Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy: The Application of the Academic Discipline of Kinesiology

in Kinesiology Review
View More View Less

Scholarship related to physical education and sport pedagogy is rigorous and should be central to the academic discipline of kinesiology. The goal of this article is to situate physical education and sport pedagogy as an applied field in kinesiology, grounded in the assumption that physical education, as the professional or technical application of the broader academic discipline, is of critical importance to the success of kinesiology. A brief overview of the history of research on teaching physical education is followed by an overview of the streams of research that have evolved. Major tenets of research on effective teaching and curricular reform are discussed. The status of physical education teacher education and school physical education programs is considered, and a rationale for a broader view of pedagogy that has the potential not only to promote physical education and sport pedagogy but also to enrich the academic discipline is offered.

In reflecting on the evolution in perspectives on the academic discipline of kinesiology over the past 4 decades, perhaps the most substantive shift across the field has been the transition from the use of “physical education” as an umbrella term encompassing the subdisciplines to the use of the term “kinesiology.” When he began the initial effort to establish physical education as an academic discipline, Henry (1964) characterized an academic discipline

as an organized body of knowledge collectively embraced in a formal course of learning. The acquisition of such knowledge is assumed to be an adequate and worthy objective as such, without any demonstration or requirement of practical application. The content is theoretical and scholarly as distinguished from technical and professional. (p. 32)

Writing about the emergence of physical education as an academic discipline in the United States, Park (1981) observed that it was becoming increasingly difficult to identify a broadly accepted definition of the term. She offered as the contemporary dictionary definition “Instruction in sports, exercises, and hygiene, especially as part of a school or college program” (p. 20), but pointed out that definition was woefully inadequate and failed to provide a comprehensive characterization of physical education at that time.

Brooks (1981) pointed out that the move to establish the field of physical education as an academic discipline was not without controversy, as there was resistance to the acceptance of the disciplinary nature of physical education. Locke (1977a) contended that the educational goal of physical educators was to facilitate skill development and help students learn to play physically active games, as well as to dance and to exercise. Furthermore, Locke maintained that the focus of physical education in higher education should be on teacher preparation rather than the content knowledge encompassed by the subdisciplines that had emerged. As what was then the field of physical education expanded to embrace pathways to careers other than teaching, arguments about the future of the field played out in professional meetings and scholarly writings (e.g., Lawson 1980a, 1980b; Locke & Siedentop, 1980).

The dialogue over the content of physical education programs in higher education continued over the next two decades. Siedentop (2002) chronicled issues related to this debate and continued to argue that the content knowledge for physical education was grounded in expertise in games, sport, and exercise rather than the subdisciplines. He lamented that “the direct study of sport skill and strategy through experiential learning is not considered to be of sufficient academic quality to form the core of an undergraduate degree program” (p. 372) and predicted that physical education in schools was doomed if physical education teacher education (PETE) programs focused on disciplinary content at the expense of developing expertise in sport. There were also concerns about whether researchers as experts in the subdisciplines would be willing and/or able to present their subject matter in a meaningful way to practitioners (Locke, 1990a). Although Locke (1990a) and Siedentop (2002) expressed strong skepticism that scholars in the subdisciplines could provide instruction that would be useful for physical education practitioners, Brooks (1981) observed “it is assumed that results of scholarly activities in physical education have an impact on professional education and physical education instruction in schools” (p. 4).

In light of the wider perspective that was being encompassed by the growing academic discipline, Brooks (1981) acknowledged that it was apparent that “the term physical education may be far from appropriate” (p. 7). He indicated that a change in nomenclature was likely inevitable and mentioned kinesiology as a viable option. He remarked, however, that the terminology used to describe the discipline was not as consequential as what occurs within the discipline, and that it would “stand or fall on its accomplishments, not on its name” (p. 8). He astutely pointed out that one disadvantage of changing the name of the discipline was that most people did not know what terms like “kinesiology” meant, and that the use of a new term would imply this was a new discipline rather than an established one. His words were prophetic, in that most of us have had to explain what kinesiology is many times over the years. As evidenced by this special issue, the academic discipline of kinesiology has not only been able to stand on its accomplishments, but has flourished.

Defining Physical Education as an Applied Field in Kinesiology

With specific regard to the applied field of physical education within the academic discipline of kinesiology, Brooks (1981) acknowledged the “theoretical and scholarly pursuits of the academic discipline are distinguished from the professional efforts of other physical educators” (p. 4). He went on to describe pedagogy in physical education as a worthy and essential pursuit. Although he distinguished efforts to create knowledge within the academic discipline now known as kinesiology, from the application of that knowledge by professional physical educators, he saw value in both the theoretical and professional aspects of the field. He pointed out that priorities at different institutions of higher education vary and that the emphasis in a specific academic unit should be consistent with the mission of the specific university. He observed that state colleges were often focused on professional preparation while larger universities were typically more aligned with academic pursuits but stressed that both courses of study are important and should be done well.

As the field evolved and expanded to encompass a broader perspective than the preparation of school physical education teachers, academic units that had formerly been labeled departments of physical education began changing their names, just as Brooks (1981) and Park (1981) predicted. One complication for the academic discipline has been the assortment of monikers that have been employed, ranging from combinations of terminology such as exercise science, sport science, health promotion, and so forth. The American Kinesiology Association, established in 2007 with the mission of promoting the academic discipline of kinesiology as a unified field of study (Chodzko-Zajko et al., 2018), has advocated for the use of the term “kinesiology,” but there continues to be wide variation in the names of academic units, many of whom no longer offer professional preparation of physical education teachers.

Given the shifts in nomenclature, there has been some confusion with regard to where physical education programs reside, including physical activity courses for college students, teacher preparation programs, and scholars involved in the study of teaching in physical education. Pedagogy has often been the term used to describe scholars in the field of kinesiology who focus on the creation of knowledge relevant to providing effective instruction in the discipline, and the term sport pedagogy has also become an influential designation. Tinning (2008) argues that sport pedagogy has been established as a credible academic subdiscipline that can facilitate the process of knowledge production and dissemination across other kinesiology subdisciplines.

Scholarship related to physical education and sport pedagogy is rigorous and should be central to the academic discipline of kinesiology. The goal of this chapter is to situate the subdiscipline of physical education and sport pedagogy as an applied field in kinesiology. Inherent in this goal is making the argument that physical education, as the professional or technical application of the broader academic discipline, is of critical importance to the success of kinesiology in higher education even though many programs in research-focused institutions no longer prepare school physical education teachers. I begin with a brief overview of the history of research on teaching in physical education, followed by an overview of the streams of research that have evolved. This is followed by an examination of the major tenets of research on effective teaching, exploring ways in which disciplinary content has informed this line of inquiry. Next, research on curricular reform is discussed and the contributions of curricular interventions are highlighted. Then the status of PETE and school physical education programs is considered. The dialogue with regard to the appropriate content in PETE and in school physical education that began when kinesiology emerged as an academic discipline is a thread that is revisited throughout. I conclude by providing a rationale for a broader view of physical education and sport pedagogy that has the potential not only to promote physical education and sport pedagogy, but also to enrich the academic discipline.

Historical Perspective on Research in Teaching Physical Education

Research efforts in the pedagogy of physical education began as early as the 1940s with a focus on identifying teacher characteristics that were related to teacher effectiveness as rated by administrators and students, or to outcome variables measuring student achievement (Lee, 1996). Other paradigms included research on the acquisition of skills and comparing teaching methods. Pedagogy researchers often modeled studies after those conducted in traditional academic classrooms. Those early efforts failed to produce a cohesive body of literature, as Locke (1977b) described research on teaching in physical education as a “dismal science.” He characterized the existing research on teaching in physical education as largely atheoretical and defective. He pointed out that studies conducted up to that time were generally isolated experiments that were not sequential and did not produce a coherent line of inquiry. Consequently, he concluded that there was not an evidence-based body of knowledge about teaching physical education. Additionally, he noted that the research studies that had been conducted were not designed to answer important questions that emerged from teaching physical education and were not typically disseminated in a meaningful way to practitioners. In his critique of the current state of affairs, Locke (1977b) cited examples of emerging research programs that were using systematic observation tools to develop programmatic lines of research. Additionally, he outlined clear recommendations for individuals interested in developing and maintaining a systematic line of inquiry capable of generating a valid knowledge base to support the science of teaching physical education.

As doctoral programs began to expand beyond the traditional model of professional preparation and diversify to emphasize the subdisciplinary areas and developing research programs, graduate programs focused on research on teaching in physical education emerged (Locke, 1977b). As these programs developed, they began producing a network of scholars who were prepared to apply the guidelines outlined by Locke to develop viable research programs. The academics who conduct research and generate knowledge related to the application of kinesiology in physical education settings are pedagogy or sport pedagogy scholars who have, over the course of the past four decades, generated a substantial body of work related to effective teaching and teacher education.

The scholarly work generated in sport pedagogy and research on teaching physical education over the past four decades has been chronicled in four volumes. With the goal of bridging the gap between research and practice, Silverman and Ennis (1996) edited a book entitled Student Learning in Physical Education: Applying Research to Enhance Instruction. This volume was a remarkable resource for graduate students and scholars as it was the first comprehensive collection of research in the area to date. A focus throughout the book on how to conduct research and how we can learn from it was evident. The second edition (Silverman & Ennis, 2003b) expanded on the initial endeavor, providing updated content and addressing issues that had emerged. This was followed by publication of The Handbook of Physical Education (Kirk et al., 2006). The handbook was a comprehensive anthology comprised of 45 chapters including theoretical perspectives, cross-disciplinary contributions, consideration of difference and diversity, teaching and learning, curriculum, and teacher education in physical education. Kirk and colleagues observe in their introduction that while the subdisciplines of sport and exercise sciences had thrived in university settings globally, the educational aspects had been marginalized in many settings. Because they were not involved in the creation of knowledge through research, the educational aspects had often been viewed as having less academic value than the science subdisciplines. They cite the volume of research synthesized in their handbook as evidence of the critical mass of researchers that had emerged and the progress that had been made in the field of physical education and sport pedagogy. Approximately 10 years later, Ennis (2017c) edited the Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies. In her introduction, she describes the challenges she experienced in organizing the framework for the handbook because of the breadth and diversity of the field and acknowledges that space limitations dictated that some important topics were not included.

Taken together, these four volumes support the conclusion that there is a plethora of research related to physical education and sport pedagogy that has been conducted with the goal of enhancing teaching and learning in physical education settings. The scope of this chapter is not to review that work, but rather to provide an overview of the field, consider issues that have emerged as problematic, and to speculate on ways that physical education and sport pedagogy can be central to the academic discipline of kinesiology.

Although there are myriad ways to categorize areas of research in physical education pedagogy, Silverman and Ennis (2003a) identify teaching, curriculum, and teacher education as a framework to organize the contributions of physical education pedagogy research. Although many diverse perspectives have emerged in the past decade relative to transforming pedagogies and issues of body images, the structure employed by Silverman and Ennis continues to be applicable and is used to frame this discussion.

Research on Effective Teaching in Physical Education

Effective teaching is characterized by Rink (2003) as teaching that produces intended learning. The term is generally considered to be synonymous with good teaching, and the research base that has been generated through studies of teacher effectiveness has provided a rich knowledge base about how teachers promote learning. A key consideration in this work is that the effectiveness of teaching cannot be measured or quantified without examining outcome measures of what students learn and achieve. The foundation of this work is found in classroom research, where the process-product paradigm was used to design correlational studies that examined relationships between what teachers did (processes) and student learning outcomes (products; Brophy & Good, 1986). Research on teaching in physical education followed that model, developing sophisticated teacher observation systems to quantify teacher behaviors. Identifying appropriate outcome variables in physical education has proven to be a complex endeavor, as they may be related to a wide range of variables, including developing psychomotor skills, expertise in sport skills and game play, demonstrating competence in a variety of movement forms, attaining health-related fitness, and acquiring content knowledge.

Rink (2003) provides a clear summary of the research on effective teaching that continues to serve as a basis for characterizing this body of literature. First and foremost, teachers must be able to develop and organize content, sequencing learning activities and tasks to facilitate student learning. Effective teachers are able to organize their classes to ensure that students are engaged with that content. In physical education, that means ensuring that students spend time actively practicing what is to be learned. Student learning is fostered when practice is of high quality and practice time is maximized. It should be at an appropriate level of difficulty so that students are challenged and involved in a higher level of cognitive processing, while also ensuring they are able to experience success on the task. Effective teachers are able to create an environment that promotes learning, meaning that they are efficient classroom managers who maximize instructional time and student engagement. As Rink (2003) points out, managing classes is a necessary component of effective teaching, but good management is not sufficient in and of itself to produce learning. Effective teachers must also be able to communicate clearly. That involves stating goals and objectives, presenting material step-by-step in an organized fashion, and checking to make sure students understand what is being taught. In physical education, that also means demonstrating tasks and incorporating appropriate cues. Providing feedback to students concerning their progress toward achieving learning goals is also an important element in effective teaching. Lastly, effective teachers consider students’ perspectives of the instructional environment, realizing that they are ultimately the deciding influence in what they learn.

Inherent in these evidenced-based principles of effective teaching in physical education are applications of disciplinary content from core elements in kinesiology. Three areas that illustrate how effective physical education teachers apply subject matter from the kinesiology core are engaging students, teaching and learning motor skills, and applying exercise physiology concepts.

Engaging Students

Motivational theories from exercise and sport psychology are especially applicable to guide teachers’ efforts to create a learning environment that facilitates student engagement and learning. A cadre of pedagogy researchers (see Chen, 2017 for an overview) have drawn from both sport and educational psychology frameworks to generate an impressive body of literature. The relationship is symbiotic, in that the work of physical education pedagogy scholars has been published in general education journals as well as publication outlets with a sport and exercise focus. They have made substantive contributions to the knowledge base and physical education classes have proven to be appropriate field-based settings to study motivational constructs.

In order for teachers to effectively engage students in their classes, they must ensure that students see value in the content (Solmon, 2003). They must also believe that with effort they have the ability to experience success. There is a strong body of evidence that a mastery-oriented climate promotes student engagement, intrinsic motivation, and learning (Chen, 2017). A mastery-oriented motivational climate is grounded in a focus on personal improvement, internal reference points for success, and a focus on mastering a task rather than on outperforming others.

Teaching and Learning Motor Skills

Locke (1990b) argued that motor learning research was irrelevant to the daily work of physical education teachers and did not have applicability in the design of effective instruction. Magill (1994a), however, edited a special issue of Quest that revolved around research on the role of communication during skill acquisition and applying that research in instructional settings. Contributors to the special issue were researchers in motor learning who studied skill acquisition, and researchers in pedagogy who were interested in applying that research in practice. The special issue is unique in that it demonstrates the applicability of kinesiology research from the subdisciplines in instructional settings and illustrates the value of collaborative efforts involving pedagogy researchers with other scholars. Rink (2001) reiterated the importance of understanding learning theories that underlie teaching methodologies in order to teach effectively and also the need to validate learning theories through the examination of experiences of the learner.

In Rink’s (2003) summary of principles of teaching physical education, she points out that research from motor learning has considerable applicability in outlining principles of effective teaching. Motor learning theories (e.g., Gentile, 1972) recognize the role of cognition in the early stages of skill learning. Facilitating learner cognition plays a critical role in effective instruction in physical education (Solmon, 2017). Rink (2003) suggests that effective teachers rely on tenets of motor learning theories to facilitate the development of motor plans that are necessary to acquire new skills. She also points out that motor learning theories and research findings provide useful guidance for teachers in the development of task progressions, designing effective practice, and providing feedback that will facilitate learning (Magill, 1994b, 2001).

Applying Exercise Physiology Concepts and Physical Activity Guidelines to Promote Health and Well-Being

School physical education is consistently recognized as a key component in efforts to improve children’s health by increasing their physical activity levels (Piercy et al., 2015). To make a meaningful contribution in attempts to address concerns about childhood obesity and physical inactivity, effective teachers in physical education should be able to integrate scientific principles in their curricula that reinforce the importance of physically active lifestyles. Several large-scale interventions (see Castelli & Chen, 2018) have demonstrated that physical education lessons can be designed that produce positive health-related fitness outcomes, increases in knowledge about health and physical fitness, and promote positive attitudes that should facilitate the development of dispositions to maintain a health-enhancing level of physical activity across the life span.

Content Knowledge and Effective Teaching

The issue of effective teaching in physical education was revisited in 2013 in a special section in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. In her contribution, Rink (2013) focused on the increased emphasis on teacher observation systems to quantify teacher behavior as well as on indicators of student achievement. She observed the instructional skills that emerged as influential variables from the process-product research (summarized above) “have become generic instructional skills, meaning they are necessary but not sufficient characteristics of effective teaching for most contexts in physical education where there is a learning objective” (p. 409). As research on effective teaching has continued to evolve, in the context of national trends focused on accountability, the emphasis on measurable student learning outcomes has become a key component in the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Rink (2013) outlines some of the challenges related to using student performance scores as indicants of teacher effectiveness. Lack of instructional time allocated to physical education and marginalization of the subject matter are factors attributable to external forces that need to be addressed at a policy level to facilitate student learning. The lack of consensus about what students should be learning in physical education, the dearth of valid and reliable assessment tools, and a culture that has not embraced assessment of student learning as valuable, however, are issues that must be addressed within the physical education community.

In presenting their perspectives, Ward (2013) emphasizes the critical role that content knowledge plays in professional development and teacher effectiveness while McKenzie and Lounsbery (2013) ground their discourse on teacher effectiveness in a public health framework. Both emphasize that it is imperative to link effective teaching to measurable student outcomes and that knowledge of the content is a prerequisite for effective teaching.

Rink’s (2013) observation that generic instructional skills were necessary but not sufficient to produce effective teaching in some ways echoes the cautionary tale voiced by Siedentop (2002). He warned that focusing on disciplinary content (i.e., exercise physiology, motor learning, biomechanics, etc.) and generic teaching skills in PETE programs, at the expense of developing a high level of expertise in specific games and sports, would produce teachers who were pedagogically skillful but unprepared to teach a school-based curriculum grounded in physical activities.

Clearly knowledge of the content to be taught is requisite to effective teaching but demonstrating a high level of expertise in an activity without requisite pedagogical skills can also be problematic. At my institution we offer physical activity courses that are taught by graduate assistants. They come to us from a variety of backgrounds. Most are graduates of kinesiology programs, but a majority do not have teaching backgrounds. We provide teaching support and professional development for graduate assistants, but we have found that expertise in an activity does not necessarily translate to effective teaching. Specifically, we have had individuals who were skillful golfers, but who struggled with instruction in golf classes. Recently we had a golf instructor leave unexpectedly and found it necessary to identify another instructor for those classes. We called upon a pedagogy doctoral candidate with experience in teaching school physical education and coaching to fill the void. Although he was not a skillful golfer, he sought out resources and support to learn what he needed to know to be a successful golf instructor. From my experience, an effective teacher in physical education, or any discipline, can learn what they need to know about the content they are assigned to teach.

Research on Curricular Reform

There is a high degree of variability in the content that is taught in school physical education and a lack of consensus about the student learning outcomes that should be prioritized. Classroom teachers usually have a prescribed curriculum to follow and clearly identified learning outcomes that are regularly assessed in high-stakes testing, but physical education teachers generally have the freedom to select content for their students based on their personal preferences or what they believe is the appropriate content (Rink, 2013). “What knowledge and skills are of most value to my students in this school setting” and “Why will this unit or lesson be meaningful to my students (that is all of my students, not just the ones like me)?” (p. 35) are key curriculum questions that should drive curricular decisions (Ennis, 2017a). The context of the instructional setting, including social, political, and cultural factors, ought to be considered as curricular choices are made.

There is an extensive body of literature on curricular development and reform in physical education. Although curricular models that focus on student learning have been in existence for decades (i.e., Jewett et al., 1995), the traditional sport-based multiactivity model has continued to dominate secondary physical education programs. Physical education teachers using this model teach short units on a variety of sports, generally not of sufficient length to go beyond a very basic level of skill and game play. This approach is problematic on a number of levels (Solmon, 2018). School administrators often do not see value in this model so they may be unlikely to allocate resources that are needed to support quality instruction. Additionally, many students do not find sport-based models to be interesting or culturally relevant (Ennis, 1996). There is strong evidence that alternative models with a focus on learning and the capacity to be more educationally relevant and meaningful can be successfully employed in schools. Just as effective teachers must be able to demonstrate their students achieve valued student outcomes, it is critical the curricular models that are used support student learning.

Recognizing the shortcomings of the traditional multiactivity model, alternative approaches for teaching sport and games have been developed. Hastie and Mesquita (2017) contend that the problem with sport-based approaches may not be sport itself, but rather the way in which sports and games have traditionally been taught. An emphasis on competitive sport without allocating instructional time to the development of knowledge and skills requisite to successful participation can serve to alienate many students, especially those who are not skillful and/or have little interest in sports and games. They describe Sport Education, Teaching Games for Understanding, and Tactical Game approaches as student-centered sports and games models that have been used extensively in practice. A commonality these approaches share is that units of instruction are of sufficient length for students to learn skills and concepts that enable them to move beyond an introductory level and they are structured to focus on student learning. These alternative sport-based models are a step in the right direction toward implementing curricula that are student centered and inclusive of all students. Research has supported the notion that these approaches, when implemented as designed, are associated with positive learning outcomes. These models have shown promise, but more evidence is needed about how teachers can implement them in ways that produce valued student learning outcomes and positive experiences for all students.

In the current educational context, with a focus on measurable student learning outcomes that are valued in the school culture, it is critical that school administrators, PETE faculty, and practicing teachers carefully consider their intended learning outcomes when they make curricular choices. Ennis (1996) argued that sport-based physical education programs that do not provide all students with opportunities to learn skills and knowledge needed to participate in interesting, meaningful, and intrinsically rewarding physical activities are discriminatory. Furthermore, she contended that all students should have access to socially relevant physical education content that enables them to experience the joy of movement and attain the health-related benefits of being physically active. Ennis (2017b) articulated her vision for “transformative curricula focusing on the three Ms—mindfulness, motivation, and meaning” (p. 244). Given that the goal of physical education programs should be to help students develop the skills, knowledge, and dispositions to sustain physically active lifestyles, her vision provides a foundation for pursuing curricular reform that is needed to establish physical education as a core element in school programs.

Researchers in physical education pedagogy have been successful in garnering external funding to support large-scale interventions in school settings. A comprehensive overview of those efforts is provided by Castelli and Chen (2018) and Sun and Zhang (2018). Generally, these intervention studies have developed and tested curricula that are student centered, educationally oriented, include links to scientific bases of being physically active, and are focused on promoting health-related physical fitness in both elementary and secondary schools. These studies, taken as a whole, provide strong evidence that when a carefully developed curriculum is faithfully implemented by teachers in school settings, the intended student learning outcomes can be accomplished. There is a complex network of challenges inherent in conducting these large-scale randomized clinical trials, including developing the curriculum, identifying appropriate measures of student learning outcomes, negotiating resistance to change, and recruiting teachers and schools (Chen et al., 2018), but they provide much needed evidence that quality physical education can produce meaningful student learning outcomes.

Physical Education Teacher Education

When Henry (1964) began the discourse on physical education as an academic discipline, PETE programs were the core of physical education departments. As academic units began offering nonteaching degree options that led to careers in the fitness industry and preparation for graduate study in allied health fields, enrollment in PETE programs steadily declined. In response to budget concerns and an increased reliance on tuition dollars to fund university operations, low enrollment programs are often at risk for elimination, and that has happened to PETE programs at a number of institutions, especially research-intensive universities (Solmon et al., 2020). The low enrollment in PETE programs coupled with the high demand on resources to maintain accreditation often drive the decision to eliminate programs. The issue of declining enrolment in teacher education programs is not unique to physical education, as enrollment across the board in teacher education programs has been steadily decreasing. Reasons cited for the overall decline in student interest in teacher education include low salaries, stressful working conditions, and low status of the teaching profession, and at a policy level schools need to become better places for all teachers to work. That said, PETE programs, once the centerpiece of academic units that now encompass the discipline of kinesiology, are now at the periphery and in many settings struggling to maintain a presence.

Brooks (1981) recognized that different institutions have different missions and he pointed out that large universities tend to be focused on academic pursuits while professional preparation, in this case teacher education, is often left primarily to regional institutions. Solmon et al. (2020) make the case that, despite the challenges and barriers that exist, maintaining high-quality PETE programs is important to the discipline of kinesiology. They point out that a large majority of public research universities have teacher licensure programs reflecting a commitment to provide quality teachers for the workforce. When research institutions no longer have PETE programs, the inevitable, even if it is unintended, consequence is that the doctoral programs in physical education and sport pedagogy are also lost. This creates a void in the preparation of pedagogy researchers and of qualified doctoral graduates who are available to teach in PETE programs in regional institutions that prepare a large proportion of teacher candidates. If quality school physical education is a priority for kinesiology, and that argument is made below, then preparing highly qualified teachers is also a significant concern.

As is the case with research on effective teaching and curricular reform, there is a considerable body of literature exploring how best to prepare teachers to enter school settings. Recent work addresses a wide range of issues including inclusive pedagogies and social justice issues, but that discussion exceeds the scope of this chapter. O’Sullivan (2003) outlines conceptions and characteristics of effective teacher education programs that continue to be relevant. Clear program goals, a cohesive framework that is consistent throughout all teacher education classes, the use of cohorts, facilitating socialization into the profession, and clinical experiences are all important aspects that should be considered. O’Sullivan (2003) also addresses the issue of the appropriate subject matter knowledge base for prospective physical education teachers. She points out that not only was there disagreement about whether disciplinary knowledge or developing expertise in content taught in K–12 physical education should be the focus of PETE programs, but there was also a lack of consensus among those who advocated for expertise in K–12 content as to what that content should be.

From my perspective, the idea that PETE program content should be grounded in physical activities, games, and sports to be taught in K–12 physical education in schools is somewhat analogous to thinking that the content for individuals who are preparing to teach mathematics should be addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, or the grade-level content taught in schools. Professional preparation of physical education teachers should go beyond activities to be taught in K–12 schools to encompass the foundation of the discipline of kinesiology, just as the preparation of mathematics teachers should go beyond basic skills. The American Kinesiology Association Kinesiology Undergraduate Core Curriculum (Chodzko-Zajko et al., 2018) provides a foundation for developing expertise in a wide range of physical activities by promoting an understanding of principles that underlie skill acquisition, efficient movement, the psychological and sociological understanding of physical activity, and the practice of physical activity. All kinesiology majors, including PETE students, should master the content that constitutes the core elements of the discipline. Individuals preparing for careers as practitioners also need to master “generic instructional skills” (Rink, 2013, p. 409) that prepare them to effectively plan programs and lessons, manage time, and communicate content. By addressing both foundational content and instructional skills, PETE graduates should be able to negotiate the landscape of school-based programs to design and deliver curricula that produce valued learning outcomes. Reaching a consensus about what the content of school physical education should be, however, continues to be an issue of concern.

School Physical Education

Although numerous government reports and agencies cite school physical education as a key component in promoting children’s physical activity (Piercy et al., 2015), concerns exist about the viability of school physical education programs (McKenzie & Lounsbery, 2013; Solmon & Garn, 2014). Long considered a marginalized ancillary area rather than a core subject, there is no clear consensus about what students should be learning (Rink, 2013). The emphasis on teacher accountability in terms of the valued learning outcomes students achieve puts physical education programs at risk for reductions in resources and instructional time needed to support quality programs when the learning outcomes are not clear.

So, the content of physical education continues to be an issue. It is inarguable that a teacher must possess content knowledge to be effective, but Siedentop’s (2002) argument is that the content of physical education, and by extension PETE, should be expertise in sports, games, and other movement forms is not defensible. A high level of expertise in a particular sport does represent complex content, but there is no single physical activity that constitutes essential knowledge on equal footing with subject matter in core academic areas. Knowledge of any specific game or activity is not an essential life skill, but learning to move skillfully and developing knowledge and dispositions that are necessary to promote physically active lifestyles is a learning outcome of substantial worth. Siedentop (2002) shuns the notion that the disciplinary content of kinesiology could be integrated in curricular models in K–12 schools, but the large-scale curricular interventions referred to above demonstrate that content related to exercise and movement science can be effectively integrated into physically active lessons. Creative curricular models that are culturally relevant and provide students with a menu of options from which they can choose an activity that is of interest to them, and also produce measurable student learning outcomes, are needed to demonstrate that physical education should be central to a comprehensive school curriculum. Quality school programs can also serve to attract individuals to the academic discipline of kinesiology.

Just as physical education requirements in K–12 schools have eroded, requirements for university students to take physical education activity classes have also declined. According to Cardinal (2020), in the late 1920s and early 1930s approximately 97% of higher education institutions had some type of requirement. Today estimates are that less than 40% of colleges and universities have a requirement, although the actual number may be lower. Cardinal provides examples of prestigious universities that have revisited this issue and are reinstating requirements, recognizing the need to include health and wellness, including physical activity, in the general education requirements. He cites evidence that a majority of university students express interest in learning about physical activities. Even as the trend to promote physical activity requirements has gained traction, some kinesiology units have eliminated physical activity classes from their course offerings and do not require their majors to demonstrate competence in any activity. Cardinal makes the argument that efforts to promote wellness education and physical activity education in the general education core should be supported by the discipline of kinesiology.

The practice of physical activity is one of four elements in the American Kinesiology Association Kinesiology Core (Chodzko-Zajko et al., 2018). We attract many students to the kinesiology major who do not have a background in human movement and are often not physically active. At my institution we require majors to earn four credits in physical education activity classes. We also try to serve the university community by accommodating as many students as we can in courses that promote lifetime physical activity, and the demand for those courses is high. We often have senior kinesiology majors serve as panelists at recruiting events targeting high school students. Consistently, these students with outstanding academic credentials, many of whom have already gained admission to graduate programs, such as physical therapy and medical schools, identify their experiences in the required physical activity courses as one of the most valuable aspects of the program.

Rationale for a Broader View of Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

As concerns about the viability of school physical education and PETE programs grow, it is important to consider how the field of physical education and sport pedagogy cannot just survive, but thrive in higher education. Lessons from the past demonstrate that isolation from the broader field of kinesiology does not serve either community well. I argue here that a broader view of pedagogy that goes beyond school settings is a pathway that has the potential to enrich the academic discipline. There are pedagogical aspects of many career paths supported by the kinesiology major. Practitioners work across field-based settings, including the fitness industry, coaching, rehabilitation settings, and physical activity educational settings across the life span. They all need expertise grounded in the basic instructional skills that Rink (2003) describes, and it would serve the major well to include course work that supports developing those skills. The program at Pennsylvania State University, as described in Solmon et al. (2020), is an example of one way to construct a degree path that can incorporate pedagogical concepts and lead to careers in a range of settings.

A solid base of research in teaching physical education and sport pedagogy exists and there is potential to continue to develop that body of literature. We have moved past comparing one teaching methodology and/or curriculum to another to focus on how various teaching approaches can facilitate achieving intended learning outcomes, and that has proven to be fruitful. To address the concerns about the viability of the field, however, the need to refocus scholarship is evident. Across the discipline of kinesiology, it is important that all scholars endorse policies that promote physical activity, and it is especially important that physical education and sport pedagogy scholars gather evidence that supports policies requiring schools to allocate instructional time and resources to physical education. This involves establishing a body of evidence documenting physical education programs make a measurable contribution to student learning and attaining positive health outcomes that are sustainable. Central to this effort is clarifying what students should be learning in physical education. The large-scale intervention studies that have been conducted can inform efforts to accumulate this evidence. As the current landscape in higher education continues to make external funding essential to the success of virtually all research programs, it is also important for researchers in physical education and sport pedagogy to seek out opportunities to participate with multidisciplinary teams to pursue funding to develop programs and test interventions in field settings. Pedagogy researchers can bring a lot to the table in this regard and make valuable contributions to these efforts.

References

  • Brooks, G.A. (1981). What is the discipline of physical education? In G.A. Brooks (Ed.). Perspectives on the academic discipline of physical education (pp. 39). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brophy, J. & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328375). Macmillan.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cardinal, B. (2020). Promoting physical activity education through general education: Looking back and moving forward. Kinesiology Review, 9(4), 287292. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2020-0031

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Castelli, D.M, & Chen, A. (2018). Large-scale physical education interventions: Past, present, and future. Kinesiology Review, 7(3), 259265. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0021

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, A. (2017). Motivation research in physical education: Learning to become motivated. In C.D. Ennis (Ed.), Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies (pp. 567580). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, A., Shen, B., & Zhu, X. (2018). Curriculum intervention research as a source of knowledge of most worth. Kinesiology Review, 7(3), 240250. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0023

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chodzko-Zajko, W., Taylor, E.M., & Reeve, T.G. (2018). The American Kinesiology Association core content for Kinesiology programs: From concept to curriculum. Kinesiology Review, 7(4), 279285. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0050

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C.D. (1996). Students’ experiences in sport-based physical education: [More than] apologies are necessary. Quest, 48(4), 453456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1996.10484211

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C.D. (2017a). Curriculum theory and development. In C. D. Ennis (Ed.), Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies (pp. 3537). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C.D. (2017b). Educating students for a lifetime of physical activity: Enhancing mindfulness, motivation, and meaning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 88(3), 241250. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2017.1342495

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C. D. (Ed.). (2017c). Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies. Routledge.

  • Gentile, A.M. (1972). A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching. Quest, 17(1), 323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1972.10519717

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hastie, P.A., & Mesquita, I. (2017). Sport-based physical education. In C.D. Ennis (Ed.), Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies (pp. 6884). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Henry, F.M. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 35(7), 3269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221473.1964.10621849

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jewett, A.E., Bain, L.L., & Ennis, C.D. (1995). The curriculum process in physical education. Brown & Benchmark.

  • Kirk, D., Macdonald D., & O’Sullivan, M. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of physical education. Sage.

  • Lawson, H.A. (1980a). Beyond teaching and adhocracy: Increasing the sphere of influence and control for physical educationists. Quest, 32(1), 2230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1980.10483693

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lawson, H.A. (1980b). Confessions of an avowed reformer: A rejoinder to Locke and Siedentop. Quest, 32,(1) 4451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1980.10483695

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lee, A.M. (1996). How the field evolved. In S.J. Silverman & C.D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (pp. 933). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Locke, L.F. (1977a, January 6–9). From research and disciplines to practice and profession: One more time. Paper presented at the NAPECW/NCPEAM National Conference, Orlando, FL, United States.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Locke, L.F. (1977b). Research on teaching in physical education: New hope for a dismal science. Quest, 28(1), 216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1977.10519895

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Locke, L.F. (1990a). Commentary: Conjuring kinesiology and other political parlor tricks. Quest, 42(3), 323329. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1990.10484004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Locke, L.F. (1990b). Why motor learning is ignored: A case of ducks, naughty theories, and unrequited love. Quest, 42(2), 134142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1990.10483985

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Locke, L.F., & Siedentop, D. (1980). Beyond arrogance and ad hominem: A reply to Hal Lawson. Quest, 32(1), 3143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1980.10483694

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Magill, R.A. (1994a). Introduction. Quest, 46(3), 267269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484125

  • Magill, R.A. (1994b). The influence of augmented feedback during skill learning depends on characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46(3), 314327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484129

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Magill, R.A. (2001). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • McKenzie, T.L., & Lounsbery, M.A.F. (2013). Physical education teacher effectiveness in a public health context. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 419430. PubMed ID: 24592772 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.844025

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O’Sullivan, M. (2003). Learning to teach physical education. In S.J. Silverman & C.D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 275294). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Park, R.J. (1981). The emergence of the academic discipline of physical education in the United States. In G.A. Brooks (Ed.), Perspectives on the academic discipline of physical education (pp. 2045). Human Kinetics

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Piercy, K., Dorn, J., Fulton, J., Janz, K., Lee, S., McKinnon, R., . . . Lavizzo-Mourey, R. (2015). Opportunities for public health to increase physical activity among youths. American Journal of Public Health, 105(3), 421426. PubMed ID: 25602864 https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302325

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rink, J.E. (2001). Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(2), 112128. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.20.2.112

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rink, J.E. (2003). Effective instruction in physical education. In S.J. Silverman & C.D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 165186). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rink, J.E. (2013). Measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 407418. PubMed ID: 24592771 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.844018

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Siedentop, D. (2002). Content knowledge for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(4), 368377. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.21.4.368

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Silverman, S.J., & Ennis, C.D. (Eds.). (1996). Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction. Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Silverman, S.J. & Ennis, C.D. (2003a). Enhancing learning: An introduction. In S.J. Silverman & C.D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 37). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Silverman, S.J., & Ennis, C.D. (Eds.). (2003b). Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 933). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solmon, M.A. (2003). Student issues in physical education classes: Attitudes, cognition, and motivation. In S.J. Silverman & C.D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 147163). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solmon, M.A. (2017). Student cognition: Understanding how students learn in physical education. In C.D. Ennis (Ed.), Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies (pp. 489502). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solmon, M.A. (2018). Reconceptualizing physical education curricula to meet the needs of all students. Kinesiology Review, 7(3), 233239. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0020

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solmon, M.A., & Garn, A.C. (2014). Effective teaching in physical education: Using transportation metaphors to assess status and drive our future. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85(1), 2026. PubMed ID: 24749232 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.872530

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solmon, M.A., Graber, K.C., Woods, A.M., Williams, N.I., Templin, T.J., Prices, S.L, & Weimer, A. (2020). Physical education teacher education in kinesiology: Past, present, and future. Kinesiology Review, 9(4), 305312. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2020-0047

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sun, H., & Zhang, T. (2018). Creating powerful curricula for student learning physical education: Contributions of Catherine D. Ennis. Kinesiology Review, 7(3), 251258. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0019

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tinning, R. (2008). Pedagogy, sport pedagogy, and the field of kinesiology, Quest, 60(3), 405424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483589

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ward, P. (2013). The role of content knowledge in conceptions of teaching effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 431440. PubMed ID: 24592773 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.844045

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

The author (msolmo1@lsu.edu) is with the School of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.

  • Brooks, G.A. (1981). What is the discipline of physical education? In G.A. Brooks (Ed.). Perspectives on the academic discipline of physical education (pp. 39). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brophy, J. & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328375). Macmillan.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cardinal, B. (2020). Promoting physical activity education through general education: Looking back and moving forward. Kinesiology Review, 9(4), 287292. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2020-0031

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Castelli, D.M, & Chen, A. (2018). Large-scale physical education interventions: Past, present, and future. Kinesiology Review, 7(3), 259265. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0021

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, A. (2017). Motivation research in physical education: Learning to become motivated. In C.D. Ennis (Ed.), Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies (pp. 567580). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, A., Shen, B., & Zhu, X. (2018). Curriculum intervention research as a source of knowledge of most worth. Kinesiology Review, 7(3), 240250. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0023

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chodzko-Zajko, W., Taylor, E.M., & Reeve, T.G. (2018). The American Kinesiology Association core content for Kinesiology programs: From concept to curriculum. Kinesiology Review, 7(4), 279285. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0050

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C.D. (1996). Students’ experiences in sport-based physical education: [More than] apologies are necessary. Quest, 48(4), 453456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1996.10484211

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C.D. (2017a). Curriculum theory and development. In C. D. Ennis (Ed.), Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies (pp. 3537). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C.D. (2017b). Educating students for a lifetime of physical activity: Enhancing mindfulness, motivation, and meaning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 88(3), 241250. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2017.1342495

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ennis, C. D. (Ed.). (2017c). Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies. Routledge.

  • Gentile, A.M. (1972). A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching. Quest, 17(1), 323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1972.10519717

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hastie, P.A., & Mesquita, I. (2017). Sport-based physical education. In C.D. Ennis (Ed.), Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies (pp. 6884). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Henry, F.M. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 35(7), 3269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221473.1964.10621849

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jewett, A.E., Bain, L.L., & Ennis, C.D. (1995). The curriculum process in physical education. Brown & Benchmark.

  • Kirk, D., Macdonald D., & O’Sullivan, M. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of physical education. Sage.

  • Lawson, H.A. (1980a). Beyond teaching and adhocracy: Increasing the sphere of influence and control for physical educationists. Quest, 32(1), 2230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1980.10483693

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lawson, H.A. (1980b). Confessions of an avowed reformer: A rejoinder to Locke and Siedentop. Quest, 32,(1) 4451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1980.10483695

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lee, A.M. (1996). How the field evolved. In S.J. Silverman & C.D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (pp. 933). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Locke, L.F. (1977a, January 6–9). From research and disciplines to practice and profession: One more time. Paper presented at the NAPECW/NCPEAM National Conference, Orlando, FL, United States.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Locke, L.F. (1977b). Research on teaching in physical education: New hope for a dismal science. Quest, 28(1), 216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1977.10519895

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Locke, L.F. (1990a). Commentary: Conjuring kinesiology and other political parlor tricks. Quest, 42(3), 323329. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1990.10484004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Locke, L.F. (1990b). Why motor learning is ignored: A case of ducks, naughty theories, and unrequited love. Quest, 42(2), 134142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1990.10483985

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Locke, L.F., & Siedentop, D. (1980). Beyond arrogance and ad hominem: A reply to Hal Lawson. Quest, 32(1), 3143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1980.10483694

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Magill, R.A. (1994a). Introduction. Quest, 46(3), 267269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484125

  • Magill, R.A. (1994b). The influence of augmented feedback during skill learning depends on characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46(3), 314327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484129

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Magill, R.A. (2001). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • McKenzie, T.L., & Lounsbery, M.A.F. (2013). Physical education teacher effectiveness in a public health context. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 419430. PubMed ID: 24592772 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.844025

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O’Sullivan, M. (2003). Learning to teach physical education. In S.J. Silverman & C.D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 275294). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Park, R.J. (1981). The emergence of the academic discipline of physical education in the United States. In G.A. Brooks (Ed.), Perspectives on the academic discipline of physical education (pp. 2045). Human Kinetics

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Piercy, K., Dorn, J., Fulton, J., Janz, K., Lee, S., McKinnon, R., . . . Lavizzo-Mourey, R. (2015). Opportunities for public health to increase physical activity among youths. American Journal of Public Health, 105(3), 421426. PubMed ID: 25602864 https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302325

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rink, J.E. (2001). Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(2), 112128. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.20.2.112

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rink, J.E. (2003). Effective instruction in physical education. In S.J. Silverman & C.D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 165186). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rink, J.E. (2013). Measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 407418. PubMed ID: 24592771 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.844018

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Siedentop, D. (2002). Content knowledge for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(4), 368377. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.21.4.368

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Silverman, S.J., & Ennis, C.D. (Eds.). (1996). Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction. Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Silverman, S.J. & Ennis, C.D. (2003a). Enhancing learning: An introduction. In S.J. Silverman & C.D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 37). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Silverman, S.J., & Ennis, C.D. (Eds.). (2003b). Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 933). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solmon, M.A. (2003). Student issues in physical education classes: Attitudes, cognition, and motivation. In S.J. Silverman & C.D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed., pp. 147163). Human Kinetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solmon, M.A. (2017). Student cognition: Understanding how students learn in physical education. In C.D. Ennis (Ed.), Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies (pp. 489502). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solmon, M.A. (2018). Reconceptualizing physical education curricula to meet the needs of all students. Kinesiology Review, 7(3), 233239. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0020

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solmon, M.A., & Garn, A.C. (2014). Effective teaching in physical education: Using transportation metaphors to assess status and drive our future. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85(1), 2026. PubMed ID: 24749232 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.872530

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solmon, M.A., Graber, K.C., Woods, A.M., Williams, N.I., Templin, T.J., Prices, S.L, & Weimer, A. (2020). Physical education teacher education in kinesiology: Past, present, and future. Kinesiology Review, 9(4), 305312. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2020-0047

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sun, H., & Zhang, T. (2018). Creating powerful curricula for student learning physical education: Contributions of Catherine D. Ennis. Kinesiology Review, 7(3), 251258. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0019

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tinning, R. (2008). Pedagogy, sport pedagogy, and the field of kinesiology, Quest, 60(3), 405424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483589

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ward, P. (2013). The role of content knowledge in conceptions of teaching effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 431440. PubMed ID: 24592773 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.844045

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 394 394 271
PDF Downloads 358 358 224