genuineness • Vulnerability • Positive confrontation • Intuition • Steadfastness • Self-reflection • Sense of humor • Playful spirit | Action strategies are provided by level such as inclusion games, self-paced learning challenges, five clean days, and the giraffe club. |
Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity (Hellison, 2003) | • Level 1: Respect • Level 2: Participation and effort • Level 3: Self-direction • Level 4: Helping others and leadership • Level 5: Taking it outside the gym | • Counseling time • An awareness talk • Physical activity with teaching personal and social responsibility interwoven • Group meeting • Reflection time | • Bleeding heart liberals need not apply • The person of the teacher • Sense of purpose • Listening and caring • Genuineness • Intuition and self-reflection • Playful spirit • When teaching students with different backgrounds • Do not try to be cool • Learn about and respect students’ culture • Respect your students | Suggestions related to assessment and evaluation were included in the textbook. There was also a guide overviewing how to start a program and information on programs that utilized teaching personal and social responsibility outside of physical education (e.g., afterschool programs). |
Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Through Physical Activity (Hellison, 2011) | • Level 1: Respect • Level 2: Participation and effort • Level 3: Self-direction • Level 4: Helping others and leadership • Level 5: Taking it outside the gym | • Relational time • An awareness talk • Physical activity with teaching personal and social responsibility interwoven • Group meeting • Reflection time | • Gradual empowerment • Self-reflection • Embedding teaching personal and social responsibility in the physical activities • Transfer • Being relational with kids |
Setting the Stage for a Humanistic Approach Through Practical Inquiry
As discussed in more depth by Jacobs and Templin (2020), Don came into the field of physical education “to use physical activity as a medium to help underserved kids, but quickly learned that the field was not very focused on underserved youth” (Hellison & Martinek, 2009, p. 267). Even in his dissertation (Hellison, 1969) and early publications, Don had an explicit focus on affect and self-concept, but as the field did not have an explicit focus in this area, he struggled to find guidance. While he maintained that the faculty members at Ohio State University were “terrific . . . really good,” he admitted that “the truth was when it came right down to it, I didn’t find anyone to follow . . . I didn’t have a mentor” (Van Oteghen, 2010, p. 17). This was stressful for Don because his “doctoral work . . . provided little guidance for my newfound sense of purpose” (Hellison & Martinek, 2009, p. 267). Don also maintained, however, that the autonomy allowed him to pursue his interests: “it turned out to be good because I could be creative right from the start” (Van Oteghen, 2010, p. 17). The path that he started down, however, posed challenges because he was venturing into uncharted territory. He reflected, “I’ve spent my whole career making things up. That’s just the way it has been. The aspects of the TPSR model, for example, I just made up” (p. 20). He also did not perceive much support from the mainstream community. Don felt he was “located somewhere in the margins of kinesiology/physical education,” leading him to reflect that much of his early work was a “lonely existence” (Hellison & Martinek, 2009, p. 167).
Despite feeling somewhat alienated, Don continued to follow his values and more fully articulated his commitment to working with youth whose schools—and the physical education community—seemed to neglect (Van Oteghen, 2010). Georgiadis (1992) explained that Hellison’s early work prior to the publication of Beyond Balls and Bats (Hellison, 1978) reflected four commitments: (a) commitment to the practice of physical education; (b) commitment to support the integration of physical education with the body of knowledge from other disciplines; (c) commitment to his own approach to teaching physical education, which he labeled it humanistic; and (d) commitment to his view that physical education could be used to reach children in ways that moved beyond physical skill development. Beginning during this period, Don’s work related to these four commitments was guided by two overarching questions: “what is worth doing for kids?” and “is it working for me?” (Hellison, 1973).
Don struggled to find relevance in and results from focusing exclusively on physical skill development but found greater relevance in working with youth from challenging backgrounds: “I wanted to help ‘problem kids’ become less of a problem to themselves and society; that seemed really worth doing” (Hellison, 1983a, p. 103). Armed with this sense of purpose, Don started to frame his work with youth as a humanistic approach, which was formalized through the publication of his first book, Humanistic Physical Education (Hellison, 1973). He viewed this focus on humanism as a departure from prevailing physical education practices which he believed to have adopted a narrow focus on physical development and “a value-free approach to the study of physical activity—that is, they have attempted to look at sport and exercise through disinterested, objective eyes” (p. 3). Don’s notion of humanism, on the other hand, “means a concern for [people] above all else behaviorally and a concern for [people’s] social and emotional wellbeing” (p. 3).
I was out there a lot working with urban kids . . . I didn’t know how to do it, and I was not good at it . . . I learned slowly how to work with these kids, and I created PSR—personal and social responsibility—teaching. I found if I gave them some decisions to make, they were less adversarial, and they liked it. (Van Oteghen, 2010, pp. 20–21)
Building from these early successes, Don further developed his humanistic ideals through the articulation of four goals, which reflected precursors to the levels initially conceptualized for TPSR. By the mid-1970s, he had identified four goals, which focused primarily on personal responsibility and included (a) self-esteem; (b) self-awareness; (c) self-responsibility; and (d) the integration of these goals through the experience of joy, creativity, and/or love (Geogiadis, 1992). Nevertheless, from the onset, Don viewed his work with youth, and the development of a humanistic approach, as an in-process model (Geogiadis, 1992; Hellison, 1978) with value-driven goals that reflected his commitments and were constantly evolving as he learned through firsthand experience. He later reflected that “since 1969 I have been shuttling back and forth between homemade theory and ‘real world’ teaching or, more formally, practice” (Hellison, 1983a, p. 102).
Don compared his early forays into the development of a humanistic approach to physical education to that of Sheehan (1975), who viewed his research on running as an experiment of one (Hellison, 1983a). Georgiadis (1992) later argued that Don’s process developing the TPSR model during its formative stages was an application of practical inquiry. This approach to learning is based on “everyday problem solving and meaning making” (Schubert, 1986, p. 288) and “can be considered one of the most effective ways to explore the experiences for teachers because it advocates a constant deliberation on the human search for understanding, which eventually defines, refines, and structures their sense of value” (Geogiadis, 1992, p. 37). In explaining this, Geogiadis (1992) offered that “the [TPSR model] is based primarily on Hellison’s person, professional, and practice experiences as they developed and evolved through constant reflection and reconstruction of his knowledge and experiences” (p. 37). Martinek and Hellison (1997) would later integrate key elements of practical inquiry into their conceptualization of their research as service-bonded inquiry.
Moving Beyond Balls and Bats to Develop a Model Focused on the Affective Domain
The first phase of model development was marked by Don’s effort to develop and articulate a value system aligned with his view of physical education through practical inquiry. The second phase, then, was marked by his attempt to further formalize his vision for humanistic physical education through the addition of instructional strategies that aligned with the ethos of what would go on to become TPSR (Geogiadis, 1992). His second major book, Beyond Balls and Bats (Hellison, 1978), opened a “new horizon in the practice of physical education” by outlining explicit teaching strategies that aligned with the humanistic philosophy and focused on youth from communities affected by poverty (Geogiadis, 1992, p. 32) and was the first time a model for TPSR in physical education was introduced (Hellison & Martinek, 2006). Hellison (1978) described this book as “an effort to share both the human side of my struggle to teach physical education to alienated youth and a model induced by my experiences at Harding, Hover, and elsewhere and modified by a number of friends” (p. vi). This highlights his commitment to working with youth who he felt the system had abandoned and exposing himself and his struggles in the hopes that others would continue to build from the lessons he learned (Van Oteghen, 2010).
The humanistic roots of TPSR continued to take center stage in Beyond Balls and Bats (Hellison, 1978). He also recognized that a generally humanistic approach was insufficient to guide practice in the gym (Van Oteghen, 2010), particularly given that it deviated from the standard operating procedure in most physical education programs (Geogiadis, 1992). This recognition, along with pressures from the physical education community at large to more explicitly articulate his goals into an actionable approach to teaching (Van Oteghen, 2010), led Don to develop a goal structure and associated levels of awareness (Hellison, 1978). He introduced three goals related to (a) helping youth in their search for self as they integrated their inner self and inner consciousness with the world; (b) developing a sense of community among youth in the gym; and (c) facilitating an active a playful spirit related, which Don related to a flow state or the nonserious, nonreflective part of life that focuses on the activity for its own sake (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975).
Don also articulated a progression in awareness levels in relation to the three goals (Hellison, 1978). The first level represented a lack of awareness whereby students acted out and did not follow directions or stay on task. The second level focused on self-awareness, whereas the third level connected awareness of the self with that of others in the physical activity environment. Finally, Level 4 sought to integrate the first three levels whereby students achieved an “integrated being-in-the-world in which play, self-development, and a sense of community operate simultaneously and interdependently” (Hellison, 1978, p. 14). Beyond Balls and Bats also reflected an attempt to make his humanistic, in-process model more relevant and accessible through the development of more concrete procedures for model implementation, including goals, subgoals, and teaching strategies. He did not do this without reservation, however, as he explained, “the problem is that education, at least from my perspective, cannot be very easily reduced into ‘subgoals’ and ‘appropriate sequencing’ without at the same time reducing the nature of the teaching-learning act” (p. 15).
Despite these reservations, Don recognized the need to develop additional structure and to promote student involvement in more goal-related tasks so as to better align his philosophical orientation with the implementation of his practice (Hellison, 1983a). He also believed that providing more explicit guidance would help reduce the fuzziness of his humanistic approach to teaching physical education and make it more accessible to practitioners and teacher educators (Hellison, 1978). Don went on to outline a series of steps necessary to implement a humanistic curriculum in physical education that included (a) characteristics of the teacher, (b) curriculum, (c) teaching methods, (d) subgoals and accompanying strategies, and (e) student evaluation procedures. The subgoals and strategies included those related to psychomotor, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Nevertheless, the cognitive and psychomotor subgoals were secondary to his main, affective objectives and went as far as to say that psychomotor goals were “last and least in my subgoal priorities” (p. 46). He believed that the separation of goals across the domains of human learning to be superficial due to his focus on a more integrative approach that he believed would better address the holistic needs of children.
Further Defining Humanistic Goals and Teaching Strategies
After the publication of Beyond Balls and Bats (1978), Don continued to tinker with his idea of humanistic instruction and values-based teaching through his own practice and by interacting with an increasing cadre of colleagues who shared his values and belief that physical education could serve more than just children’s physical needs (Hellison & Martinek, 2006). He published more and extended his network of work with in-service practitioners in Portland in an effort to share both his struggles and experiences with the evolution of what he continued to view as an in-process model (Geogiadis, 1992; Hellison, 1983a). The goals and strategies that guided Don’s practice were continuously evolving, and his teaching style, goal structure, curriculum content, and teaching progression were modified considerably in the years following the publication of Beyond Balls and Bats (Hellison, 1981). Just 1 year later, Don articulated a goal structure that included four levels that were viewed as a progression of learning: (a) Behavioral Level I: Marginal behavior associated with a lack of social acceptability, (b) Behavioral Level II: Involvement and self-control, (c) Behavioral Level III: Self-direction, and (d) Behavioral Level IV: Sensitivity toward others (Hellison, 1982).
These efforts at tinkering with the goals of the model continued to be driven by Don’s two overarching questions related to determining what is worth doing and the extent to which it was working for him in particular settings and with particular groups of youth (Hellison, 1983b). Reflection on his own teaching practice, therefore, remained a core component of model development (Hellison, 1983a). Don embraced the messiness that accompanied making continuous revisions as a necessary component of the model development process through practical inquiry (Geogiadis, 1992) and told others to “tune in next month for changes” (Hellison, 1983a, p. 106). In the midst of this tinkering, the next major attempt to articulate and formalize the guiding structure of his model came with the publication of Goals and Strategies for Teaching Physical Education (Hellison, 1985). Geogiadis (1992) explained that the title of the book was somewhat misleading because it primarily focused on ideas for helping youth become more personally and socially responsible rather than providing a comprehensive overview of physical education teaching methods. Nevertheless, this text marked a major advancement in the development of TPSR, as it was the first time Don articulated levels of responsibility reminiscent of the modern version of TPSR. He advocated four levels that included (a) Level 0: Irresponsibility, (b) Level I: Self-control, (c) Level II: Involvement, (d) Level III: Self-responsibility, and (e) Level IV: Caring (Hellison, 1985).
Don explained that the goals threaded through these developmental levels were more aligned with the needs of contemporary youth, and particularly those from communities affected by poverty for whom traditional physical education goals were insufficient. He went on to explain that “the progression [across the developmental levels] encompasses both attitudes and behavior, because what we believe and what we intend to do provide the motivation and direction for how we actually behave” (Hellison, 1985, p. 5). This represents a precursor to more contemporary applications of TPSR in which theories of transformative learning have been used to develop instructional approaches and evaluation procedures (Jacobs & Wright, 2018). Furthermore, the goals and development levels were collapsed together in Goals and Strategies for Teaching Physical Education signaling a hierarchical structure in which students progressed toward increasing personal and social responsibility as they worked from Level 0 up to Level IV. This represents a key deviation from the presentation in Beyond Balls and Bats where the goals and levels are presented separately, which implied that students would progress through each goal independently (Hellison, 1978).
In discussing the levels, Don reflected that he was, “clearly identifying [responsibility] levels provides a framework for planning, evaluating, and responding to unplanned incidents,” but acknowledged that “the levels alone do little to ensure that students will progress through them in physical education” (Hellison, 1985, p. 8). For this to occur, he believed that teachers needed to be equipped with teaching strategies that aligned with and promoted the implementation of responsibility instruction. Accordingly, Goals and Strategies for Teaching Physical Education reflected an attempt to continue developing a set of strategies that would allow for implementation of his humanistic vision for physical education. He described five categories of interaction strategies that were intended to keep responsibility instruction front and center in the instructional exchange with the recognition that the specific strategy used would depend in part on the responsibility goal being pursue (e.g., if the goal is self-control then students should practice self-control). The general strategies included (a) teacher talk and explanation of the responsibility goals, (b) modeling responsible behavior, (c) reinforcing appropriate student behavior, (d) providing reflection time for students to consider responsibility learning, and (e) providing students with space to share their experiences in and opinions about the program (Hellison, 1985). Don also provided an example of a lesson, which represents a precursor to the current lesson plan format (see Table 1; Hellison, 2011).
A few years after the publication of Goals and Strategies for Teaching Physical Education Don moved from Portland and took a position at the University of Illinois at Chicago and began working with disadvantaged youth in the city as well as preservice physical education teachers (Jacobs & Templin, 2020). This move represented an important step both in his career as well as in the development of TPSR because the new context and population provided the impetus for further change in the goals, strategies, and instructional approaches outlined in his in-process model (Geogiadis, 1992). He wrote about some of these developments in articles published in the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (JOPERD; Hellison, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c). One of these articles (Hellison, 1990c) reflects the first emergence of the modern TPSR goal structure that includes (a) Level I: Sufficient self-control to respect the rights and feelings of others, (b) Level II: Participation and effort, (c) Level III: Self-direction with an emphasis on independence and goal setting, and (d) Level IV: Caring about and helping others.
Shortly after this series of JOPERD article, Don’s fourth book, A Reflective Approach to Teaching Physical Education, was released with coauthor Thomas Templin (Hellison & Templin, 1991). Herein it was argued that reflection should be among the primary strategies that educators use when selecting, clarifying, and evaluating the values and goals that underlie their teaching. While the overarching purpose of the text extended beyond the TPSR model, or what Don at the time called the responsibility model (Hellison & Templin, 1991) or the personal and social responsibility model (Geogiadis, 1992), an updated version of the model is included. The goal structure overviewed herein reflects that which was presented in the JOPERD article (Hellison, 1990c), but some additional flexibility is noted in their delivery. Whereas Don had previously argued that the goals should be pursued as part of a learning progression in which they build upon one another (Hellison, 1990c), he now argued for further flexibility to pursue the goals in a less sequenced manner (Hellison & Templin, 1991). A series of teaching strategies to support model implementation are also described, including (a) developing awareness of responsibility, (b) experiencing or trying out the levels, (c) providing students with choices, (d) developing problem solving skills, (e) encouraging reflection, and (f) providing counseling time for student–teacher interactions (Hellison & Templin, 1991). Finally, what would go on to become the TPSR lesson format is also introduced with a discussion of structuring lessons in a way that provides for informal interactions as well as the need to set aside time for reflection.
Continuous Tinkering in the Context of a Living Model
Through his first four books (Hellison, 1973, 1978, 1985; Hellison & Templin, 1991) Don developed and articulated a humanistic approach for teaching physical education focusing primarily on youth from communities affected by poverty. He also developed teaching strategies and structures that allowed for the translation of this humanistic vision into practice in a way that was accessible to both university faculty members and practicing teachers (Geogiadis, 1992). These efforts laid the foundation for a teaching model that was refined through Don’s work with youth in inner city Chicago (Hellison, 1990c), and then fully articulated through the publication of his fifth book, Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity (Hellison, 1995). Don had shifted away from calling his approach the Personal and Social Responsibility Model and was now referring to TPSR as Taking Personal and Social Responsibility as a way to emphasize that it is the students who develop responsibility whereas the teachers operate as facilitators of this learning.
Although he acknowledged that his approach to teaching met Joyce and Weil’s (1986) criteria for an instructional model, Don now felt as if classifying TPSR as a model was too restrictive. He explained, “I don’t use the term model just in case it conveys something to be implemented rigidly or unreflectively. Instead, this book is just the latest version of my story, augmented by the experiences and insights of others” (Hellison, 1995, p. vi). This position echoes back to some of Don’s earlier writings in which he struggled with how to classify TPSR given his reluctance to develop something that others needed to replicate without engaging in their own reflective process and values inquiry (Hellison, 1978). He also acknowledges the influence of others in helping to shape, alter, and advance his vision for TPSR. Among other places, he expressed this gratitude in the acknowledgements of Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity. In referring to the efforts leading up to this text, Don explains, “in all of these efforts, I have been assisted by colleagues on the front lines trying out their version of these ideas . . . I am deeply appreciative of those who have enriched my understanding of what I am trying to do” (Hellison, 1995, p. vii).
The responsibility levels articulated in Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity largely resemble those that were articled a JOPERD article (Hellison, 1990c) and A Reflective Approach to Teaching Physical Education (Hellison & Templin, 1991), with the reintegration of Level 0 to reflect student irresponsibility. Level 5 was also added to reinforce transfer, or to “refer to application of the other Levels outside of the program—on the playground, at school, at home, on the street” (Hellison, 1995, p. 19). Don also provided examples of how others have used and adapted the TPSR levels to better suit their teaching context (e.g., Masser, 1990). Teaching strategies used to implement TPSR were also augmented and further refined, and additional structure was provided in the development of a lesson outline with recommendations to begin lessons with an awareness talk to discuss the goals of the model and end with a group meeting and reflection time. Extensions and modifications are also provided for the implementation of TPSR—and the goal structure—within both school physical education programs and out-of-school contexts such as youth sport clubs. In line with some of Don’s earlier writings, including Beyond Balls and Bats, a variety of checklists, rubrics, and rating scales are included throughout the text as a way to encourage the collection of data to guide reflection and teaching practice (Hellison, 1995).
Around the same time that Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity was published, the first edition of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (1995) standards for physical education was released, which included an explicit focus on the affective domain including personal and social responsibility, which illustrates the influence of his approach to humanistic physical education on the larger field. This connection was further articulated a few years later in an article linking the TPSR model to the national standards (Parker & Hellison, 2001). Around this same time, Don formed a partnership with five other university faculty members who were using and teaching others how to use TSPR. This coalition helped to promote the model by conducting workshops for teachers around the United States. and through the publication of a joint book project, Youth Development and Physical Activity (Hellison et al., 2000). Although TPSR continued to live on the margins of the field (Hellison & Martinek, 2009), Don believed that the relevance of TPSR increased concurrently with the challenges and problems experienced by youth, which led to the adoption of the model by a relatively small but committed group of teachers and teacher educators (Hellison & Martinek, 2006). Many initially turned to TPSR as a classroom management strategy, but some of these practitioners and teacher educators found that their relationships with students changed as they developed a broader view of physical education through model implementation (Mrugala, 2002). Don’s focus on community and empowering others to tinker alongside him are expounded upon further by Gordon and Beaudoin (2020) who examine the expanding boundaries of TPSR.
In the early 2000s, Don released the second edition of Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity (Hellison, 2003), which included a forward written by Daryl Siedentop. Here Siedentop praises Don’s practice-grounded approach and persistence in seeking to influence the lives of underserved youth: “[Don] has helped me and others understand how important it is to be led by your experience working with kids, I have also been profoundly influenced by his unambiguous commitment to the world of practice” (Hellison, 2003, p. vii). Herein Don continues to struggle with what to call his model—referring to it both as “taking personal and social responsibility” and simply “the responsibility model” (Hellison, 2003, p. ix). He would later reflect on the name of these books—Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity—with a tinge of distain as he believed this title led people to refer to the model as teaching personal and social responsibility, a situation about which Don held reservations. (Van Oteghen, 2010).
The second edition (Hellison, 2003) retained the basic goal structure articulated in the first edition. Don also uses levels and goals somewhat interchangeably here and outlines a relatively loose progression across three categories in which respect (Level I) and participation (Level II) are viewed as beginning skills, self-direction (Level III) and caring (Level IV) are viewed as advanced, and transfer outside the gymnasium (Level V) as most advanced. Four themes are also presented, which “represent the essence of teaching personal and social responsibility [and] should be present in the lessons of any teacher who professes to practice authentic TPSR” (p. 18), including (a) integration into the physical activity content of a lesson; (b) transfer beyond the gym to other aspects of youth’s lives; (c) student empowerment through leadership, voice in program decisions, self-control, and self-direction; and (d) development of positive student–teacher relationships. In line with these themes, the most detailed lesson plan format to date is presented, which included recommendations to integrate: (a) counseling time at the beginning or end of a program to promote individual student–teaching interactions, (b) a responsibility awareness talk to open the lesson, (c) physical activity content with responsibility goals interwoven, (d) a brief group meeting for a discussion about how the class is going and where improvements can be made, and (e) reflection time for students to consider how personally and socially responsible they were.
[TPSR has] been modified pretty consistently. It’s partly, I think, the way my brain works or doesn’t work. I’m never satisfied with it, and especially in the 40 years I’ve worked with kids I always get new ideas. Things I said earlier may no longer work or don’t work as well as they used to or maybe they only worked once or whatever, which is one of the reasons the model changes. (Van Oteghen, 2010, p. 31)
In the early 2010s, the third version of the TPSR book was published, which included a slight shift in the name to Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Through Physical Activity (Hellison, 2011). This reflects his final major attempt to further develop the TPSR model. Herein, the goal structure articulated in the second edition is maintained, but further develops nine teaching strategies that can be used to support model implementation. These strategies were adopted from the “Tool for assessing responsibility-based education” (Wright & Craig, 2011), and included (a) modeling respect, (b) setting expectations, (c) providing opportunities for success, (d) fostering social interactions, (e) assigning management tasks, (f) promoting leadership, (g) giving choices and voices, (h) involving students in assessment, and (i) promoting transfer. A more clearly developed lesson plan format and recommendations for integration into physical education teacher education programming provide further direction for in-service and preservice teachers interested in using the model were also introduced in this text. Although recognizing the need to incorporate such direction, Don continued to express hesitancy with his book or the TPSR model in a broader sense being viewed as a formula for addressing the needs of all youth in all settings (D. Hellison, personal communication, June 2013).
Conclusions and Final Thoughts
The purpose of this qualitative historiography (Hatch, 2002; Thies, 2002) was to understand the evolution of the TPSR model through the collection and analysis of primary and secondary source material. Qualitative analysis of the source materials led us to identify four key phases through which Don developed, articulated, and continuously modified the TPSR framework. These phases included (a) setting the stage for a humanistic approach through practical inquiry, (b) moving beyond balls and bats to developing a model focused on the affective domain, (c) further defining humanistic goals and teaching strategies, and (d) continuous tinkering in the context of a living model. Perhaps the most important contribution of this historical analysis is that it serves as a way to permanently preserve the process through which Don developed the TPSR model for future generations of scholars and practitioners. It also provides further insight into Don’s process and illuminates the time, work, failures, and successes that go into the development of a teaching model. As others may consider contributing to the field in a similar manner as Don, this study may provide guidance into the ways in which a practical inquiry approach can be messy and a nonlinear process, but does allow one’s personal values to guide practice and model development (Schubert, 1986).
As evidenced through this study, the TPSR model has been (re)developed over time through Don’s firsthand experiences and the experiences of others who have sought to pursue similar values-based, affective goals in physical education. Though research related to the TPSR model has grown immensely over the last few decades (Wright et al., 2020), the heart and soul of its development rests with firsthand experiences working in school and with young people. Don emphasized the importance of being in the trenches and working with kids to create ideas and dialogue on the topic of the model (Hellison, 2003). This approach aligns with his belief that learning through practice and seeing firsthand what did or did not work was more effective than allowing theory or research to guide practice (Geogiadis, 1992). In developing TPSR, we believe that Don did more than just develop a pedagogical model. He proposed a way of being and a practice-driven theory for teaching and interacting with others both within and beyond physical activity spaces.
Much like Don, practitioners who genuinely buy into the model and move beyond viewing it as an approach to behavior management often seek to embody the TPSR values in their everyday life. For this reason, TPSR is more than a model for teaching and can be thought of as a way of being in which all thoughts, actions, and interactions relate to and are driven by a humanistic values system that prioritizes treating others with respect, promoting responsible decision making, and decentralizing authority to provide opportunities for others to exercise their voices and to make choices (Ivy, 2019). The presence of flexibility was present early on in the development of the TPSR model as Don viewed his writing as an opportunity to share what he was learning to engage others who were interested in pursuing similar goals and values. He provided guidelines that had worked for him, but always returned to the indication that his experiences were not representative of everyone else’s, so elements of the model may need to be adjusted to suit context. Over time, and despite Don’s hesitancy, the ambiguous humanistic approach developed into a more clearly defined model that provided organization, goals, and associated teaching strategies. In each presentation of the model, it is clear that Don feels a sense of tension between his own desire to have a context-specific approach and the field of physical education’s need for a cookbook that would provide all of the ingredients and steps needed to develop personally responsible and socially contributing citizens. Don felt that the cookbook approach was limited because he recognized that no approach to teaching will work with all youth. Despite the tensions that he perceived, his efforts led to the acceptance of affective goals in physical education (Wright, 2009), although he continued to feel as if his humanistic approach was on the margins of the field (Hellison & Martinek, 2009).
With Don’s passing, his mind and voice will no longer contribute to the future of the TPSR model. It is, therefore, incumbent on the community of scholars and practitioners to understand and maintain fidelity to Don’s humanistic approach and focus on flexibility. As the structure and many components of TPSR changed over the years, Don’s approach never wavered as he remained committed to learning through practical inquiry while always asking “what is worth doing?” and “is it working?” It is our responsibility as a community to continue asking these questions and making changes as the needs of youth evolve. Only in this way can we truly maintain Don’s legacy while continuing to serve children and youth in the best way possible. Finally, we have had the opportunity to learn deeply about the roots of the TPSR model and to have front row seats in viewing the inner working of Don’s practical approach to inquiry as it played out over time through this study. This helped us to understand elements of the model in new and different ways, particularly given that neither of us studied directly with Don. While we both had the opportunity to meet and get to know him in a limited capacity, this study helped us to more deeply understand his motives and approach to helping youth—first and foremost—in all of his endeavors. We feel privileged to have revisited this journey and to share the model’s development. We hope that this contribution honors Don’s efforts and encourages others to continue asking questions and seeking improvement, as this process has encouraged the two of us to rethink elements of our work with and in the name of youth.
Note
In adopting “the TPSR model,” we recognize the ongoing debate related to how to best categorize or classify this teaching approach. As we discuss later in the “Results” section of the manuscript, Don struggled with the term “model” because he found it to prescriptive and restrictive, which clashed with his view of TPSR as a flexible approach that could be adapted to the needs of instructors and program leaders within particular contexts. Accordingly, other terms, such as “an approach” or a “way of being” have been used to describe TPSR. We use “the TPSR model” herein to be consistent with other chapters in the special issue and because we believe it has become common in the literature.
References
Berg, B.L., & Lune, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.). London, UK: Pearson.
Burke, P. (1992). History and social theory. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Casey, A. (2014). Models-based practice: Great white hope or white elephant? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(1), 18–34. doi:10.1080/17408989.2012.726977
Compagnone, N. (1995). Teaching responsibility to rural elementary youth: Going beyond the urban at-risk boundaries. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 66(6), 58–63. doi:10.1080/07303084.1995.10607100
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Geogiadis, N. (1992). Practical inquiry in physical education: The case of Hellison’s personal and social responsibility model. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.
Gordon, B., & Beaudoin, S. (2020). Expanding the boundaries of TPSR and empowering others to make their own contributions. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 39(3). doi:10.1123/jtpe.2019-0228
Gordon, B., & Doyle, S. (2015). Teaching personal and social responsibility and transfer of learning: Opportunities and challenges for teachers and coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34(1), 152–161. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2013-0184
Gordon, B., Jacobs, J.M., & Wright, P.M. (2016). Social and emotional learning through a teaching personal and social responsibility-based after school program for disengaged middle school boys. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35(4), 358–369. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2016-0106
Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Hellison, D. (1969). The effect of physical conditioning on affective attitudes toward the self, the body, and physical fitness. Columbus: Ohio State University.
Hellison, D. (1973). Humanistic physical education. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hellison, D. (1978). Beyond balls and bats: Alienated (and other) youth in the gym. Washington, DC: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
Hellison, D. (1981). Sport sociology: A humanistic perspective. In A.O. Dunleavy (Ed.), Refereed proceedings of second annual conference of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (pp. 393–395). Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press.
Hellison, D. (1982). Attitude and behavior change in the gym: The Oregon story. The Physical Educator, 39(2), 67–70.
Hellison, D. (1983a). It only takes one case to prove a possibility . . . And beyond. In T.J. Templin & J.K. Oslon (Eds.), Teaching physical education (pp. 102–106). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hellison, D. (1983b). Teaching self-responsibility (and more). Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 54(7), 23–28. doi:10.1080/07303084.1983.10630486
Hellison, D. (1985). Goals and strategies for teaching physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hellison, D. (1986). The social development objective in physical education: Research and practice. In F.A. Carre & P. Moody (Eds.), Teacher education and teaching in physical education (pp. 13–17). Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Hellison, D. (1990a). A Chicago story: Physical education for disadvantaged youth. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 61(6), 36–37. doi:10.1080/07303084.1990.10604546
Hellison, D. (1990b). Making a difference: Reflections on teaching urban at-risk youth. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 61(6), 44–45. doi:10.1080/07303084.1990.10604550
Hellison, D. (1990c). Teaching physical education to at-risk youth in Chicago: A model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 61(6), 38–39. doi:10.1080/07303084.1990.10604547
Hellison, D. (1995). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hellison, D. (2003). Teaching responsibility through physical activity (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hellison, D. (2011). Teaching personal and social responsibility through physical activity (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hellison, D., Cutforth, N., Kallusky, J., Martinek, T., Parker, M., & Stiehl, J. (2000). Youth development and physical activity: Linking universities and communities. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hellison, D., & Martinek, T. (2006). Social and individual responsibility programs. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 610–626). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hellison, D., & Martinek, T. (2009). Living in the margins of our field. In L.D. Housner, M.W. Metzler, P.G. Schempp, and T.J. Templin (Eds.), Historic traditions and future directions of research on teaching and teacher education in physical education (pp. 267–270). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Hellison, D., & Templin, T.J. (1991). A reflective approach to teaching physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ivy, V.N. (2019). Teaching personal and social responsibility in afterschool programming and beyond. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
Jacobs, J.M., & Templin, T.J. (2020). The man behind the teaching personal and social responsibility model: A life history of Don Hellison. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 39(3). doi:10.1123/jtpe.2019-0220
Jacobs, J.M., & Wright, P.M. (2018). Transfer of life skills in sport-based youth development programs: A conceptual framework bridging learning to application. Quest, 70(1), 81–99. doi:10.1080/00336297.2017.1348304
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1986). Models of teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Li, W., Wright, P.M., Rukavina, P.B., & Pickering, M. (2008). Measuring students’ perceptions of personal and social responsibility and the relationship to intrinsic motivation in urban physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(2), 167–178.
Lund, J., & Tannehill, D. (2010). Standards-based physical education curriculum (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Martinek, T., & Hellison, D. (1997). Service-bonded inquiry: The road less traveled. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(1), 107–121. doi:10.1123/jtpe.17.1.107
Martinek, T., & Hellison, D. (2009). Youth leadership in sport and physical education. New York, NY: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Masser, L. (1990). Teaching for affective learning in elementary physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 61(7), 18–19. doi:10.1080/07303084.1990.10604571
Metzler, M.W. (2000). Instructional models for physical education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Metzler, M.W. (2006). Instructional models for physical education (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Metzler, M.W. (2011). Instructional models for physical education (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Mrugala, M.W. (2002). Exploratory study of responsibility model practitioners. Chicago: University of Illinois.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1995). Moving into the future: National standards for physical education, a guide to content and assessment. Reston, VA: Author.
Parker, M., & Hellison, D. (2001). Teaching responsibility in physical education: Standards, outcomes and beyond. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(9), 25–27. doi:10.1080/07303084.2001.10605863
Pozo, P., Grao-Cruces, A., & Pérez-Ordás, R. (2018). Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes in physical education: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review, 24(1), 56–75. doi:10.1177/1356336X16664749
Richards, K.A.R., & Gordon, B. (2017). Socialisation and learning to teach using the teaching personal and social responsibility approach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 8(1), 19–38. doi:10.1080/18377122.2016.1272424
Richards, K.A.R., Ivy, V.N., Wright, P.M., & Jerris, E. (2019). Combining the skill themes approach with teaching personal and social responsibility to teach social and emotional learning in elementary physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 90(3), 35–44. doi:10.1080/07303084.2018.1559665
Schubert, W.H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York, NY: MacMillan.
Sheehan, G.A. (1975). Dr. Sheehan on running. Mountain View, CA: World Publications.
Thies, C.G. (2002). A pragmatic guide to qualitative historical analysis in the study of international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 3(4), 351–372. doi:10.1111/1528-3577.t01-1-00099
Van Oteghen, S.L. (2010). Oral history of retired American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) Leaders: Presidents and National Award Recipients, interview with Dr. Donald R. Hellison. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, AAHPERD Archives.
Wright, P.M. (2009). Research on the teaching personal and social responsibility model: Is it really in the margins? In L.D. Housner, M.W. Metzler, P.G. Schempp, & T.J. Templin (Eds.), Historic traditions and future directions on teaching and teacher education in physical education (pp. 290–296). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Wright, P.M., & Craig, M.W. (2011). Tool for assessing responsibility-based education (TARE): Instrument development, content validity, and inter-rater reliability. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 15(3), 204–219. doi:10.1080/1091367X.2011.590084
Wright, P.M., Fuerniss, K., & Cutforth, N. (2020). Don Hellison’s life and legacy: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 39(3). doi:10.1123/jtpe.2020-0024