document resume ed 220 457 author lawson, hal a., ed ... · document resume. ed 220 457 sp 020 844....

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 220 457 SP 020 844

AUTHOR Lawson, Hal A., Ed.. TITLE Undergraduate Physical Education Programs: Issues and

Approaches.INSTITUTION American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,

Recreation and Dance, Reston; VA. NationalAssotiation for Sport and Physical Education.

PUB DATE 81NOTE 102p.; Based on the proceedings af the National

Professional Preparation Conferente in PhysicalEducation, 7_Progress through Diversity" (Chicago, IL,November 5-8, 1980).

AVAILALE FROM AAHPERD Publications, P. 0. Box_704, 44 IndustrialPark Cr., Waldorf, MD 20601 (Stock Number: 245-26906,$11.95).

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.*Academic Standards; *Accreditation (Institutions);Competency Based Teacher Education; EducatienalTrends; nitures (of Society); InterdisciplinaryApproach; *Physical Education; *Physical EducationTeachers; *Preservice Teacher Education; *TeacherEducation Programsp Undergraduate Students

Papers;presented at the Natioaal ProfessionalPreparation Conference in Physical Education were revised Andexpanded for Publication in thi-s.monograph. In part I, two papers,"Professional Preparation Conferences: One More Time" (W. GiAnderson) and "Current Context and Future Curriculum" (M. J. Ellis),set the stage for a.presentation of alternatives. Both papers raisequestions which are helpful in assessing the approaches to theeducation of physical education teachers presented in the papers inpart II: (1) "Competency-Based Teacher Preparation in PhysicalEducation at Washington State University" (M. L. Enberg, W.Harrington, and L. V. Cady); (2) "The Preparation of PhysicalEducation Teachers: A Sub3ect-Matter-Centered Model" (L. F.,Lpcke, C.L. Mand, and D. Siedentop); (3) "A Disciplinary Model for -aCurriculum in Kinesiological Sciences" (B. F. Husman, D. H. Clarke,and-D. LKelley); and C4) "Undergraduate Physical Education: A.Crosi-Disciplinary Model" (W. R. MOrford, H. A. Lawson, and R. S.Hutton). Papers in parts III, IV, and V, which deal with the topicsof program accreditation, analysis and synthesis, and viewpointstoward the future, include: (1) "Accreditation: Is the Horse Already.Out of the Barn?" (P. S. Brassie); (2) Professional Preparation':Quality and Diversity" (L. L. Bain); (3) "Textures" (W. Harper); (4)"Issues-as Reflections" (M. E. Kneer); and (5) "UndergraduatePreparation: Marching to Different Drummers" (A. A. Annarino).(JD)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that tan be madt

from the original document.***********************************************************************

UNDERGRADUATE PHYSICALEDUCATION PROGRAMS:

[sags AND APPROACHESHal A..Lawson, EditorCollege and University Physical Education Council

Sponsored by theNational Association for Sport andPhYSiódf Educalibn

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY-HAS-BEEN GRANTED BY

t-. CoolDer°

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced as

j14r eived f rom the person or organizationriginatmg it. .

i .

Minor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this docuii

ment do not necessarily representofficial NIE

position or policy,

Copyright 0 1981Published by the

.American Alliance for Health,Physical Education, Recreation and Dance

1900 Association Drive, Reston, Virginia 22091Stock Number: 245-26906

Foreword

The National Association for Sport ancl PhysicalEducation's publication, Undergraduate Physical Educa-tion Palgrams: Issues and ApproacheS is based on theproceedings of the National Professional PreparationConference in Physical Education, "Progress Thro ughDiversity", held November 5-8, 1980 in Chicago,. II-linois. Consistent i:Vith the philosophy of providingquality leadership to physical', education professionalpreparation programs, NASPE's College and Univer-sity Physical Education Council has made a significantcontribution to the profession by examining four dif-ferent (proposed) program models in phySical (id uca:tion. .

The papers prese-nted provide an excellent overviewof contemporary trends and timely issues in profes-

sional- preparation. The well-conceived approacheswill be of interest not only to physical educators anddepartment administrators but to graduate studentsalike.

The NASPE College and University Physical Educa-tion Council wishes to express its gratitude to theauthors, conference presenters, and con fere,...nce partic-ipants whose quest for exemplary programs is never-ending.

Roswell D. MerrickExecutive Director(NASPE)

The American Alliance,for Health, Physical Education

- Recreation and Dance

Table of Contents-

Preface. vii

PART I: Issues and Challenges in Undergraduate EducationProfessional Preparation Conferences:One More TimeWilliam G. Anderson 3..

Current Context and Future CurriculumM. J. Ellis 9

PART II:, FourModel Approachei to Undergraduate EducationCompeCency-Based Teacher Preparation in Physical Educationat Washington State UniversityMary Lou Enberg, Wilma Harrington, Lillian V. Cady 19

The Preparation of Physical Education Teachers:A.Subject-Matter-Centered ModelLawrence F, Locke, CharlesL.Mand, Daryl Siedentop 33

A Disciplinary Model for a.Curriculum in Kinesiological SciencesBurris F. Husman, David H.,Cfarke, David L: Kelley 55

Undergraduate Physical Education:A Cross-Disciplinary ModelW. Robert Morford, Hal A. Lawson, Robert S. Hutton 63

4.)

PART HI: Accreditation crf Programs?

Accreditation: Is the Horse Already Out of the Barn?P. Stanky Brassie 75

PART IV: Analysis and SynthesisProfessional Preparation: Quality and DiversityLinda L. Bain 81

Textures87

PART V: Responses with a View to the Future.Issues as ReflectionsMarian E. Kneer 97Undergraduate Preparation: Marching to Different DrummersAn thom/ A. Annarino 99

t,

/

Preface

Every profession seeks consensus among its mem-bers. Consensus is the target on fundamental issuessuch asthe centralmission(s) of the group, the amountand kind bf professional education, 5nd-t1e standardswhich define good work. Without such consensus,there is little basis for defining and uniting the profes-sion. With consensus, the profession is provided witha platform which guides the thoughts and actions ofmembers and helps to create a favorable impression inthe minds of outsiders. The achievement of consensusis; thus, a vital element in the professionalikation ofphysical educators. On the other hand, the platform ofa profession, around which consensus is framed, canbe expected to change over the decades. With thisplatform, research on the professions has revealedthat the process of consensus-seeking is continuous(Bucher and Strauss, 1961). In fact, this process takesthe form of a contest among groups of members in theprofession. These groups are formed on the basis ofdiffering views on fundamental issues stich as thoseof missiori,=appropriate-education, and standards of"good work. Each has its own platform, and each en-dea vnrs to persuade the majority of the members inthe' professionthat its own platform serves best theneeds of thA professión and satiety. As long as thiscontest does not cause the profession to disintegrate, itmust be Viewed as a healthy sign. After all, the compe-,ting views of these groups are among the internalchecks and balances which make the profession re-sponsive to change.

There is, then, a balance which must be reached in aprofession like physical education between the needfor consensus.and the need for adaptability. While thisbalance applies to all of the- operation of this profes-sion, the difficulty in maintaining it can be witnessedwhile the focus is on just one of them, professionaleducation.

Professional education is the major point of entryinto the ranks of phySicat education. Enibrated-Within-it, by definition, are the field'S missions, its body ofskills and knowledge,-and an implicit set of standardsregarding good work. The task of striking theaforementioned balance in professional education isno mean task, and it becomes increasingly difficultwhen the diversity which characterizes North Ameri-can institutions of higher education is considered.ugs toward consensus attributable to members of theprofession and its association, AAHPERD, are

vii

counter-balanCed by the pulls attributable _to institu-tihnal uniqueness and to members who wish to adopta new platform. En short, the question regarding theamount and kind of professional education in physicaleducation occbpies center stage in the internal con.-tests of this profession.

If there are indeed differences in What membersview as the most appropriate amount and kind ofprofessional education in physical education, and ifprofessional education provides a logical springboardfromyhich to launch into questions surrounding mis-sions and standards of good wbrk:then it follows thatthere ought to be a forum for the identification anddiscussion of issues and approaches. Such a forumshould not be viewed as a temporary measure. To theecontrary, it has been suggested here that there is goodreason to argue for sustained efforts in the ,area ofprofe'ssional education. The forum so provided rnustgive ample recognition to this fact and one ther. Thislatter fact is that profe.I.sions have as one their lif-Jines, rational discourse via the written nd spokenword. When the target is a balance betweekconsensusand adaptability, an understanding of the alternativesrecedes informed decision-making.

In an effort to provide a.Suitable forum within whichprofessional education could be -discussed and the al-ternatives better understood, tWo related measureswere planned. Tbe 'one .called for a conference, theother for a publication of the fruits of the conferenceand more.

The conference was held in Chicago, Illinois fromNovember 5-8, 1980. It included a different, althoughappropriate, format. Study papers, which were pre-pared around four model approaches, to under-graduate 'education, were distributed to conferees toallow informed discussion during the conference inlieu of the more usual pattern of merely listening to:lectures. In this fashion, conferees were able to ad-dress in detail issues which ranged from assumptions,to theoretical or empirical support, to issues surround-ing implementation and institutional change. Authorsof the four papers were asked to frame their discussionaround a common list of questionS. These questions,which were developed by W. R. Morford and myself,appear on the following page. They give clues to someof the important issues surrounding professional edu-cation and will help the reader to better understandthe four model approaches.

Format for Convention Papers

.1,` IntroductionA. What is your definition of the, field currently

called Physical Education? (If you pickanother title, or set of dupplementary titles,:introduce them and define them accord-ingly.)

B. Are there any special assumptionc whichmust be identified so that readers may under-stand your model of professional prepara-tion, e.g., questions of the 'nature and scope,Of our professional ''inission, institution-specific faCtors, etc.?

ft: What specialized body of knowledge and/or skillsare imparted to students in the professionalpreparation program?A. Is there a disciplinary component, i.e., where

knowledge and-Pr skills are disseminatedwithout an eye toward application?If so1. What is the label- for the discipline and

what is its focus?2. What is (are) its method(s) of inquiry?-3. What are the different orientations (or

paradigms) which are involved in such astudy?

4. What body of knowledge resuRs?B. Is there a profesSional component, i.e., where

applied knowledge and/or skills are dissemi-: nated with an eye toward a professional mis-

sion?If soI. What career or vocational streams are in-

cluded?2. Is the orientation theoretical-or technical? -

3, Is there a- provision for field experience? Ifso, explain its role in the professionalpreparation program.

C. What is (are) the role(s) of movement perfor-mance in your professional preparation pfo-grams?I. Is performance skill in an activity seen as a

nocessary p:rerequisite to teaching thesame skill? If not, what is the purpose ofperformance?

2. Is performance seen as an end in itself, or ameans to other ends, or both? Explain.

3. What emphasis, if any, is accorded theanalysis of performance?

4. Is perfoimance viewed as the subject mat-ter of physical education? Part of the sub-ject matter? What?

III. Are there entry and!or exit requirements (com-petencies) for students? How wiRdoes your pro-gram accommodate students who transfer fromcommunity colleges? Explain,

IV. Now that the components in your program ofprofessional preparation have been identified,

viii

e.g., disciplinary, professional, performance,field experiences; and entry-exit requireMents,discuss the relative weighings which are as-signed to each in the program. That is, what is therelationship of the components in your profes-sional preparation to.the whole? How are theysequenced? Why are they so sequenced? Whatproblems are associated with implementation?Provide a di'agram of content and structure ifpossible, in addition to your discussion of thesequestions.

V. What is the relationship of your program to otherprofeSsiOnal fields, e.g., health, recreation, et.al., and to other departMents, e.g., education,history, business? Are there problems of overlap?

VI. Flow have:you evaluated this program? By jobplacement? Bs empirical investigations of stu-dent's characteristics? By feedback received fromemployers and graduates? What research isneeded?

VII. What.do you perceive to be the implications ofyour approach to professional preparation fdr theproblems and prospects of the field?

After the conference, authors of the four model ap-proaches were asked to revise where necessary, theirpapers with an eye toward communicating to a muchwider ,audience. 'pis publication is directed towardthis latter end, and it is offered to the profession as ameans of helping us to understand one another better,while we try to strike a balance between consensusand adaptability.

The initial papers by Anderson and Ellis set thestage for a presentation of alternatives. Andersontraces our history in fhe area of professional prepara-tion to the .present and makes it clear that.diversity anddissension are newcomers to the formal conferencesand publications on profesional education. Ellis sig-nals major challenges facing higher education andplaces faith in scientific inquiry as one means for ad-dressing these challenges. Both papers raise questions

"which are helpful in assessing the four model ap-proaches preSented in the following pages.

Enberg, Harrington, and Cady present one suclitmodel, an example of a competency-based approachto teacher education. Since the competency-based ap-proach was the only approach presented at the profes-sional preparation conference of 1973, this provided anecessary and valuable link with the past.

Sieden top, Locke, and Mand also provide a modelfor teacher education, one which they have called asubject-centered approach. They proceed beyond thecall of duty in their 'paper by presenting an invaluablelist of problems and concerns associated with allteacher education programs.

Husman, Kelley, and Clarke present one of thenewer models for the field. This is a model of under-graduate education .which is non-professional in na-

404

4

ture. Refleeted ii this paper and the one vhich follOwsit are recent developments in the field with regard todisciplinary inquiry and non-professional degree pro-grams. Since there are a ntipnber of such programsspringing up across North America, and since they arespaned in what were once departments of physicaleducation, there would seem to be little question a's towhether faculty who have developed these programs'remain our colle.gues. What they are asking us to do isto adapt our definition of the field and its missions.They are suggesting that we consider the generationand dissemination of knOwledge about sport andphysical activity in undergraduate education' apartfrom teacher education. The .q uestion which theV raiseimplicitly is whether the profession is now ready toaccept the label undergraduate or gradimto education as asubstitute for "professional preparation".

Morford, Lawson, and Hutton present a cross-disciplinary model w.hich includes the potential for avariety of career streams, including teacher education,as well zts n6n-profesSional degrec, Options. LikeHusman, Kelle`y, and Clarke, these authors introducethe need for terms other than physical education todescribe important facets of their work and model's.

The reader should' feel compelled to ask after read-ing the first six papers whether common ground in thename of consensus can be reached, and ftirther,whether any or all of the models altat the .professionto adapt to meet the challenges which confront it. Thenext three papers focus on these very concerns. Bras-sie takes on the thorny problem of accreditation andshows how ou'r diversity clouds efforts toward qualitYcontrol through the accreditation process. Consensus,he emphasizes, is a prerequisite to acicredita Hon.

ix

Harper and Blain respond much more generically to ar/of the previous papers. They have done their best to dosome hlending and raise 'pertinent issues. Their taskwas the most difficult of all, and it would seem that weowe them a debt for their exceptional efforts. The \vOrkof Harper and Bain is supplemented by reactions witha sample of colleagues to the conference proper, withan eye toward the future of the field. Their reactionsconstitute good reading because they both signalcommon ground and identify the concerns to be raisednext in an appropriate forum.

Acknowledgement for the conference and the pub-licatiort.rn ust include Roswell D. Merrick, the mem-bers of the College and University Physical Education__Council of NASPE from 1978-80, my colleagues on theoriginal planning committee (Linda Bain, ClaireTeufel, and Kate Barrett), and the thirty colleaguesacross the United States who took the time to suggestexemplary approaches and names of presO'ntors. Last,and far from_ least, Dr. Tom Loughrey accepted theweighty responsibility as convention manager, a jobwhich he performed effectively and enthusiastically.

'To all of these people and more, all of us in the profes-sion owe a debt which we can repay by addressing themajor issues which they worked so hard to raise for us.

40*H.A.L.December 15, 1980Vancouver, B.C., Canada

ReferenceBucher, R.; and Strauss, A. "Professions in process." Ameri-

can Journal of Sociology 66. 325-334.

Sr;

Issues andChallenges inUndergraduateEducation

.00

Introduction

The 1980 conference is one in a distinguished seriesof .national professiorial preparation conferences in,physical education, most notably the Jackson's MillConference of 1948, ' the 1950 Graduate Study Confer-ence in Pere Marquette,2 the 1962 Professional Prepa-ration Conference,3 the elementary school specialistconference in 1972,4 and the New Orleans Conference"of 1973.5 In some ways this conference follows in thetradition of its predecessors. In a number of other veryimportant ways, however, it departs from tradition. Infact, it may be different enough to constitute the startof a new.tradition, or it may even be the professionalpreparation conference that .ends all professionalpreparation conferences. It is, therefore, appropriateto eXamine sonie of the substantive, and proceduralcharacteristics of the 1980 5onfeTence in relation tocharacteristics of past conferences. Hopefully, thisexercise will provide some historical perspective forour deliberations and will provide a useful way ofthinking about what we may be dealing with in the

IS

. The National Conference on .Undergraduate Profes-sional Preparation ih Health Education, Physical Education, andRecreation. Held at Jackson's Mill, West Virginia in 1948.Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 1948. =

2 Graduate Study in Health Education, PhysicalEducation and Recreation. A Report of the National Confer-ence on Graduate Study in Health Education, Physical Edu-Cation and Recreation held at Pere Marquette State Park,Illinois in 1950. Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 1950.

3 Professional Preparation in, Health Education,Physical Ediwation mid Recreation Education, Report of a NationalConference, Washington, DC: American Alliance forHealth, Physical Education and Recreafion, 1962.

4 Preparing the Elementary Specialist. Proceedingsof the National Conference at LakeOzark, Missouri in 1972.Washington, DC: American Allianee for Health; PhysicalEducation and Recreation, 1973.

Professional Preparation in Dance, Physical Educa-tion, Recreation Education, Safety Education, and School HealthEducation. A Report of the National Conference held in NewOrleans in 1973. Washington, DC: American Alliance forHeakth, Physical Education and Recreation, 1974.

,

Professional PreparationConferences:One More Time

William G. AndersonTeachers College, Columbia University

new future. For the sake of brevity historical refer-ences have been limited to the 1962 Professional Prep-aration Conference and the 1973 New Orleans Conf,er-ence.

Conference Participants

The 1962 Professional Preparation Conference was ajoint conferenCe with representative groups in Healthand Safety Education, Physical Education, and Recre-ation Education. Even though each group worked on

m its own distinct program standards and the major pro-tion Of the conference was devoted fb group meetings,nevertheless, there were joint planning committees,joint meetings, and even joint statements of philoso-phy, objectives, and strategies that represented com-monalities across,these allied fields. Health educators,physical educators, and recreation specialists actuallyagreed on such things as the percentage of the under-graduate program that should be devoted to general

, education, and that the basic professional preparation,program in all fields should be five years.

In 1973, the conference was once again a joint opera-tion, but by this time the grOups had proliferated.There were now separate divisions of dance, andsafety edUcatiOn, in addition to the health educators,phygrcal educators, and recreation specialists. Ofcourse, at this point in time the aSsociation of profes-sional gioups was moving toward a more loosely knitAlliance, and the conference reflected this movement.Joint meetings, committees, and statements of posi-tion were more limited. It seemed apparent that themain reason for holding the conference for all thegroups at one time and in one place was logisticalefficiency. And yet, the effort to retain somesemblance of unity persisted. The theme of the confer-ence, interestingly enough, was "Unity Through Di-versity". \

In 1980, the onference brought together a singlegroup of physical educators, unencumbered by theseallied' fields, free to focus exclusively on more nar-rowly circumscribed concerns, andIn a favotable posi-tion, therefore, to make genuine progress throughunity, or so it might seem to an outsider.

31

0

-,

But is today's group of physical educators really lessdiverse than .the ones that gathered at those earlierjoint conferences? There is no small amount of irony inthe fact that this apparently singular group had in 1980as its conference theme "progttss through diversity".

Meanwhile, there may be sopething distinctly in-9pportune about the fact that conferences do not now,and. may 9ever again ,in the future, bring, togetherdance educator's, itcrepors-,- physical educators, andhealth educators. This development arises- at a tiwtewhen school physical education prpgrams are finallydeveloping serious fitness kograms closely tied to'

justly represent the best interests of undergraduatestudents be they prospective teachers, aspiring exer-cise scientists, future sports administrators, or liberalarts majors. There iS also the possibility of losing sightof the on-the-job requirements that face students asthey enter the professional world, requirements thatcan best be represented by practicing professionAs. Inaddition, it may be difficult for professors to accuratelyaccount for the employers' needs, i.e., the people whowill be hieing the students. Indeed, it does seem possi-ble, however unwittingly, that professors create pro-fessiona l'preparation programs which, first and

relatec,1 health concepts, expanding the sctipe of their .foremost,,representtheir (1.::r best interests, i.e., pi-6-Aactivities.to include a much M6resubstantial emphasis - ,grams-whi -I reflect the tale*s, research interests, lim-

. .o'n what were previousl y. thought to. b,e recrv.atio;nal1L- itations, and iltihately-oursurvival needs, as profes-activitis, .anci .extending the tmphasis on treative -'\-sionals. A casezin pant is that enormous list of corn-movement as 1 fundamental feature of.the elementary petencies tle+ied frOm the 1973 conferehce, a listsehool offering-. Brconveningat'separate,conietences, thaVsatisfic special interests of all the differenta serious side-effect s nurtured, namely the isolatitii47; speclplists gathered at the coiVerenceand, at the sameof allied professionals from one another at the very:`-';.. tie a list.that would frighteA anyisensible persontime when their common subkt matter is ,beginning rzicAwith having to meet the- requjrements o.f all theto flourish in school programs. Furthermore, the body c6mpetcncies Oie 'nigh talso point tsicertain aspectsof knowledge in physical education is sci' much more of some of the.four program,ri-tddels which follow Ingeneric-than it onee WaS in its applicability across pro; this book and ask: In whok best intexcst kvis thisfessionat specializations (at. least two of the`ensuing program feature developed? The, point is, then, thatModel approaches provide vNic-1 illustrations of this professors need to remain mindfill of:the ,fitct-thatdevelopment). Yet, strangely enough, by convOningat there are other clienteles to servi-2,, and Ihat4m,Ost ofseparate conferences the walls are built between phys- these clienteles are not in attendance.at confe;ences onical educators and other professionals who should be professional preparrion to represent the'rnselves:involved in both the utilization and.development ofthe body of knowledge.

Another dimension of the concern for "who. partici-pate's" ill: these professional preparation conferencesrelates to the coristituencies within physical educationrepresented by confetence,.plai)ners, presenters, andpaiticib,ants. To a certai,n exteht, teacher educators

.-have always .been the: ddmi:nant fgrce in all of theconferences. In' past Coll ferences, particularly in 1962,attempts were made tinvolve representatives ofother constituencies such E.is public school teachers,prospective employers, state education departmentofficers-, j_'oaches, and so on. These efforts mA withonly modest success as reflected in the rosters of paststeering committees, task forces, and conference par-licipants; the overwhelming majority of those in-k olved were teacher educators. This conference, too,is dominated by teacher educators: 100% of the plan-ning committee, most of the presenters, and virtuallyall of the parfticipants are ei.ther teacher educators orare engaged in the preparation of allied professionals.

On one hand, this is as it should be. Persons Inhigher education run the professional preparationprograms and have the sustained commitment to, andexpertise in, the business of professiOnal preparation.Why shouldn't these people be expected to coordinatethese conferences? On the other hand, there are someliabilities attached to this relatively exclusive relianceon teacher educators' (or, Wyou will, ''preparers ofprofessionals"). It is possible that this gtoup might not

4

Conferencebbjectives; Goals; and' Outcomes

1 It is appropriate tO turn 'nOw to another set of vitalfeatures of these Trofessional preparation confer-ences: objectives; goals; outcomes. The term objectivesrefers tO the rriore immediate aims of the conference,,,while goals refer to the longer range purposes, andoutcomes refer to whethei or not the objectives andgoals were accomplished.

The overriding goals of the last two conferenceswere essentiallyJhe same, tdiMprove the standards(and consequently the conduct) of profession-al prepa-

,

ration prograps in physical educzition. To achieve\these goal's, the more imMediate con ference (ejectiveswere to bring \together leaders within the profession,have them disckuss and reach agreement on stiindards,put those standards in writing, and publish and dis-tribute a report that was to be used directly by physicaleducation departments and others as a basis for up-grading what tl ey were dcing. Tor example, in -1962there were spe-ific guidelines for how departmentchairmen were tf.) use the standards to evaluate theirprograms, and ir 1973 there was a clearly stated intent ..

that the listed co npetencies should be used by stateeducation departi lents to review and revise tlwir cer-tification requiret enfs.

I -t

in both conferences the "profession" referred to was"teaching physical education in schools". It is true thatsome peripheral attention was given to standards forcoaches and athletic tMiners,...but aside from these briefdigressions, they were concerned with the professionof teaching school. By implication, therefore, the ulti-mate goal of these conferences was to improve thepractice of physical education in the schools, althoughcuriously enough, this ultimate goal k vas left unstated.

In retrospect, these goals, objectives, and proce-dures seem quite logical. They certainly reSembletime-honored paths to improvegient used by otherdistinguished pro fe'ssiOns throughout the world.

And what about the outcomes? Well, the immediateobjectives were apparently achieved. Uaders wereinvolved,'Thgreements (of a sort) were reached, andstanda`rds were promulgated. As for the longer rangegoals, iVs probably safe to Suggest that the standardsdid haye substantial influence\ on the destgn of profes-sional preparation programs, .e., many institutions\g.changed their programs tp brin them more closely inline with the standards. WI-i.ther these designchanges resulted in program improtlements is more dif-ficult to assess. At the k Try least, hOweyer, it can beqated that programs were changed .in a directionjudged to be desirable on the basis of professionalconsensus. , i.

.. As for the ultimate gozil of improving the conduct ofelementary and secondary school physical educationprograms, it would appear that the impact was verymodest: After all, there is an extraordinary array ofpowerful factors influencing school programs,'and a

substantial number of variables that stand between the. design of professional pr4a'ration programs and theon-the-job behavior of teachers in schools. A profes-sional preparation conference is not likely to have a

marked effect on what goes on in the gym unless itmakes a very'special effort to do so.

The immediate objective of this publication and theI980 con ference was to present'and discuss alternativeappronclws to professional preparation in physical edu-cation so that readers win be better informed profes-sionals, i.e., their perspective of what's going on in thefield will be broadened. The longer range goal is im-plied in the conference theme "Progress Through Di-versity", which suggests that they hope to improveprofessional preparation,. So, as in past conferences,improvement is sought..But this time, inslead of striv-ing for agreement and issuing uniform standards, al-ternatives

mampre,s ted. Furthermore, this time there

IA?is a ore open-e d conception of the profession, orprofessions for which students are being prepared.While some persons continue to .think in terms ofpreparing people to teach physical education inschools, othersj-ia ve a much broader no-tion of theprofessions encompassed by "physical education".indeed, there are some who prefer to abandon theterm physical education in favor of a more accuratedescription of the professions represented here; there

axe still others who are not even concernedwith pro-fessional preparation, but with a new form of liberalarts program.

With this sort of built-in flexibility it is not easN; toenvision what the ultimate goal of this conference andits'attendant publication might be. For some, it will beto have a favorable impact on the practice of physicaleducation in schools (as was the case in previous con- .1

ferences), Others are apparently interested in improv-ing the preparation of a variety of professionals, e.g.,teachers, sports managers, exercise therapists, and soon. Others are 'clearly interested in improving thestructure and utility of a discipline called Kinisiology,or Sports Studies, or Human Movement.

At this point it seems reasonable to ask: Why havethe time-honored goals, objectives, and procedures ofphysical education been forsaken? Why was this con-ference so different from past con ferences?At the riskof oversimplification, it is suggested that the overrid-ihg reason for change is that the real world of profes-sional.pri2paration programs in physical education haschanged and-a responsible professional preparationconference must reflectIlOse changes. College.physi-cal education departments in this 'Country andelsewhere are traMing people for alternate careers,.and the modes of training differ substantially bothwithin and across career specializations. As the readershould well know, many of these departments havechanged their names to suit their new mission. hi theface of this diversity in the real world, how could a

_conference possibly b.e held with the expectation ofreaching consensus on a uniform setpf standards or asingle program model?

Next, iris appropriate to ask a related question:What are the possible outcomes of a conference in1980, in view of the diversity in the field? A few conjec-tures are in order.

First, the immediate objective will certainly beachieved. Readers will encounter alternative ap-proaches to professional preparation, and .will havethe-chance to dissect them, challenge them, and hope-fully better understand them. In fact, readers shouldcome apay from this experience as better informedprofessionals. The same can b.e said for the thousands-of other professionals around the world who will care-fully study the conference report. In- itself, this can beviewed as a very worthwhile outcome..All who comein contact with the materials win have been educated.Furthermore, they will have a dearer sense of theoptions available to us as we develop professionalpreparation programs in the future.

But vc;hat about our longer range goal, "progress"?Will progress occur? Well, if one thinks of "progress".asnot having a positive valence, but merely denotinr amovement on to the next stage, then it is this author'sjudgment that the conference and the publication willdefinitely yield progress by accelerating the alreadyestablished mmiemeht in the direction of diversity.Put simply, there will be witnessed progp'ss toward

1 1)

4greater diversity within physical education. Why willthese twin efforts produce greater diversity?,They aregoing to make people more aware of the options avail-able to them,, and given no professiona,l consensusregarding which option to pursue, some will followone option, others will take up other alternatives:Moreover, many will follo IX. the path of intelligent eclec-ticism, choosing the best features from the variouSalternatives and putting them together to form a'unique program that suits the needs of their clientelesand their institutional resources. And tliien there willbe the 'devious eclectics .vvilb choose the wrOng programfeattires for the wrong reasons. All in all, this a,dds upto the potential for abundant d iversity.. (An alteisiativehypothesis isthat one.of these models or proposalswill be viewed as so supeFior to the dthers and itsproponents will be so persuasi,ve in their discussionsthat eyerYone in physical education will rally to itssupport and completely abandon those blatantly in-'ferior alternatives. Frankly, in the author's eyes, this isnot a very plausible hypothesis.)

Now, if the reader accepts this controversial predic-tion about progress toward greater diversity, then thenext relevant question is: Will greater diversity yieldimprovement?. For sure, there are those who Mil answer with aresounding "NO!" They foresee irripending disaster inthis inexorable drift toward diyersity. They see exces-sive fragmentatidn, increasingly narrow specializa-tion, disunity and distrust, con fuSion, powerlessness,and eve'ntually extinction.

They may be.right. The next round of professionalpreparation chnferences may be held separately 'andtitled: Professional Preparation in Movement Sci-ences; Professional Preparation 'in Movement Arts;Professional Preparation in Sports Studies; Profes-sional Preparation in-Teaching Physical Education;Movement Studies in the Liberal Arts Curriculum. Ofcourse', within each of these conferences there will be,sub-groups which eventually blossom into new, au-tonomous areas of specialization, which in subsequentyears hold their own separate conferences. Imagine,for the sake.of example, a conference in 1995 on "Pro-fessional Preparation in Therapeutic Movement. forHandicapped Spo'rts Managers of Aquatic Facilities!"This conference will be sponsored by the appropriatesub-division of our ,national organization, now re-ferred to as the A.A.H.P.E.R.D.C.S.K.T.F.N.O.L.Thirteen people will attend the conference represent=ing. the three existing professional preparation pro-grams which have a total enrollment of 11" studentswho are destined to coMpete for the two jobs availablein this specialization world-ride. The conference willsplit on the issue of whether Or not "therapeuticmoverrient for handicapped sports managers" is a dis-

:cipline or a pro fession. The conference reportand the.specializatiomitself will bp totally disregarded by the'powers that be and by society at large, will simply fade,away as will the hundreds Of other diverse movement

arts and sciences that have become too narrowly frag-mented to wield .any influence in the Teal world.

On the other hand, there are manyr5rsons in phys-ical education who regard this increasing diversity asboth a natural and healthy developmental stage. Theyview the incorporation of more professional spe-..cializations within 'our sphere as a way of enhancingthe quality of preparation in already existing profes-sions and of creating appropriately specialiZed train-ing programs where none 'existed before. Besides,they point out, the need for school teachers in generaland for physical education teachers in particular hasfallen to zero and below. (In some states the number ofteachers released or excessed surpasses the number ofnew job Openings.) Under this sort of market condi-tion they suggest that professors in teacher edacationbett6r darn well train people for alternate careers orsearcl for alternate careers themselves.

Then. \are those who view the growth in the body.of

-,knowle4 in human movement, including. the sev-,

#.eral neW Sätdivisions of knowledge that are. emerg-ing, as adding'peeded depth and brea-cithid-the1317"ration of physical education teachers, and at thee sametime serving the needs of other allied professionalpreparations programs; understandably, there oreothers who argue that this growth in the body ofknowledge is self-justifying and parallels"the de-velopment of other disciplines and fields of profes-sional knowledge.

In addition, there are those who see great virtue inproviding an array of alternate training models, mod-els that are perhaps competency basedor humanistic,or problem-centered; or modularized, or indi-vidualized, or field-based, or behavioristic, or cdm-puterized, or accountability-based, or some combina-tion of the above. These models provide the raw mate-rial for making intelligent decisiOns in designing prep-aration programs. Further, they argue, alternate mocITels focus attention on a long-neglected dimension ofprofessional education, .the methods ofdeliveni, insteadof permitting professors to .persist with an exclusive-concerntfor the,subject matter of professional prepara-tion. in 'fact, authors of one of the models presented inthis book .argue very convincingly for making themode of delivery our principal concern in designingprofessional preparation programs...

So, there are professionals Who regard this move-rnent toward increased diversity wi-th considerableforeboding and-other .who greet it with enthusiasticapprobation. Where do you stand with respect to thisissue?

Before reading all of the papers in this book, itis'suggested that the ,reader engage in self-examinationon the issue.of diversity. Feelings uncovered in the.prdcess will influence your perception of the forthcom-ing Models as well as your reactions-to them,

If the reader yearns fOr unity in this profession,ikepare to be disappointed: there are some deeP andpervasive differences to be found. Th-ey are apparent

AL t.1

in the program proposals whiCh reflect not only differ-'ences in format and substance, but differences in theway people view the world. Further, it is suggestedthat the reader resist the temptation to try to create afalse, vision of unity by pretending that all these di-verse points of viewcan be neatly fit together in somegrand design. Instead, it is better to assume a lack ofunity within the Profession', and seek unity withinyourself through intelligent eclecticism, i.e., pick andchoose what makes most sense to you and ascertain-ing that what you do choose fits together. The profes-sion can tolerate extensive diversity, but you, as indi-viduals, will need personal integrity and cohesivenessin your views if you expect to effectively carry on.

Substance of the Proposed ProgramsCertainly the most important Characteristic of a pro-

fessional preparation conference of this sort-i the sub-stance of the preparation programs (or standards) thatare proposed. Here, the reference is to the recom-mendations for precisely what...people should study orexperience in their professional training and'how theirprofessional training experiences should be arranged.These substantive recommendations, if followed, dic-tate how thousands of people spend millions ofshoursduring their collegiate years and, quite literally, shapethe kinclof professionals they becorhe. ,

En the 1962 conference ;eport, the areas of study tobe inCluded in the programs were listed in a formroughly equivalent to courses that might be taken. The_listings were grouped under "general education","general professional education", and "specializedprofessional education". The latter group containedsome familiar entrieS: introduction and orientation tothe profession; administration and supervision; cur-riculum.and instruction; history, philosophy, and prin-ciples; measurement and evaluation; personal acquisi-tion orskills to be taught; skills for teaching and coach-ing; foundational sciences (which included kinesiol-ogy and physiology of activity); adaPted physical edu-cation; health and safety education; recreation. In ad-dition, a two-page list of the specific sports, games,conditioning activities, and dance activities to be cov-ered, was appended. Finally, special emphasis wasgiven to carefully describing the nature of the profes-sional laboratory experiences (including but not lim-

o ited to studeht teaching) which were intended to be adominant feature of the program.

In 1973, the conference identified the program'ssubstance by describing ."competencies" to beachieved using "performance-based" terminology.The cornpetencies were grouped under broad areas:socio-cultural; philosophical; historical; growth anddevelopment; physical and biological sciences; behav-ioral science; research foundations; personal perfor-.

o mance competencies; modes facilitate learning; cur-riculum planning and organization; administration;

Intramurals.

7

While the two sets of recommendations had much in'common, there had been considerable change be-tween 1962 and 1973. Some of the changes weresemantic. A sizeable number were legitimate altera-tions in substance. For example, several new areasappeared within the science foundations, includingperceptual-motor learning, sport psychology, andsport sociology. What was once the history of physicaleducation as a profession and a school subject, hadbecome the history of "play, games, dance, and sport".Where once there was a specification of each sportarea, the second conference made only generic refer-ences to "motor activities" or "motor patterns1"."Growth and Development" had emerged as a mailorcomponent of the program. There was, of course, t edramatic shift from courSes to competencies with all f

the attendant change's that accompany that kind ofshift. The enumeration of teaching and program de-velopinent skills (in 1973) reflected the increasing at-tention being given to _pedagogical skills and theknowledge base which underlies them; as a conse-quence the nature of the field-based experience wasmuch more explicit. In general, the differences be-tween the program recommendations of the 1962 and1973 conferences signalled a discernible shift in em-phasis from developing the technical skills and knowl-,edge required to teach sports and games, and producephysical fitness, to studying the ever-broadeningbody of knowledge in Nyman movement and applyingthat knowledge in an instructional setting.

Now, at the 1980 conference and in this publication,four separate program proPOsals, each with its ownvery distinct substantive features, are presented. Theprincipal business at hand is to present, examine, anddiscuss these substantive features. A preliminaryanalysis of the substance of the proposals is inappro-priate at this time. It is suggested, however, that asthese substantive features are probed, give some at-tention to the manner in which authors relate to whathas previously occurred. In this author's judgment,each proposal, in its own way, departs significantlyfrom the programs outlined in 1962 and 1973, and yet,each one manages to conserve important substantivefeatures from the past. In this sense none of the propo-sals preaches total revolution (although when com-pared in particular to the 1962 recommendations, all ofthe current proposals represent a radical departurefrom an earlier tradition): Interestingly, the proposalsdiffer substantially from one another with respect tothe features they have chosen to retain and to discard.No doubt much time can be spent debating whichproposals reflect the "right" choices.

In closing, two suggestions are offered to readers, inthe interest of enhancing the fruitfulness of the discus-sions and in the hope of maintaining a relatively con-genial atmosphere in the profession, in what mightotherwise become a somewhat contentious encounter.Readers should recognize that ih most instances theproposed programs reflect the very deep commit-

I 4

ments of the authors. These authors have worked for-years developing the kind of programs they are pres-enting: at the very least, they avidly support the ideasembedded in the proposal as a consequence of theirown eXperiences. In a very real sense, these proposalsare .the expressions of the "selves" of those who pros-

.

ent theM.It is suggested that the proposals differ not only in

terms of the means they proffer, but in terms of the endsthey seek. Readers face questions not only of whichcourse or field experience to include and how to pack-age that experience, but which, if any, professionalsshall be prepared. Shall physical educators continue toconcentrate primarily on preparing school teachers? Ifso, what is the nature of the subject-they are expectedto teach . . . or shall physical educatoys continue to._embrace 'more career alternatives within our 'field? Ifso, which ones . . . or, should professors in higher

8

education devote much of our effort to becoming aviable part of the liberal arts curriculum? And whatreasons are offered -for moving in one. direction oranother? The author contends that these questionsrelating to ends are the more important issues facingthis conference and con frenting our field. Readersshould feel free to explore these issues and not restrictthemselves to a more narrowly circumsCribed discus-sion of means; so, don't be afraid to probe for.a clarifi-cation of the program's goals and the rationales sup-.porting the goals. To be sure, the discussions whichensue from reading are not likely to proceed witho'utsome serious controversy, nor do they hold the prom-ise of prompt reSolution of the issues. Nevertheless, itis important that physical educators address thesequestions because they are the ones that will mostdecisively influence the future.

4

Introduction

The preparation of this presentation revealed, to mychagrin, that I am not a scholar of the curriculum:Instead of concealing that or engaging in a massivere-education process, I decided to integrate and ex-press some ideas about the phy.sical education fieldtoday that have implications for. the way the curriculais conducted.

Caveat emptor. Some of the ideas are expressedforcefully rather than tentatively. Deliberations willtemper and refine these ideas given the nature of thecomplementary purposes, mine as a scene-setter andyours as a delegate. Because of this, forcefulnessseems appropriate.

Pressures from the Two Meanings ofPhysical Education

Physical edu,:ation has come to acquire two mean-ings. The fifst implies the delivery of activity servicesto a client with developmental intent. This is merely arestatement of an old and well-understood purpose:HoweVer, it avoids a traditional association withschools, and thus, permits the contemplation of a mul-titude of settings where there ig a guide or leader, aclient, arid a developmental movement activity.

The second meaning is even looser and implies thebody of knowledge, and the procedures that contrib-uted to it, about the interaction of moving humans andtheir environment: This aspect of physical educationimplies questions about the impact of human move-ment on some aspect of humariexperience, and formaland informal attempts to answer those questions by anindividual.

These two aspects of the field are the .potentiallycomplementary processes'of practice and scholarship.Sinco Henry's proclamation that physical educationcould be an academic discipline (1964), the field hasbeen divided intotwo camps. Recently, the polemichas intensified (Lawson, 1978; Broekhoff, 1978; Locke& Sieden top, 1980) and one purpose of this address isto terminatethe battle and to obtain a solution to thisproblem rather than to joust it.

9

Current Context and FutureCurriculum

M. J. EllisUniversity of Oregon

The complementarity of scholarly research andpractice resides in their two functions. Physical educa-tion practice is involved in managing the activity of aclient and a setting so that the probability of desiredoutcomes is increased. This function clearly rests on anunderstanding of the network of relationships thatexist between the manageable elements of the client'sactivity and the setting. When these interrelationshipsare understood, then the physical educator can ar-range matters so that goals are reached. Clients areserved by manipulating their activity and influentialfeatures of the environment.

The more reliably the practitioner can move clientstoward their goals, the more potent is their contribu-tion and more highly valued will be their services. Thisreliability derives from understanding cause-effect re-lationships that exist between clients, activities, andsettings. 55, practice, in the sense developed above,requires a body of knowledge th'at empowers the prac-titioner to reach the clients' objectives. It seems clearthat much of what is known by anyone comes aboutby consequences of unique .events. Some of thoseeventS involve formal attempts to learn and some arethe results of the consequences of personal experi-ences in specific settings. Both formal and informalknowledges are important.

Informal knowledge is often subjective, intuitive, ornon-communicable and accumulates from the conse-quences of a practitioner's actions over time. Theseunique learnings contribute to a practitioner's successor, failure. We recognize this by providing hands-onexperience in our curricula and delaying final ac-ceptance until after a period of successful practice.Nevertheless, despite its value, informal knowledgesuffers the major disadvantage of being essentiallysubjective. Knowledge can be subjectiVe and correct,but there is the possibility that it is wrong and it is lessamenable to automatic self-correction. This kind oflearning by experience,only increases a pracfitioner'sreliability if it is systematized by questioning and ob-servation, by rendering it scientific. Practitioners needto know how to turn their streams of experiences intoverified generalizations.

Formal knowledge is learned as the result,of a con-scious effort by teachers and/or learners. Experiencesare'created with the expectation that the learner will

rb4. 0

acquire truths and incorporate them into their methodof practice. Formal attempts to teach and learn mustbe based on more than idiosyncratic interpretations.The skiff of the formal curriculum should have beensuccessfully tested across many settings.

The deliberate generation of objective knowledge-about phenomena requires the processes of science,That does not preclude practitioners from being scien-tific. The important feature about the asking and re-sponding that renders the process scholarly is the at-tem'pt to create answers that are objective andgeneralizable to a class of settings or events.

When a generalizable answer is generated it be-comes potentially useful to those who practice. Thegeneral statement of the relationship between featuresof a setting can be used by a practitioner to the advan-tage of clients. Thus the bedrock of physical educationpractice is a body of objective knowledge about thephenomena associated with physical activity and itseffects.

Each member of the field must have the.knowledgeto support their practice, hut must also appreciate the

'dynamic nature of knowing. Since the field of practiceis emergent and the arenas in which services are deliv-ered are many and changing, a practitioner must beprepared in ways that reflect this dynamism; prac-titioners must be prepared to change. To do this theymust be able to generate knowledge and comprehendnew knowledge brought in to_the field by others usingthe formal processes of getting to know thingsscience. They must know how to learn. Faculty mustnow, more than ever, go beyond narrow technologiestied to specific occupational niches and educate prac-titioners so that they can define their own avenues toservice.

To summarize, practitioners must be able to dothings for clients. To do these they must know how tolearn the things they will need to know over a careerthat will be characterized by change. These assertionssay much for\ the structuring of experiences for theentering as well as the continuing practitioner.

Next, the reader's attention is directed to the role ofresearch. The Call for research has its roots in the beliefthat somewhere in the field there has fo be a rnecha-nism for systematically questioning that which passesfor.knowledge and is transmitted through instruction.It is commonly believed that the closer this process isto the curriculum the simpler add befter it is, andbecause of this members of the university' arc ex-pected to engage in research besides acting as agentsof the curriculum.

Now, before the reader's hackles rise, research isdefined here as the activity whereby persons systemat-

'Neophyte practitioneys rno, not always be prepared in universities.When other institutions engage in preparation I belieft it impor-tant that thcc agents of these other curricula also be expected toengageln the agony of research. To excuse them of the responsibil-ity for questioning their tenets and the practices dependent onthem is to permit stasis.

10

ically and objectively -question and refine what isknown about the interaction of moving humans andtheir environment. The research can and should askinfinitely varied questions concerning human move-rnent. /he methods must be those of science.'

A dangerous trend has developed to constrain re-search to the exploration of questions immediatelyrelevant to current practice. There is less-tolerance ofindividuals who follow their noses.

An obscure but significant document, Technology ini`Retrospect and Critical Events in Science (Falk, 1968)prepared for the National Science Foundation arguesvigorously for non-mission oriented research, the re-search cbnducted by someone playing with ideas andquestions because they are there. Careful historicalanalysis of major technologies revealed the followingimportant facts:

90% of key findings and scientific events necessaryfor a technology were already known by the tirhe theapplication was concehied;the majority of the contributory findings occurred20-30 years prior tO use;76.% of these critical findings were conducted inuniversities;the findings for any application or innovation oc-curred across many disciplines and cross-disciplinary communication was critically importantfor the emergence of a technology.

These findings from the science of science pointdramatically, to the fact that innovations of the nextgeneration depend vitally on the non-missionoriented sesearch of today. We cannot predict whichfindings or events will prove critical. It is necessary toexplore, play if you will, so that a body of ideas andfindings await cross-disciplinary integration far in thefuture; so, there must be carefully-planned efforts tohand-on the results of a plethora of exploratiOns .forthe future of health of physical education. A currentlybewildering body of knowledge is our bequest to fu-'ture practice.

While planning the curriculum, reflect on the factthat it must not squeeze out the non-mission'orientedresearch by teachers and learners. Room must beprovided for both teaching and research. Further,there must be provision for the preparation of futureresearchers in physical education, persons who areready to explore the unknown reaches of both thecurriculum and research to be prepared for the un-known ft', ture.

`Science in this context means disciplined enquiry in search ofobjective truth. It includes, to my mind, phenomenology. logic,historiography as welt as the more conVentional notions of Science(physiology, anthropology, physics, kinesiology). The methodsvary operationally in each'of the areas, but they have in commonthe press for objectivity. It is this essence that I mean to capture inthis sentence, and this footnote is added ,because several readersargued forcibly that most people- have a more restricted notion,redolent of white coats, in.mind for the word "science='.

r.L7 This paints a new picture of the physical educator. Itclearly includes face-to-face in addition tO a less re-mote impact, i.e., from the one,-on-one coaching orcounselling setting to one in which the enabling effect

'is transmitted via the media or indirectly via others(Bryant, 1979; Considint, 1979). The picture stretchesacross ages, categories of clie-its, and settings in whichclients are established anA activated. Our curriculamust reflect these changes, and it iS the central task ofthe parent conference and this resultant publication toaccelerate the process to accomodate new realities.

The university by tradition and by virtue of its spe-cial relation to the future must create new knowledgeand new curricula. It iS enough to answer the question-Why did you ask that about human movement?"with the statement, "Because I _could".

Thus, research and practice are intimately con-nected, but different. Ideally, practice consumes oruses the output of scientific research in addition to thefruits of experience. It uses the body of general theoryabout a set of events to produce a specific outcome.Science is conCerned with-going-beyond-the-specificityof multiple observations in particitlar settings tostatements of relations between events that are gen-eral. Science is not involved with adding values intothe statements. Its goal is understanding.

PractitidnerS 'are, however, concerned with valuejudgments: They are expected to produce outcomesthat are desirable. So practitioners selectively useknown connections between events to move towardthe goals of their client. To decide on a goal to bereached requires valuing some outcomes over others.Ultimately those choices involve valu:ng outcomes,and when that is done consistently and knowingly itimplies following a philosophy. A practitioner ma9honor the philosophy of the client (Hey Coach! Canyou help-me do . . .?), a guiding set of axioms setdown hy others -responsible for the client, e.g., astatement of beliefs set down by a YMCA board, or inthe absence of clear axioms from such sources, im-poses a personal set of beliefs (I think it would be goodfor you if you did . . .). Thus scholars are value-free,objective, and responsible for simplifying the chaos ofthe intercOnnections in the world by creating generalstatements. On the advice of their experience, andguided by a set of values and beliefs, they alter out-comes in specific settings in the service of particularclients.

Pressures from Tradition

As an areal of practice, physical education involvesthe organized transmittal of ideas from one to anotheruntil the recipient is enabled to become physicallyeducated:This enabling function is the central task ofdeclared physical educators who can practice wher,ever therc is someone requiring assistance in becom-ing physically educated. Clients are sending this mes-

,.sage to physical educators.

11

Clearly, those in practice should be capable of deliv-ering the goods. To that end, established programs ofeducation exist which attempt to provide competenceat entry int(P'areas of practice. These programs .aremassive in one particular area of service, teaching.They are established in such areas as coaching, athletictraining, and exercise technology, and they are emerg-ing in a plethora of new fields of seryice in correctionaland 24-hour institutions, community development,activity business and retailing, risk management in theiitsuid-nce business, sport journaliSm, etc. The provi-sion of narrow technologies to deliver -high qualityservice in the short term only is myopic. Professionalpreparation must provide the necessary education torecognize changing ,circumstances and modify prac-.tices over the long term.

History has shaped our thinking and program de-sign in physical education to the extent that efforts areconcentrated on an extremely narrow range. The._majority of effort is concentrated on developingneophytes rather than on the continuing education ofexisting prac itioners, conducting the preparatory ex-periences in niversities rather than in a broad rangeof settings, firmly limiting those experiences to prepa-ration for teaching youngsters in schools, institutions,and universities rather than fOr a mUltiplicity of occu-pational avenues for the delivery of activity services tohumans and animals, and placing very little emphasison development al\cl enrichment of the body of com-municable theory.on which.good practice rests.

Pressures from Clients

Clearly, changes are a foot.. Clients seem to finallyhave recognition of .PE as a process that extends overtheir lifetimes. Many accept that they must continuallyprepare and maintain the state of being educatedabout their changing body and itS dynamic constraintsand potentials. Thus, physical education does not stopbut is an updating process in which individuals learnhow to deal with the impact of the biological and socialchanges on their physical being. This involves all threedomains: motor; affective;' cognitive: It is. education"of" and "through" the Physical throughout life.

Continued blindness to the fact that programs ofpreparation for service reach further than teaching theyoung in schools, but include a host of sew/ices in .avariety setting for peesbns somewhere between birthand death, will end physical education as it currentlyexists. Support for the field comes from myriad:deci-sions to divert society§ 'surplus resources to ,peopledelivering programs of activity services. DissatiSfiedclients mean withdrawal of Support. Unless physicaleducators learn to deliver prized services, exhortationis useless in the long run.

Recently, collective action hasieffectively insulatednearly all physical education teachers in schools andmany practitioners in university physical education

programs from any ongoing monitoring add correc-tion of performance once in practice. What is impor-tant for physical education as an area of practice is toarrange for all of its areas of contribution to be respon-sive to the laws of the marketplace. There must be lessdependence on decisions made based on conservativeviews of 1: hat is right, the products Of adherence to astatic view, and recognize that, the client's views havemerit.

Because of this, readers are urged-not to spend anytime debating the issues of whether physical educa-tion iS a profession. The clients could care less. Theywant the service for which they have paid. The ques-tion is irrelevant unless there issmaneuvering to createa monopoly over the delivery of services, as has beendone in accounting, teaching, medicine, law, plumb-ing, etc. If the search for professionalism is motivatedby a desire to protect the.clients' interests, well andgood; but, other restrictive professions have a poorrecord. The professions are replete with ineffectivepractirioners who are protected rather than elimi-nated. Attempts to satisfy-the definitional criVria for aprofession ,are low on the author's priority list forphysical educatipn these days. What is important is toensure that entering and continuing practitioners aresubject to the evaluative decision-making by and onthe behalf of, their clients.

Pressure of Current Circumstance

In the USA a major curriculum shift takes.about 7-10years to work its way through a 'cycle.3 The :cyclecomprises: the original recognition of the lack of fitwith circumstances; the garnering of support forchange; the process of determining and choosing thedesired change; the publication of the change to satisfylegal constraints on relations with current and futureclients; implementation of a complete cycle (todaywhich is 4 years for a bachelors degree program butmay well be 5 before long); the evaluation of the effec-tiveness of the modified program. Now the dilemma isclear. The existing curriculum -must be geared to afuture that is alarmingly distant. To predict the cir-cumstances for 1990 should be worrisome to everyone.For example, could you, the reader; predict what thisyear would be like back in the troubled years at thestart of the 1970s?

How can physical educators deal with the conflictingdemands of the eternal verities, a conservative posi-tion, with those of a rapidly changing set of circum-stances and knowledges? The difficulties inherent inresolving this conflict sustain the rest of this presenta-tion. Identified for the reader are the problems inplanning for professional preparation where there are

rrhebst major conference such as this that I am aware of waS. held atNew Orleans in 1972.

12

conservative and idealistic demands vying with apress for a liberal experimentalistic structure. Thereare constraints here that have not been faced before,_but there are also opportunities previously unavail-able.

The constraints upon the actions of physical educa-tors noted above present a choice between protec-tionism created by legislated constraints on Studentchoice or encouraging a laissez-faire free market. Legis-lated protectionism may often be clothed in the tenetsof essentialism. It argues for the status quo by pleadingthat there are constraints, eternal verities, triat must becommunicated to our neophytes of any age.- frarguesthat it is merely convenient that the faculty engagell4nprofessional preparation is well versed in the eternal-verities of yesteryear.

The opposition argues that there is a collective wis-dom in the actions oftlients. They should choose fromamong offerings as they:respond to their perceivedindividual goals and circumstances. Thus individualshave freedom to succeed and to fail. The benefitssystem-wide are presumed to outweigh the costs bornby those who make poor,choices.

In a democracy, as in nature, variability is a virtue.The outcomse of variation in programming creates asystem which, under market pressures, pushes intothe nooks and crannies of the unknown. An emergentfield of practice, like a ,playful individual, receives

.early warnings of onrushing change and may developpractices to deal with it.

Homogenizing influences like dogma, au-thoritarianism, insensitive legislation, rigid standards,accreditation systems, and even graduation require-ments, are dangerous. While they provide a skeletonicstructure, their boney form is resistant to modificationby the exercise of judgment and the fine tuning of themarket.

Oearly, adopting either the extreme/cOnservativeposition or the ultimately liberal position on this con-tinuum is dangerous. For example, physical educatorswork with a basic biological system that is evolvingslowly, and one cannot argue that there are:no con-straints. Debates will rage over warm-up, transfer,hyperplasia, and the role of exercise in mobility' fiveyears from now. Even if there are startling changes inlong-held scientific bases of the field, a long time willbe spent determining how to alter practices to havethem considered. The important question concernsthe relative rate at ,which change is occurring com-pared with The rate at which the field responds.

However, it is clear that it is not possible to confi-dently predict circumstances several years ahead. Theunknoigns of the middle-range future will demandrapid-responses. Physical educators should be ready.This will be a better-prepared field if strategies thatnature uses are adopted; then physical educators canprepare for rapid unknown changes that may presentcritical challenges. There is a need to explore, investi-gate, and Manipulate the settings in which physical

fi

educators are located, here is a need to adopt a play-ful attitude to the ps st silities presented by the discon-tinuities in the social fabric. Rather than scorning newideas, they should be actively encouraged. If physicaleducators are not hnaginative enough to fail, andthereby learn, then it may be concluded that the chal-lenges of-the future will prove too hard. The key then,is to tread a precarious path between knee jerk op-timism and destructive pessimism. The two prevailingattitudes to the future, optimism and pessimism, mustoccupy our attention as we proceed beca tiVe they needto be identified as influences on our thinking. (Law-son, 1974) In -fact, the author would argue that physkaleducators must be equally r:ttentive to the threads ofboth attitudes in planning.

First there is the darker side. The field exists in asociety buffeted by political and economic turbulencethat stems from world-wide storms. The beginnings ofa new industrial revolution are here. There are re-quirements for redesigning lifestyles to permit renew-able cycles rather than consumption. This will comegradually and may take many generations, but clearly,challenges will surface again and again which requirean accomodation for the scarcity of onceplentiful re-sources. The responses- will vary between a mix oflearning to do without, substitution of other resourcesmade possible by further application of technology,and tailoring output to input. There is no question thatduring this process there will be severe effects on thelives and thoughts of eVeryone.

Physical education drawS its sustenance as a .serviceto society funded from .taxed economic surpluses orexpenditure of discretionary monies by individuals.The pessimistic view is one that points to shrinkingsurpluses and discretionary income as more of theavailable economic energy diverted to realigning theexisting system to run with the narrower limits of aclosed ecosystem. It is presumed there will be lessresources to fuel programs. .An example of this wasraised-by the ex-President of the University of Oregon(Bill Boyd) when he recently publicly predicted theend of varsity sports as we know it in 10-15 years.(Boyd,.1980) He predicated his statement not on a finalthirst for 'reformation by a disgusted public, but onsimple economics. He argued that there would not bethe fuel to: jet hordes of athletes, officials, and bocl.s-ters hither and yon; to build, heat, and maintainmyriad vast sport arenas used a few times a year; to"move thousands of tiny groups of people in autos,vans, and mobile homes to events; to energize thehype necessary .for continued addiction. His simple

Aka was that sport would become diseconomic andwould change.

It is wise to 1:xtend that example to physical educa-tion. This field is expensive at the mOment. Much ofthe-imaginations of physical educatorsAre constrainedby the past to a 'physical education taking place incontrived si2ttings that depend on massive ecbnomicsupport from an affluent surplus economy to heat,

13,

maintain, and operate both physical plants and pro-grams.

Pessimism is hard to take Running through thefield are strong threads of optimism. As educatorsthere is the obligation to lead people out from theirpresent sta.te toward their potential. Things get better;what is known and done rests on making things betterfor indiViduals. Physical educators are thoroughly Vic-torian in their concept of emergence and progress.

It is convenient to believe that'our technology willsomehow thwart the predictions of the pessimists.There is some truth.to that. The challenge of capturingthe sun's energy now rather than using the deposits ofthe sunshine of the past have spawned a vast array oftechnical possibilities. For example, catalytic hy-drolysis of water into the fuel mixture of hydrogen andoxygen is attractive; photovoltaism is possible. Re-versed thermocline salt pools can capture massiveamounts of heat, and so on. For *optimists, the slide'to extinction is not begun, but the slipping and stum-bling through a period of adaptation to new circum-stances is being witnessed today.

Nevertheless, even the optimists must be nervousabout the immediate erosion of their personal share ofour finite resource. While all may turn out well in theend, the learning phase during the next 20-30 yearswill be troubled and painful.

Without doubt a period must be faced' in which thebattle for the resources to lead people toward theirpotential in sport,. -dance,.-exercise, .a.nd play, wiltbe,intense. It takes seven years to seriously modify,plement, and assess a university curriculuni. Theperiod,of upheaval wilHast for longer than the time ittakes to redesign curricula. So there can be no hidingbehind response latency. The time to respond-is-now.

What other challenges must be faced beyond theproblems of expensive energy and resources? The firstis rapidly increasing atcumulations of regulationsgoverning student and faculty choice. These can beseen in the curriculum, Title IX, affirmative action, andworking contracts. Litigation besets the field on allsides. While each starts with the ideEils of improvingexisting affairs, the strategies in each case lay outpolicies and procedures, actions rather than perfor-mance criteria. Given the rigidity of decision-makingstructures the author fears that one such result will bean inability to respond adequately to changing circum-stances. Failure is feared to the point where handsbecome tied and opportunities for success remain un-explored. .

The next major challenge lies in the special problemsof an aging professoriate. None are,exempt. The pas-sage of time robs all.persons of energy and jades appe-tites. For example, as- a researcher the author waseducated in the halcyon days of Analysis of Variance.Now he is ill-prepared for an era that now uses multi-ple regression analysis to dissect its problems withgreater precision. Multiply that example many foldthroughout the professoriate, and it is a problem. Flow

(-1 1

can one CaptUre the declining energy of our agingprofessoriate and persuade theM to learn afresh, torisk, to change rather than enjoy the well-understoodstatus quo? It is a complicated problem and it needsto be Made an explicit problem of curriculum..reform.The agents of the curriculum, the profeSsbriate,must at the same time be prepared.

A further reality:is that the interests of the areasformerly thought of as phy.sical education, health edu-"cation, recreation and community development, andothers like music and dance, are moving back towardseach other. The movement is being slo;Ared because ofresistance to integration and presumed loss of iden-tity. In universities, where the majority of professionalpreparation is taking place, departmentalized facultieschafe under this and new non-departmental entitiesare the bellwethers of reorganization, of the new con-cerns and the new content required by a changedworld. Centers, institutes, and dangling inter-disciplinary programs .are proliferating and maybetherein lies salvation. The words Women's, Black,Hispanic, Indian, Asian, Environmental, AdvancedComputation, Solar, Energy, Policy, Foreign Policy,Government, Neuro-science, Genetic, African, Ctiil-dren, Gerontology, all appear in the names of non-de-

1partmental entities created outside the petrified de-partmental structures of today's universities.

Perhaps the current departmental structures withtheir ,protectionist impact on the definition of majorsand the labels which are given to them, should bedownplay d. Conventional career structures arechanging t m fast, -For example, in the Fall of '79, just asphysical edu tors in Oregon were congratulatingthemselves on reducing the number of teachersheaded for careers in elementary education, corn-

_plaints were received that the employmentopportunity/teacher applicant ratio.in Oregon was toolow, a ratio of 1:1.75. Four months later the first signsof a new baby boom was apparent. By 1985, Orego-nianS face a possible elementary telicher shortage.

Another pressure which tends to maintain thestatus quo are the rigidities in-our physical plant. To-day's .physical plants were, in the majority of cases,built for an era in which physical education wasoriented toward .vouth and sports. By contrast, there

scan be now found a dramatic influx of life-long lear-rrq and an equally dramatic loss of interest amongyout 'n team sports. Yet there are pressures frommortgage: and the momentum of budgets to retardneW develop lients. Yet these tendencies exhibited byclients, are laui:htle from -first principles. Having

'Ntkstruggled to build e pool physical educators findnow that aquatic progri z tks have broadened to includenon-self critical actiyitieSN'n natural waters. Whoknows what the next ten years 'ill bring. It is clear thatphysical plants built fin different p ograms in a differ-

frent time are part of the challenge.Another challenge before us lies in awNincreasing

popularity of non-rationalistic ways of kno,ing and

deciding. Self-actualization is increasingly stemmingfrom the mystical rather than rational, oriental rather;than occidental, from the gut rather than the mind.'This runs counter to rationalistic-objective ways ofknowing that are the basis of physical education andthe!core of western universities.

It can be acceptecj that things can bd known byindividuals outside o science, i.e., personal knowl-edge. (Polanyi, 1958) Further, in physical educationthe disappointment elt by practitioners concerningthe progress made 'science, can be accepted. We hadhigh hopes, ,rrZ1 these are still largely unfulfilled.(Locke, 69; Campbell & Stanley, 1963) Problems inpractice turned out to be far more complex than origi-nally thought. Maybe there is a need for a new scienceof personal knowledge; it is clear to the author that theprocesses of a science are the -basis for confidencewhen it comes to knowing things as a group. In short,the trend to non-empirical ways of knowing stands asa challenge to a field that must go beyond quackery tobecome reliable and therefore desired.

Preparing for the Future

Progressivism, the instrumental pragmatism whichis rooted in Dewey's works and thought that had al-ready bloomed among- intellectual educators andphilosophers by the 1930's, was already being tem-pered by a wary counterbalancing with essentialismby the 40s and 50s. Ironkally, but maybe typically, theheavy pendulum of educational institutions was stillmoving towards experimentalism as philOsophetsbegan to argue that there were fixed standards andhigher ideals beyond the context. Now it appears thatthe pendulum is on its way back towards essentialism.

The "back to the basics" move, the "hoopla" aboutthe Harvard curriculum, will influence everyone incurriculum .planning. Existing academic, decision-.making processes in universities render everyone sus-ceptible to changes in the fashion of education.. Forexample, persons at Oregon are at the mercy of anylarge voting block in the Assembly where everyacademic has a vote. A few years ago this Assembly, inresponse to a quite short-lived perturbation of its phi-losophy, liberalized the university-wide curriculum. Itslashed away at language and math group require-m,ents and clusters. Colleagues in physical educatien,being esscntialistically inclined, filled the spzice withtheir own requirements. Now this same Assernbly isrestoting requirements, and electives are pinched out.

This tale is introduced because it is typical, -andbecause it exemplifies another powerful pressure onwhat will be permitted by University curricula. Thereality of the climate of opinion in the Universityswinging rapidly in 'response to ,new forces and oldpositions must be reckoned with, yet one cannot easilylook ahead. His the author's intent in thiSpaper, while

14:1-)

calling for diversity, judgment, and experiment, to bepart of the emergent co unterforce that decelerates thecurrent swing of the pendulum. As to the role of har-binger of the philosophy extant in the 1990's, it is safeto say that nobody knows.

The common thread uniting procedures fot dealingwith all of these challenges involves questioning. Cur-rent arrangements must, as a matter of course, bequestioned. Change itself is goocil It brings informa-tion. Failure can lead to further change or changingback. It can no longer be assumed that on the basis ofpersonal experience alone that any way is best. Theseexperiences were garnered in other times. Physicaleducators must continually explore and communicatethe fruits of exploration by means of science.

The author objects to the rising tide of essentialism.There is a need for the systematic de-systematizationof the field and the curriculum. There is a need for awave of deregulation to create the circumstanceswhereby new approaches, new careers, new struc-tures, and new curricula are tried. There is a need forthe feedback from myriad individual programs topermit physical educators to chart a course into theunknown. So this paper makes explicit that the centralchallenge of the next decade is to diverge. Each act thatconstrains without a formal effort to judge a particularproposal, an action, a curriculum, a way of delivering aservice on its merits, retards the eventual emergenceof a field of practice ki raci uely in tune with changingcircumstances.

I hope that what was conceived in Chicago results ina pluralistic attempt to meet the future with widelydistributed philosophies and practices. Futurism,while important, is frail. We need checks and bal-ances. I fear the institution of any one system of doinganything. I fear uniformity and prescription like achicken farmer fears fowl pests. Our best bet is to en-courage heterogeneous solutions. We need to createthe diversity that will permit us to pick and choose on

tI1ëbais o f acro mplishm en t-an d-poten l,--to meet_thecircumstances of our emergent world. The content ofthis conference enshrines the concept; four differentapproaches have been identified and maybe more willsurface. I hope so.

References

Boyd, W. "An address to parents of would-be new studenfsat the University of Oregon." University of Oregon, 1980.

Broekhoff, J. "Physical education as a profession." Paperread to WMPEA, Reno, Nevada, October 20, 1978 andsubmitted to Quest.

Bryant, J. "The year 2001 A.D. and future careers in PE." ThePhysical Educator 36: 197-220.

Campbell, D. T.; Stanley, J. C. Experithental and Quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally,1963.

Considine, W., ed. Alternative professional preparation in phys-ical education . Washington, DC: American Alliance forHealth, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1979.

Falk, C. E. Technologyin retrospect ani(critical events in science;a report prepared, for the N.S.F. Chicago: Illinois Institutefor Research, 1968.

Henry, F. M. "Physical educationan academic discipline."In 67th proceedings of NCPEAM. Washington, DC:NCPEAM, 1964.

Lawson, H. A. "Physical education and sport. Alternatiyesfor the future." Quest 21, 19-29.

Lawson, H. A. "Paths toward professionalization." Keynoteaddress. WMPEA conference. Reno, Nevada, October 20,1978.

Locke, L. F. Research in Physical Education . New York:Teachers College Press, 1969.

0Locke, L. F.; and Siedentop; D. "Beyond arrogance and ad

horninem: A reply to Hal Lawson.".Paper submitted toQuest, 1980.

Polanyi, M. Personal Knowledge; towards a post critical ithilOso-phy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958.

PART ill

Four ModelApproaches toUndergraduateEducation

Competency-Based TeacherPreparation.in PhysicalEdudation aLWashington State tJnive,rsity

Mary Lou EnbergWashington State University

Wilma HarringtonUniversity of Georgia

Lillian V. CadyOffice of the Superintendent of

Public InstructionStater of Washington

IntroductionSpecial Assumptions

For the past 10 years, the state of Washington hasbeen embarked on an adventurein competency-basedteacher education (CBTE) and certification. The jour-ney has been exciting, frustrating, rewarding, confus-ing, thought-provoking, the quest never dull and notyet complete. The decision to move towardcanpetency-based teacher education and certificationwas made in the late 1960's. It grew out of nationalforces And conditions at that time as well as the milieuand idiosyncracies of Washington state in teacher edu-cation and certification:

It was coincidental that at the same time a thoroughreview of program standards, certificatiOn require-ments and structure, and program approval proce-dures and criteria was underway in the state. Theobjective of the review was to determine if new ordifferent standards/criteria/procedures could be iden-tified which might increase the probability that thoseprepared would, in fact, be effective in the classroom.Among the many ideas which emerged, threesuggested a CB:TE framework and came to undergirdthe standards subsequently adopted by the StateBoard of Education:

1. If the.ultimate purpose of preparation and certifica-tion is to ensure effectiveness on-the-job, trainingprograms should be designed to develop thoseknowledges, skills, theoretical bases, and attitudesdeemed essential to effective performance in thespecific professional role, e.g., teacher, principal,etc.

2. Professional preparation programs for teachersshould reflect and be consistent with what is

.1 9

known about learning and about individual differ-ences in learning styles and rate and characteristics.

3. Preparation programs must be relevant to the ac-tual and current world of the teacher (the classroomand school setting), student populations, cur-

.,riculurivorganizational patterns, etc.Historically, six.assumptions underlie the state ap-

proachto teacher education and certification:

1. The design of teacher education programs must bebased on a clear statement/concept of the role to beperformed and, following therefrom, specific com-petenties (knowledges, skills, theoretical under-standings) needed to perform such role.

2. Preparation and certification should be integrallyrelated; that is, certification requirements shouldprovide the framework for the design of teachereducation programs.

3. The education and certification of teachers is a pro-fessional endeavor necessitating diffenntiand/oradditional preParation from that for the degree.Degree and certificate are not viewed as synonym-ous nor simultaneous achievements. In Washing-ton state a degree is a requirement for certification.However, in-and of itself it is not evidence of thedegree holder's competency to teach.

(It is interesting to note that many professionalassociations with special interest in teacher educa7fion, such as the National Education Association,American.Association of Colleges for Teacher Edu-cation, and Association for Teacher Educators, aswell as higher education faculty and administratorsare suggesting that professional training in educa-tion; as in other fields, should be distinct from andsubsequent to completion of a degree. The "Pointof View" feature in the July 7, 1980 issue of The

f) 4

Chronicle of Higher Education addresses this posi-tion.)

It. A fourth assumption posits the existence of somegeneric competencies in pedagogy and the disci-pline to be taught, e.g., physical education, whichare believed to be essential to effective instruction.A number of efforts have been undertake4,to deli-neate the generic teaching competencies. Florida,Georgia, and Washington state serve as examplesof such efforts.

5. Professional organizations, e.g., unions, spe-cialization associations such as WAHPERD, andother agencies such as the employing school dis-tricts as well as colleges/universities, share the re-sponsibility for and must be involved in identifyingcompetencies and designing the professional prep-aration programs, i.e., the content, process, andOutcomes of training.

6. The pre-service program cannot identify nor de-velop all competencies needed for effective teach-ing. Some competencies/needs can be identifiedonly after the individual has begun professionalpractice; they are unique to the person involvedand to the milieu in which he/she is teaching.

These factors and assumptions led tb the develop-ment and adoption of Washington state's firstcompetency-based teacher education and certificationstandards in 1971. The standards emphasized two keynotions: first, preparation programs must be designedaround competencies derived from a clear rolestaternent/definition; second, competencies relevantto the respective role, e.g., physical education teacher,must be identified by a "consortium" representing thevarious special interest groups, i.e., a colleg:e/university physical education faculty, school dis-trict(s), a teacher union, and the appropriate special-ized professional association. The consortium was re-

Asponsible for defining the professional role and essen-tial competencies, since no generic or specific com-petencies were set forth in the 1971 Standards. In 1978,the State Board of Education adopted revised program

The Consortium comrpised of:

'college/universityschool districi(s)collective bargaining unitunionprofessional association (e.w, WAHPERD)(

standards and certification requirements which iden-tified three components of professional training pro- .grams. These elements must be included in any pro-gram to be approved by the State Board of Education: adegree component; an experience component; a com-petency component (see Appendix A).

Although the 1978 StandardS provide more struc-ture and specify requirements ift the deg.ree, experi-ence, and competency components, they retain someof the principles from the 1971* Standdrds. Chiefamong those notions is that of the consortiurn'and thenecessity for all who have special expertise and vestedinterest in teacher education to also share the respon-sibility and accountability for the design and im-plementation of the program as'well as its outcomes(product). Figure 1 depicts the role of the consortiumin Washington state's CBTE programs.

DefinitionGiv/en the preceding assumptions- and limitations,

our definition of a physical educator was arrived at byconsiensus of the program unit, Teacher EducationStandards in Physical Education, known by its ac-ronym, TESPE. The following member agencies pai-ticipated in the development of definitions, rolestatements, and performanCe indicators (see Appen-dix B): Kennewick School District No. 17; KennewickEducation Association; Richland School District No.400; Richland Education Association; Department ofPhysical Education for Men, Washington State Uni-versity; Department of Physical Education for Women,Washington State University. The TESPE documentdescribes a physical educator as a specialist in humanmovement and the play element in culture; therefore,the departments of physical education use the follow-ing working definition for the body of knowledge: thestudy of human movement phenomena, including theplay element in our culture.

The TESPE document further delineates roles which'a physical educator fulfills: teacher of phsical skillsand related activities; program planner; promoter of

The Consortium responsible for:

developing the role statement and defining-subject-specific and role-specific competenciesdesigning/recommending program content ,aryiprocess to address competenciesassessing student progress toward competenciesand other program outcomesverifying ro state that students meet all certificationrequirements including cornpetenciesperiodically evaluating and, as necessary, recom-Mending program changes

Figure 1. The consortium function in CBTE programs in Washington State,

20

health and safety; requisitioner of equipment and .maintenance thereof; public relations interpreter; ad-viser (cdunseling and guidance); member of schoolfaculty-and professional organizations; member of ateam (physicians, staff associates, special education,other faculty). Although, the delinitions, roles, and'competency indicators were originally developed ire1971, they appear to be consistent with the 19781stan7dards of the state df WaShingt'on (WAC 180-79) inas-much as the latter generic competencies required forinitial certification of teachers include: instructionalskill; classroom management techniques; subject mat-ter knowledge;.piipil-student personnel clompetencies(learning, growth) development); pupil discipline.

Arriving at a definition, or indeed at roles or compe-tency indicators, by the process of consensusis not'aneasy task. That this 1971 definirion is still valid speaks'to the foresight, and in some instances, fearlessness ofthe participants. The public School people, for exam- -ple, indicated that they could not corntIce teir audi-ence that a study of play constituted an educationalexperience. Conversely, some of the imiversity peoplehad difficulty-acceptipg any of the 1316dy of, knowledgeliterature at that time. Thns, while the .definition mayhave imperfections, it has permitted us to collaborate

*with'the public schools, meet state Gertification stan-dards, survey our own curricula for omissions, andgenerally talk with each other about alternate meansfor achieving the agreed-upon cOmpetencies. The pre-ceding rhetdric is another way of saying: "we knowthat we are not perfect, but we do have a vehicle and adirection which allow us to move toward a solution ofsome of the problems inhereritin teacher education".

A second definition should be included here, that\for curriculum. Within this program, curriculum istaken to include both the content (discipline elements,professional elements, movement elbments) and themeans of delivery, to students (competency base). Aswill be noted in the next section, although the curricu-lar changes have been occurring over a nearly 10-yearperiod, not every course in the physical educationcurriculum has a complete competency base. Perhapsthere are some which never will.

Course Number Name

MPE.WPE 104 -

PEP 199PEp 261!TY 313PEP 362PEP 382*PEP 463*PEP 465PEP 482PEP 494 ,11Ed 363*

Professional Preparation

Secondary

The curriculum foil professionar preparation 4t-u-den ts in the secondary school program Washington.State Uniyersity\ (WSU) has the following cornpo-.'nents: core (mostly what others would, tem "disci-pline", some Professional, but regsiired of all.secondarypreparation stucients); coursework or competency(basically movement-orieneed); analySis of skill or,teaching of skill (moyement base with a high level ofcognitive and affective competency indicators that areprofessional in nature, i.e., indicative of' effectiveteachers).

Core component. While many of the courses in thecore could be considered as those where knowledge isdisseminated 'without ap eye toward application, .inalmost all cases, the instructors who appeared beforethe Professional Preparation (P2) Committee (see Ap-pendixB) have indicated that application to theteachingkarning situation is one portion of eachcourse. Therefore, within .our competency-basedmodel, what is generally identified as .a study of thediscipline . by otl-rers is partially translate'd into compe-

.,tency statements (outcomes) that are geared towardone or more of the eight roles for the Physical educatorpreviously identifiki as part of the TESPE document.

There are two ways in which a curriculuna can bechanged to a competency base. Alt courses could bedropped, and new ones created to sPeak to the specificroles and ontconres. Two, competency iHdica torswhich have been.developed could be attached to exist2Mg courses, cross-indexing until the stated outcomescap be accounted foi within the. curriculum. We ilaveretained the traditional course structurvna have at-tempted to match the competencies to course content,adding and dropping courses in the refining process.Table 1 ipdicates the core courses in the WSU cur-riculum for the secondary school major.

Some cautionary staterpents with regard to the link-age of competency statements and discipline coursesare necessary here. Becanse of the changes within our

Table 1. Core courses in the secondary curriculum.

Art and Science of frlovientPisciplines of Human MovementHuman Ana'tomyMotor Skills AcquisitionKinesiologySecondary School PRCAramsThe Atypical Student.is EducPhysiology of Exercise',Psychological/ Sociological PrinciplesEvaluation in Physical EducationFirst Aid

*professional, rather than disdpline

r.) r.A. 0

Semester Credit Flours

1 (lab)2 (lectOre)

' 3 (2 lecture, 1 lab)2 (1 lecture, 1 lab)3 (2 lecture, 1 lab)4 (3 lecture, 1 lab)2 (1 lec:tore, 1 lab)3 (2 kcture, I lab)3 (3 lecture)3 (2 lecture, I lab)2 (I lecture, lab)

'Iota] 27-28 semester hours

two departments, e.g., a mandate to- merge curricula,and those from the .Superintendent of Public Instruc-tion, e.g., 1978 Standards, our work in revising com-petency statemenits in the disdpline area has not keptpace with the ctirriculurnivork in the professiodal andmovement-based sequences. Fiowever, in the lastyear, the P2 Committee requested that the instructors.of the discipline core courses evaluate their coursecontent in relation to existing competency indicators.We are convinced at this time that, although revisionsare necessary, the courses offered still respond to thezoles identIfied by TESPE.

One further explanation is necessary. The format forconference f44pers viewed the disciplinary componentas purely-knowledge-based, with no eye toward ap-plication'. Ourconceptualization of the physical educa-tor as possessing specific competencies necessary tofunction in a variety of roles presupposes applicationof knowledge from the discipline of human move-ment. This application is currently seenas occurringthrough laboratory experiences. The only coursewithin the secondary curriculum which does not carrya laboratorycrelated experience is in the psychologicaland sociological area (WPE/MPE104 serves as the labo-ratory fOr PEP 199). All of the other courses provide forsome application and exploration Of the principles,'theories, and concepts associated with that portion ofthe discipline of human movement. Ilowever, be-cause there has noebeen a'concerted effort to specifythe competen,cies for all courses, some classes are cur-rently concerned more.with transmissiOn of knowl-edge, in the traditional pattern of a university.

X schematic of the roles, competencies, and specific_

couises witt-be more help.ful, as seen in Table 2. Thecomplete listing of competencies and courses will beavailable upon request. ft should be noted also that thecurriculum for the elementary school concentration.and .for the K-12 specialist elementary courses hasbeen reviewed and keyed to the competency indi-cators. Each course in that series carries primary andsecondary responsibility toWard the attainment of aspecific listing cxf competencies,

The modes of inquiry used in the core courses varyfor each class. The paradigms \ employed exemplifythose associated with the arew addressed: scientificmethod, cinematographic analysis of movement,problem-solvings, and/or creptive expression, amongothers. Ideally, the resultant body of knowledge at-tained from the core courses is seen as specific compe-tency setS necessary to perform the roles identified bythe TESPE mbdel, that is, to make the Student a. spe-cialist in human mdvernent phenomena.

The professional component courses provide acombination of theoretical ahd practical experiences tosupport four areas of teacher preparation: the elemen-tary school physical educator (degree in education);the K-12 physical eduCation specialist (degree in phys-ical education); the secondary school physical educa-tor (degree in physical education); the coaching minor(an approved teaching,minor offered through the de-partments of physical educatioh). In addition to theseprofessional .areas, but not incliided in this paper arethe health education teaching minor, the options inathletic training, aquatics, and dance, (and the recrea-tion degree programs. Each of the areas of specializaltion, except coaching, requires students to takecourses identified in the physical education theorycore, but the professional core differs for each. In eachcase, there are theory-based courses which lead tofield experiences. Three of the courses for teacher cer-tification required By the department of education alsoprovide field e*Perience. These are EDUC 300 (assist-ing, at the student's local high school or junior highschool prior to She s'tart of the university academicyear), EDUC 303 (observation and limited teaching inthe Pullman schools), and EDUC 405/06 ,(studentteaching). These opportunities through the educationdepartment may or may not be in the pHysical educa-tion setting, Within the physical education cur-riculum, students have a variety of field experiencesrelated to their malor area (elementary, etc.).

One of the,. major courses in the secondary cur-riculum is a theoretical-practical pne, SecondarySchool Programs (PEP 328), which provides lecture,

Table 2. Example of roles, competencies, and courses.

!IDLE: Teacher,of Physical Skills and Related Ac'tivities

Competenciq1. 'Analyzes skills, rules; theory, and strategy of gen-

eral Firogram activities appropriate to all levels ofability

2. an generalize mechanics of performance from onedctivity-to-arro tire r when appropriate by-4p p lication

of:a'. Mechanical principles ,b. movement principlesc. time, spaee, force, and flow concepts

3. Evaluates pupil performance

"Discipline" ourse -

Kinesiblogy (PEP 362)Motor Skp.ls Acquisition (PEP 313)

Kinesiology (PEP 362)-----Motor,-Skil1s-Acquisition-(PER-313)

Evaluation in Physical Education (PEP 494)

22

1

laboratory, and practicum experiences. The coursecontent is organized to cover teaching strategies, somelearning theory, class organization and conduct, -andlegal liability. The laboratory poition of the class fo-cuses on Mosston's (1972) spectrum of styles. Stu-dents participate in a micro-teaching activity wherethey choose a particular style, teaCh the lesson, areevaluated, and reteach the lesson based on thechanges suggested by the evaluation.

As part of this course, each student is assigned toassist an instructor in a uniyersity activity course.These courses are part of the elective program offeredby both departments of physical education. The PEP382 students are required to act as both aides andteachers. They assume organization duties and, whenready,gradually begin teaching: At first they teach aportion of the class period then have full responsibilityfor at least two class periods. This segment 6f PEP 382is not graded but is evaluated by the instructor of the,activity cla'ss. The evaluation is Conducted twice dur-ing the semester. The forms used are those developedfrom the TESPE roles and competency statements and-become pah of the student's closed file retained by theacademic adviser.

The newly established 300-series courses (analysisof sport or:teaching of dance or aquatics) also offer theseCondary preparation student an opportunity fortheory-into-practice work. An examination of someSample compOtencies from these courses (see Appen-dix C and the next section of this paper) will illustratehow the student must translate knowledges intohigher order cognitive activities in these .courses.

Students at the secondary level have the responYbil-ity for middle school, junior high, or high schoolclasses during. the 8-week student teaching experi-ence. They also have the option- at several of the stu-dent teachincenters to remain for afull semester andteach at-one level or, if they are K-12, at both elemen-tary and secondary *levels. If. the student is assigned toone of the two student teaching centers associatedwith the TESPE unit, he*or she is supervised _by mem-bers of the consortium. Such tudents are evaluated bytheir supervisor and cooperating teacher with theTESPE-derived forrn. This senior ye.ar practicum isusually eight weeks in duration although more stu-dents appear to remain for the fullsernester, and thisadditional time commitment may .soon become a re-quirement.

In the student :teaching centers associated withTESPE, the evaluation forms are returned to the phys-ical education departments for review and reference.

'Because only two" of the eight teaching centers areinvolved in the collaborative unit, other centers do not

_re_torn_the_ev.aluatidn_forms to_ the_p_hysical educationdepartments. The cooperation extended by the TESPE

,..membersis voluntary.A brief explanation is necessary here regarding.the

'student teaching experience. Much of Washington isrural, Ath only four "densely populated". areas.

Therefore, it is impossible for departments to travel tothe 'various student teaching centers to supervise,theirown candidates'. The education department providesthe 'supervisory work by hiring and placing individu-alsin the communities surrounding the centers. Theseindividnals have the responsibility for st ents fromali disciplines, with the master teaCher pmajor role model during this period. T e educationdepartmerlt has riot yet employed the competency-_based, collaborativemodel apprbaCh to teacherpreparation; they must do so to comply vith,the 1978Standards upon the next site visit by OSPI.

Professional componentprofessional mission. Thepurpose of the professional .component of the an---riculurn is to help in the translation of theory intopractice at some point before the student enters thefield as a certified professional. The courses discussedare seen ,as providing the knowledges and un51er-standings essential to planning, Organizing, andexecuting learning experiences. The P2 Committeemade a philosophical commitment, or acted upon theassamption that, the primary goal was to prepare pro-fessionals, rather than technicians. By our definition, aprofessional teaches children and adolescents ratherthan content as the overriding goal: Therefore, it be-came necessary to make hard decisions based on whatWas required in the way of preparation for teaching.The assumptions under which curricular decisionswere made- (ultimately accepted by the joint faculty)were:

1. We cannot prepare every initial candidate in everyarea of physical skills and related activities.

2. Either the 'Scientific base fiburses are important asleading to competent decision-making, ox anyonewith knowledge of the specificIskill or sport canteach physical education.

8. The ability to solve problems, read, and gain infor-mation abbut subject matter not taken in under-graduate (initial) work is an important competency.

4. The courses should be taught in a manner "whichwill permit transfer of learning"from one skill area toanother, from one teaching situatiqn' to another,and from the scientific base to the practical situa-tion.

Conversely, a technician was seen as an individualwho has specialized competence in a limited range ofactivities and whose goal is to teach these activities. Ithas been our intention' to prepare professional indi-viduals who fulfill the definition of physical educatorand can function in all eight specified roles.

Movement performance. During the decade inwhich-Washington State-University-has been involvedwith an on-off -affair with CBTE, the curricula for thetwo departments, at the undergraduate level, wasformulated upon two separate modelS with two dis-tinct philosophies about the role of movement perfor-mance. In March, 1980, following-a 3-year intensive

23f.) c)

study 15Y the P2 Committee, a combined under-graduate curriculum for the secondary school spe-cialist was approved by the two faculties. The previouswork of the Department of Physical Education forWomen as reported by Hu lac, et al. (1975) was animportant underpinning for this project. However,cons6nsus for the combined-curriculum is attributableto P2 efforts to develop common competencies, in

.three domains, for what would be, in the new cur-rieulurn, the PEP 100-level-skills co urseS and the PEP300-level analysis courses (see Appendix C)..

Performance: meaos, ends, or mean ing. Performance inmovement is important in the preparation of the sec-ondary school major. Of the 39-40 hours required for amajor in -physical education, students must elect 8hours of activity courses. The choices are somewhatcontrolled, but students select 5 to 8 hours from PEP100-series courses, 0 to 3 units from among a numberof MPE/WPE general activities, andlor pass compe-tency examinations in the three domains for each activ-ity in which such coMpetency is to be deMonstrated.Performance in activity is seen both as an end; asindicated in the competencies below, and as a meansto advance to other stages of the professional cur-riculum. Thus, the value of movement performance inthe WSU curriculun:i can be judged externally by threeindices: proportion of the total hours; kinds of com-petencies required in movement courses; the sequenceof courses.

As indicated, students spend approximafely 20% oftheir major course work in activity unless they passwpiver examinations. However, the general compe-tency indicators for' the PEP 100-level courses pre-pared by P2 and approved by the joint facultiesnumber six in the cognitive domain, seven in the affec-tkie, and four in the psycho-motdr. Therefore, ft maybe said that, while movement performance is irnpor-tant, the,performer is vieWed as a thinking, feeling,doing person.

The current list of competency indicators for boththe 100-level skills courses and the 300-lewl- analysiscourses is included in Appendix C. Some of the earlierwork at WSU was reported by Coleman (1972) andEnberg (1974). In the psycho-motor domain, forexarriple, the last of the four indicators states:

"students (will execute a movement pattern withfinesse and with good form. There 'should be evi-dence .of mastery of movement pattern, a qualityperformance (refining). Desirable, but-not requiredto pass the course."

PEP 100-series(8 units)

-Skills, drills,and progressions

PEP 313(2 unitsj

how learning()CCU rs

The taxonomy for the psych-motor domain is based onJewett and Mullan (1977) and earlier works from thatgroup.

In the 100-series skills classes, students are expectedto operate between 1.00 and 3.00 in Bloom's (1956)taxonomy. General level statements were originallyattached to the competency indicators, but P2 deter-Mined that, with the bulk of information that our col-leagues had to consider, it was not necessary that theywrestle with the problem of levels at that point. Thecompetency indicators were.arranged in hierarchicalorder for consideration by the faculty, however.

The work in the affective domain was patternedafter the efforts of the Department'of Physical Educa-tidn for Women (Hulac, et al, 1975) and generatedmany healthy discusSions within the P2 committee.For a.task which utilized so much committee tirrie, thenumber of competency indicators is relatively few.However, the faculty (followed by the UniversityCatalog Committee and the University Senate) agreedthat the competency forMat -Was valid, understand-able, and an adequatv Oasis for the generation of the

.100- and 3004eVel CourSes.The third index of importance is sequencing. Within

the new curriculum, the 100-level skills classes are thebase of the professional preparation program. Figure 2indicates the thinking of the P2 Committee for thesequencing from learning the skills of an activity tolearning about teaching an activ4.

Analysis. The new 300-series, analysis of sportsperformance of teaching of dance or aquatics, is ar-ranged upon' the competency indicator base so thatstudents must pass the exit competencies for the 100-level skills classes to be able to enter the 300-levelanalysis course. The emphasis_in these...courses ismainly cognitive and affective. The3re is only onepsycho-mdtor objective:

"The student will invent or construct unique ornovel options in motor performance. These may be-different, ways of performing the same skill, extern-

, poraneous performances or combining of learnedmovements into unique motbr designs new to thegifforrner (varying, improvising, composing; thecreative processes)."

The assumption is that the discipline course, kinesiol-ogy, gives the student tools for, analysis of human.movement: In addition, four units- are required inanalysis of the chosen sports.activity or in the teachingof the selected dance or in water safety instruction.

PEP 382(4 units) (4-units)

PEP 300-series

analysis of theperformance of

others

Figure 2. Concept of progression in the "professional" sequence.

24

teaching sirategies matchedwith learning theory:Curriculum; liability

The evaluation course is also a requirement, so stu-dents have the equivalent of 10 hours in analysis-oriented work: kinesiology, plus four special activities,plus evaluation.

Summary. It would be a fair assumption thatmovement performance and analysis are yiewed asvalid subject matter both by the scope of the cur-riculum and by.the definition of physical edtication asthe study of human movement. Table 3 indicates thepattern of clisses, placing their emphasis as theoretical(bodir. o 1.-nbwledge) or practical (professional). It willagain: be noted that most ppre discipline classes areexpected to emphasize application to movementevents.

Elementary

The course work for the elementary specialist has asimilar distribution pattern, although the courses dif-fer. There are two possible combinations; the elemen-tary miijor, which is really housed in the Departmentof Education, is "on loan" to physical education for 30hours of course work; the K-12 specialist is a secon-dary major who adds the elementary core courses tohislher curriculum. Practicum experiences are offered

these students in PEP 254, a creative dance class inwhich- ehildreirt are taught by the students at the uni-versity or in another setting. Two courses in activity,PEP 379 (primary) and 380 (intermediate),.offer stu-dents the opportunity to teach peers and use videoreplay as a device for identifying strengths and weak-nesses. Students in these courses are urged to contractfor additional wbrk in programs for handicapped chil-dren or In- the elementary.school program for an in-

'formal c ass day once a week. The praaicum, PEP 389,places t e shldent in one of the Pullman elementary

K

WEL MPE 104

PEP 199

PEP 261

PEP 313

PEP 362

PEP 465

PEP 482 .

--PEP 494

schools for two afternoons or two mornings each weekfor a full semester of observation and teaching. Theexperience is supervised by both a district and a uni-versity specialist. Again, the evaluation is keyed toTESPE roles and competency indicators and parallelsthe form used for the secondary student on campusand in student.teaching..In addition to these experi-ences, the K-12 student has PEP 382, previously de-scribed. The culminating professional experience forthe elementary school and K-12 major, as for all teach-ing majors, is student teaching (EDUC 405-06).

Coaching

In the coaching minor, the courses are labeled pro-fessional, analysis, application, and movement. Thisteaching minor, unlike the parent, physical education,lacks a true "discipline" componentand is thus moreprofessionally (practically)-oriented.. The theory-into-practice courses are Care and Prevention of Ath-letic Injuries (PEP 266) and Administration (PEP 488)along with two to four courses in-the coaching of agiven activity. There is also a practicum (PEP 390)which may be taken in the athletic programs of thepublic schools or with one of the many youth sportsprograms in the local area. For the practicum, studentsmust contract with both the coaching minor, adviserand the agency involved. The student may choosemore than one coaching practicum. Where possible,students in the coaching minor are given some coach-ing responsibilities in addition to their student teach-ing assignment. This experience is not related to thepracticum just described :and is dependent on theneeds of the school district.

Table 3. Emphasis of course work in secondary curriculum:

Profes'sional

Art and Science of Movement

Disciplines of fluman Movement

Human Anatomyo ..

Motor Skills Acquisition

Kinesioloa

Physiology of Exercise

PEP 100-series skills classes

PEP 300-series analysis classes

HEd 363'First AidPEP 382 Secondary ProgramsPEP 463 Atypical in Phys Educ

PsychologicaLSociological Principles

E;aluation in Physical Education

25 eU

Entry and Exit Requirements

Entry and Exit

- Entry maybe dealt with in two ways: entry intocourses; entry into, or acceptance into, the program. Itis assumed thatstudents admitted to the university areable to enter the 100-level courses in skills and anyother university courses. Entry into other thanfreshman level course work may depend upon com-pleting prerequisites. For example, at least two of the100-level skills courses must precede the motor learn-ing course; at least two of the 300-level courses mustprecede the secondary programs course, anatomy is aprerequisite for kinesiology, and so on.

Acceptance as a Z-..ertified major student is consid-ered- a serious professional commitment. Universitypolicy states that students should declar'e a major be-fore they have accumulated 60 semester credits. Stu-dents interested in physical education, entering asfreshmen, are assigned to advisers in the two depart-ments via the university CUrriculum Advisory Pro-gr* (CAP). Competency reporting forms are com-pleted for students in the 100-level activity courses,the 300-level analysis courses, and the secondary pro-grams course. These forms become part of the perma-nent.advising folder and are utilized to counsel stu-dents regarding strengths, weaknesses, and potentialas maj6r students. When a'student requests to major.in physical education, this accumulation of reports isconsidered bY the Advising and Scholarship Commit-tee which may vote tO accept a student or suggest thatthe student acquire more skill, higher grades, etc.prior to becoming certified. The committee may alsosuggest tha t the student seek another major. Twelve ofthe TESPE competencies are included on the reportingform for certification and serni-annual review of stu-dents. Three sample competencies are:

A 11 b understands self and realizes possible be-haviors that could occur while under stress;

G l'a maintains rapport with peers;G 2 b completes class assignments.Exit requirements are stipulated for all courses, but

not all courses are basecOsolely upon compekncies.An example of exit competencies from the course, PEP383, which is the development and learning class forthe elementary school specialist, is given in the tablebelow.

TESPE # Indicator

For those courses which, are completelycompetency-based, e.g., PEP 383, the exit dependsupon meeting all of the criteria at the specified level.Such experiences are based on a TOTE (test-retest)model (Miller, Galanter, and Pribram, 1965), and stu-dents may repeat evaluation experiences until satisfac-tory performance .is shown. Exit from other coursesdepends upon meeting the requirements stated withan acceptable grade; students must repeat majorcourses where the grade earned is a D or below.

A third means of exit-is the competency test. Earlyon, the curriculum cornmittee of the women's depart-ment developed standardized competency examina-tions in the three domains for beginning skills classes(PEP 100-series). Waiver examinations in the men'sdepartment were treated by individual instructors andat random times during the semester. For the newcombined curriculum, competency examinations willbe given during the first two weeks of class, but thestudent must register to take the examination. Awaiver is given with a passing score. The student maythen elect other course(s).

Transfer Students

If a transfer student has less than 45 hours, he or sheis normally assigned to a department adviser via CAP.Transcripts of students entering with mor.e hours areevaluated by the Department Chairpersons. In the formercase, students may request to certify after a semes-ter of successful work if the proper requirements havebeen fulfilled. In the latter case, once the Chair signsthe transcript, the student becomes a certified major.Currently there is negotiation with the AdmissionsOffice to permit the departments to place these stu-dents in a holding pattern for one semester so that thesame basic competencies can be checked for them asfor the native students or for those who enter withfewer hours. In either case, transfer students are as-signed to one of two experienced advisers in the de-partments who further evaluate their course work andassist the students to project a two- or three-year planof study. Any errors irufirst semester pranning reducethe- degrees of freedom for future semesters. How-ever, if the student has taken the proper sequence incommunity college, chooses an appropriate minor,and has no grade difficulties, it is possible for him/herto complete degree work within the normal time span.

Table 4. Sample indicators and experiences for PEP 383.

A 17a(3) Recognizes perceptual and motordevelopment stages .

A I d Can make adjustment withinactivities so that each pupilcan participate a1 his/her level of ability

Learning Experiences Evaluation

Viewing tapes, films;reading; lectures

Discussions; lecture;readings; role play

Performance onfilm evaluation(TOTE model)IF . . . THENpaper (may beco-authored)

26 r,k.4

Activity Courses Practicum

4 hours requiredin PEP 100-series )1.

PEP 254 Creativedance (practicumwith children)

Children's Activities

PEP 379PEP 380

Figure 3. Sequencing of professionally-based courses for elementary.

Barriers to completion within this time frame are: selec-tion of multiple minors; need to repeat courses; previ-ous preparation which is inadequate, e.g., not havingcompleted GUR's; indecision concerning career goals.A trend in recent years is that community collegetransfers arrive with few science courses. Such prepa-ration places pressure on the student to complete atight, laboratory-oriented curriculum within, the nor-mal time span. A secondtrend is that students appearto prefer a longer preparation period, and often availthemselves of other,teaching options to become moreemployable, e.g., selecting a K-12 specialiiation, ad-ding coaching or a second minor, taking an aquaticsspecialty, etc.

Relationships, Sequences, andProblems

Relationships and SequencingThe relationship and sequencing of courses in the

secondary school major has already been explained.Sequencing of professional courses for the elemen6ry

Body of Knowledge

Culminating Experiences

PEP 389 practicumPEP 383 motor devel/learnPEP 381 curriculum/evaluation

-school major is shown in Figure 3. The K-12 specialist,in addition to the secondary major, takes the followingcourses in the sequence: 254; 379; 380; 381; 383; ,389.The concept of sequence, as shown is: activity; experi-ence with children; experience with children's ac-tivities; teaching children in the public schools whilestudying motor development, motor learning, cur-,riculum, and evaluation.

The balance of courses between body of knowledgeand professional orientation in the elementary cur-riculum can be explained, as was that for the,seCon-dary school major (see Table 5).

The coaching minor has a base which is stronglyprofessional. For the physical educator, who has takenboth kinesiology and physiology of exercise, thecourse PEP 330 is not required. Obviously, the physi-cal educator who also takes the coaching minor has amore discipline-oriented approach than does thecoaching minor student from another discipline.

General competencies for the coaching minor havebeen developed, but they have not yet been approvedthrough TESPE. The prospective coach coula fulfill theteaching minor requirements by taking as few as twomovement (skills) courses. For this minor, courses are

Table 5. Emphasis of course work in the elementary curriculum.

Professional

- PEF 261 Human Anatomy

PEP 362 Kinesiology

Activity courses (4 hours of the PEP 100-series specifically required)

PEP 254 Creative Dance

PEP 383 Perceptual-motor learningand development

HEd 363 First AidPEP 379 Primary ActivitiesPEP 380 Intermediate Activities

PEP 389 PracticurnPEP 381 Curriculum and Evaluation

Note: 5 additionaLhours are chosen. PEP 463, atypical physical education, is an unwritten requirement which has not yet beenapproved through channels as a major-change: The other 3 hours are usually taken in 100-level or 300-level skills oranalysis work. It should be remembered that these 30 hour students are not physical education majors but eduyMionmajors.

27 9

Table 6. Emphasis of bourse work in the coaching minor.

Biological and Mechanical Aspectsof Sports (PEP 330)

Speech

PEP 220 Officiating

PEP 226 Care and Prevention of Athletic In-juries

Behavioral Aspects of Sport (PEP 489)

PEP 488 Administration of Sport

Advanced Skills (200-level) and Coaching-of(300-level) courses (Total of 6, at least 2 fromeach category)

Practicum (PEP 390) can satisfy one coachingcredit

sequenced only by number and are identified Withnormal university progress, e.g., 200 = sophomore.

Problems in Implementation1. Tirne is the most pressing of all problems. All of

the changes in curriculum haye been accomplishedwithout time compensation to the individuals in-volved (committee chair now receives 10%). It is dif-ficult for busy people to .find enough time to thinkthrough whole problemS to whole sOlutions. Withoutthe efforts of colleagues who feel that curriculum isim'portant, the progress would be much Slower, and itis difficult to sustain interest and drive over longperiods, e.g., 1971 on. Meetings with the other mem-bers of the consortium present time and travel 'prob-lems. Public school people can participate only duringschool hours (negotiated), and their substitutes mustbe compensated out of the small fund froin OSPIwhich supports TESPE.

In 1978, the State Superintendent of Public Instruc-tion (Supervisor of Physical Education) surveyed 10departments of physical education in higher educa-tion. Seven were aware of the new teaching gtandards.Only two had identified competencies for teacherpreparation in physical education. All 10 were inter-ested in working cooperatively with other preparatoryprograms to develop the competencies. However, sixsaid that their institutions could not provide evenminimum financial (travel) and support time for suchefforts.

2. Governance is an issue which has never beensolved. Presumably the regulations are aimed at de-

--partnientsol-eduta tion. Yet' staff aSsoeiate groups(counselors, school nurses, etc.) have established theirown competency statements and collaborative units.We feel that our governance unit, TESPE, is opera-tional. Yet, when our own department of education

forms its program units, we may find ourselves inother alignments.and with generic, rather than spe-cific, competencies.

3. Regular progress through the program should:becompetency-based 'rather than time-based. Althoughthe 100-level skills, 300-level analysis, first aid, watersafety instructor, physical education -for the handi-capped courses, and the entire elementary school spe-cialist curriculum.are established on,com petency indi-cators, either from TESPE or other agencies, e.g., RedCross, IRUC, not all courses are as yet so structured. Atrue CBTE program would permit recycling as re-

.quired, until the candidate attained,all competencies atspecified levels. Practically speaking, those studentswho fail to complete all competencies receive C *orlower grades. At present, a 2.00 (C) average is requiredto certify and remain in a major. The departments areattempting to raise this standard to 2.25 but will needto process that change through university channels.At any rate, it is still possible for a student to reach thestudent -teaching stage without having achieved cer-tain competencies. The education requirements for,student teaching are less well defined than are ourown, and occasionally we must remind that depart-ment that certain students are not yet eligible for thepractical experience.

4. Legal implications can be a problem. Many of thepre-certification competencies are in that all-important and ill-defined affective domain: The Ad-missions Office has advised that there could be diffi-culty denying certification to students who have anadequate GPA. Storage of competency informationcould be a probre-m. TheCollaborative unit would re-quire access to such recOrds to grant a candidate con-tinuing certification. There may be problems in thisarea that we have not even foreseen. For example, wedo not know if we could deny certification or gradua-

289.

tion to students who cannot spell or construct gram-matically correct sentences.

5. Alternate learning experiences must be arrangedfor students, according to CBTE practice. Only a few ofour courses presently contain such options. Althoughof benefit to the student, and ultimately tO the pupilsin the common schools, these extra asSignments are aterrific overload for instructors who have excessiveschedules in comparison with sister institutions.

6. Not all instructors in the departMents are awareof taxonomies; hierarchies, and task analysis. Further,not all believe that CBTE is tire route for teacher prepa-ration. Some even feel that current state regulationsare an infringement upon academic freedom. Theseattitudes appear to be dissipating, however, and at themeeting of the two faculties, during which the com-bined curriculum was accepted, most faculty membersfelt that their courses could be constructed within theframework offered by P2. One major problem withcurricular change in any institution, however, must beeducation of the faculty, and tinie-consuming,consen-sus sessions. Since this paper was prepared, two in-service meetings for all REP 100-activity and PEP 300-analysis course instructors were most beneficial. Theyprecipitated exchange of cognitive strategies and pro-moted positive feelings about curriculum and fellowinstructors.

7. At WSU there is no provision for departments tosupervise their own student teachers. Program unitswill need to be established at all Teaching CenterS forquality control of final performance evaluations.

8. Evaluation remains an unsolved problem. Todate., maximum effort has gone to construction of aprogram. The next step is to develop more firm evalua-tion procedures for the total curriculum.

9. All participants must cotinue to develop trust,as the feeling of autonomy can be.threatened, and thesharing of authority can become paramount.

Relationship to Other Fields

The Departments of Physical Education for Men andfor Women, The Department of Continuing Educa-tion, The Department of Industrial Education, and theDepartment of Education constitute the College ofEducation. There is an All University Teache'r Councilon Education, composed of representatives of eachdiscipline which offers teaching majors or. minors.This council serves in advisory capacify regarding is-sues in teacher preparation. No other departmentsrepresented a ppear.to be concerned with CBTE at thistime.

Within the College there is overlap and some sensetarritorialiraperative-:For-example-,--tduration r

quires all teacher preparation students to take a coursein tests and measurenients. Otir departments also re-quire the evaluation in physical .education course. We .

have never resolved this duplication of work.

29

At the undergraduate level, the departments offerthe B.S. degree in physical education and the B.A.degree in recreation. We also grant teaching minors incoaching and health education and options in aqua-tics, dance, and athletic training. A few courses areshared across majors and options. One health courseis required of all teaching majors. Generally, there is aspirit of cooperation and common purpose betweenthe two departments and among the departmentalprograms. Also, other program units, e.g., recreation,are using competency reporting forms for commoncourses and are adopting the advising procedureswhich were developed for 'CBTE in a manner thatwould parallel the competency-based notion.

One aspect of the physical education curriculum hasnot been mentioned in this paper, the i,4ork of theNon-Teaching Committee (NT). This paper is con-cerned with the competency-based program inteacherpreparation (CBTE). The NT committee, oPerating in aparallel time frame with P2, has planned for cur-riculum leading to careers not educationally-orientedbut consistent with a B.S. in physical education. Areport of that work and the planned outcomes wouldrequire another paper, and the direction is not dissimi-lar from other options offered at-this conference. Theprocess of developing such curricula has been similarto the work of P2 and is best described through theverb forms: caring; studying; sharing; convincing.

The reader may, at this point, assume that the CBTEcurriculum is founded solely upon experiences inphysical education and education. This degree, aswith all others in the University, contains a. 28-hourgeneral university requirement (GUR), designed tohelp the student attain a significant general education.Many of these courses complement both the CBTEprogram and the "drawing board" NT options. Exam-ples of GUR courses WOuld be !hose in psychology, .

physiology, sociology, and communications. It is an-ticipated that the NT options would draw heavily fromsuch courses at both lower- and upper-division (spe-cialized) levels.

Evaluation

Original validation of the roles and competencies.came from statements of the teaehers in our collabora-tive unit about what they actually did in fheir jobs.Therefore, the program itself has face validity. Theroles of teachers may have changed in the int4rim, andthe competencies themselves should be evaluated andweighted for importance. The recent OSPI site team

. found the program to be in compliance with the 1978Standards, Includeci in this site visit wereinterviewswith students and graduates, review of program corn-ponen es, review of competency statements, review ofthe new curriculum and procedures leading to thechange, etc. At the same time.; an NCATE team found

, the physical education programs to be "exemplary".

One portion of the old curriculum which served anevaluative purpose was the PEP 496 Senior Seminar inwhich Students assessed their preparation and thestudent teaching' ex perience. Job placement indirectlysupports the excellence of the program because feed-back from employers is positive. At present, our stu-dent evaluations can tell us whether the initial candi-dates have attained the cornpetencies; we .nped .toevaluate the relevance of the competencies. Since thispaper was prepared, evaluation of the new PEP 100and 300 courses has been obtained from students andinstructors. The-latter have attempted to evaluate theroles of these courses within the scope of the cur-riculum. It would be fair to say that the stated out-comes are being achieved. Whether_these are the bestoutcomes is not known.

ImplicationsSome educators have looked' to C.BTE to solve the

problems and resolve the criticisms of teacher educa-tion. Obviously, they delude themselves-.

CBTE will not in and of itself guarantee change or im-provement in teacher education programs nor practitioners.

The quality and relevance of the prOgram and its,'product will continue to be a fundion of the persorisand resources involved, the way in which the pro-gram is implemented, the process by which out-conies (including competencies) are identified, andthe validity of the program in preparing persons for

the reSpectiVe role.

CBTE will not necessarily alter the deductive, a priori,and often-unilateral process by which preparation programsare determined. .

A single individual or group representing a singleagency can identify in .a-rnichair fashion the inputs,learning experiences, and outputs of a CBTE pfo-gram. Participatory decision-making, representa-tive.input, and inductive processing are neither en-sured nor needed to design and implement CBTEprograms. (Washington state has believed thatwithout such input and decision-making, com-petencies tend to be less relevant, less role-related,and less valid.)

CBTE need not be individualized nor personalized.

ln fact, CBTE could result in more rigid and uniformprograms than those that currently exist. CBTE canbe as behavioristic and mechanistic or as humanisticand existential as those responsible.for its designmake it. Not Only could CBTE be designed to moldstandard prOducts, but it could also ensure that onlypersons fitting a pre-conceived pattern be admittedto the "production" process.

CBTE will not cause educators to explore teaching/learnhlg as &synthesizing raiher.than an analytic process.

'We have spent great quantities of time and moneyanalyzing the teacher and the instructional process,

breaking each into its most minute parts. Unfortu-nately, analysis has mit helped us synthesize the"teacher" nor the "teachering" act. Because CBTEemphasizes systematic and logical analysis and ex:plicitness, it could actually lead to greater emphasison the analytic.

Finally, CBTE will not result in the "perfect" teacher

education program.

CBTE should, however, provide a better, more ob-jective basis for us to evaluate the program being.offered, identify weaknesses, and make changes.As indicated early in this paper, the quest is notcomplete for such a "perfect" program and probablynever should be. Change is essential in a dynamicorganism. Teacher education (whethercompetency-based or not) must be dynamic if it is tobe reality-oriented, responsive, and relevant.

The effect of the CBTE standards in any state, in-cluding Washington, will depend on those who designand implement the programs. An example of im-plementation,has been discussed in the preceding sec-tions of this presentation. The program described hasbeen approved by the State Board of Education for

preparation of physical educators. It was developedwith involvement from the state professional associa-tion, local school districts, a teacher's association, andWashington State University. During a recent statereview of the program, the visiting team suggestedthat the program could be a model for other depart-ments as well as other institutions.

The factors, conditions, and assumptions extant in

Washington state during the past ten years have madecompetency-based program standards and certifica-tion requirements viable for us. They may not/wouldnot/should not work in other states.

ReferencesBloom, B. S., ed. Taxonomy of educational objectives, Himdbook

cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.,

1956:Coleman, D. A. "Development of a performance-based teacher

eacation program for physical education." Quest, 18:20-25.

Enberg, M. L. "Teacher corps/peace corps competency basedelementary physical education project." In Research Educa-

tion. Washington, DC; ERIC, 1974.Hulac; G. M.; Harrington, W. M.; Durrant, S. M.; Enberg;

M. L.; and Weaver, W. C. "Developing competency waivers

in the three educational domains." JOHPER, 46(6): 20-21.

Jewett, A. E.; and Mullan, M. R. Curriculum design; purposes and

processes in physical education teaching-learning. Washington,DC: The American Alliance for Health, Physical Education'

-and -Recreation, -1977.Miller, G. A.; Galanter, R.; and Pribram, K. H. Plans and the

structure pf behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,

Inc., 1960.Mosston, M. Teaching: from thniniami to discovery. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Publishing Company, 197.

3 0 3 5

Appendix A

Program Elenients Required by theState Board of Education

1. A "degree" component. A degree and/or certainnumber of hours of training is set forth as a re-

9'quirement for each _type and level of ceitification.(In Washington state, all teachers are required tocomPlete two levels of certification. The "initial"certificate is granted on completion of the pre-service program; the "continuing" certificate,which must be obtained within seven years afterthe initial certificate, is issued on verification ofcompetencies in the generic areas required at thecontinuing level, completion of three years of expe-rience, and completion of 45 quarter hours ofcourse work beyond the baccalaureate degree.)This component addresses the teacher's need for asound general education and depth in a discipline.

2. An "experience" component. The individual mustcomplete specified field experiences during thetraining program; these include observation,micro-teaching, tutoring, student teaching, intern-ships, and/or other practica as required. Field expe-riences pr6vide the laboratory for one's developingcompetencies as well as a clinic for demonstratingand testing oneself iri the role of teacher and one'sability to apply competencies in real settings:

3. A "competency" component. Three categories ofcompetencies are set forth in the standards. A set ofgeneric competency areas is delineated in-which allprograms must aadress- the development and as-sessment of knowledges, skills, and theoretical un-derstanding relevant to those generic competencyareas. A second constellation of competencies issubject matter-specific. These are to be delineatedby the appropriate specialized professional associa-tion in collaboration , with experts from college/university faculties, the school 4istricts, and otherrelevant groups. Finally, the con rtium responsi-ble for program design may supple ent-this com- -

ponent with additional or unique com etencies itdeems important to the role as defined.

Appendix B

Members of the TESPE Consortium1979-80

Dr. Robert J. Valiant, Kennewick School District No.17

Ms. Billie Carlson, Kennewick Education AssociationKenneth Olssen, Richland School District No. 400

Ms. Cheryl Boatman, Richland Education AssociationDr. Wilma Harrington, Department of Physical

Education for Women, WSUDr. Roger C. Wiley, Department of Physical Education

for Men, WSU

31

Professional Preparation (P2)Committee

Department of Physical Education forMen and Women

Washington State University1979-80

Dr. Samuel H. AdamsMs. Andrta BrownDr. Jon ChristopherMr. Rex DavisDr. David Engerbretson

Dr. Carol E-. GordonMs. Jane GuttingDr. Wilma HarringtonDr. Mary Lou Enberg, Chair

Appendix C

PEP 100 Level ClassCompetencies

'Cognitive DomaipStudents will:1. lie able to define teriN related to the subject area.2. Understand and apply safety measures and princi-

, ples appropriate to the activity.3. Know, understand, and apply rules and etiquette

appropriate to the activity.4. Know, understand,sand apply sound principle§ of

conditioning appropriate to the activity.5. Know, understand, and apply sound mechanical

principles appropriate to the activity.6. Know, .understand, and be able to apply correct

procedures for setting up, adjusting, and maintain-ing equipment required by the activity.

Affective Domain

Students will:1. Adively participate in class.2. Accept, at least while participating, the persons,

rules, situations, events, etc. 'which occur duringparticipation.

3. Ask others for additional aid or information.4. Accept, consciously or unconsciously, the role (or

part) which is appropriate to the activity setting.5. Accept that there are values inherent in the activity.6: Show sensitivity toWard

a. own responsibilities in carrying out the activity,b. helping others analyze their performance.

7. Attempt 'to identify their own ideas, feelings, orinformation concerning the activity.

Psychantotor DomainFor the 100-level skills courses, stUdents will:1. Imitate prescribed movement in a very basic man-

ner, but the,performance may be low (perceiving).2. Execute the gross movement pattern which can be

repeated with s'Ome accuracy (patterning).

r.t*4

3. Utilize a movement pattern in a drill or practicestituation (adapting).

4. Not be required (but desired) to pass course; exe-cute a movement Pattern with finesse and withgood form. There should be evidnece of mastery ofa moveynent pattern, a quality performance (refin-ing).

PEP 300 Level ClassesCompetencies

Cognitive DomainStudents should enter with appropriate competenciesfrom PEP 100-level cdurses. Students Will:1. Know, understand, and apply game strategy ap-

proPriate to the activity.2. Be able to analyze an 7tivity or component of that

activity into sub-units.3. Be able to make an adjustment within an activity so

each student can participate to his/her level of abil-ity.

4. Formulate a logical teaching progression for thesub-units of that activity.

5. Be able to critique a performance of the activity.6. Formulate a plan for the improvement of perfor

mance as in #5 above.

7. Be able to effectively, communicate principles,knowledges, analyses, syntheses, strategies, andcritiques to others, e.g., teacher, peers.

Affective Domain

Students should enter with appropriate competenciesfrom PEP 100-level courses. Students will:-1. Utilize self-analysis as a performance tool.2. Attempt to ;identify their own ideas, feelings, or

information concerning the activity.3. Accept the existence of a variety of

a, philosophical approaches to the activity,b. mechanical approaches to the activity.

4. Exhibit their values through their selection of (forexample) texts and materials, methods, emphases,etc.

Psychomotor Domain

Students should enter with appropriate competenciesfrom PEP 100-level cgurses. Students will:Invent or construct unique or novel optjons in motorperformance. These may be different ways of perform-ing the same skill, extemporaneous performances orcombining of learned movements into unique motordesigns new to the performer (varying, improvising,composing; the creative processes).

3 2

1

14

The Preparation of PhysicalEducation Teachers:A Subjecl-Matter-CenteredModelLawrence F. LockeDepartment of Professional PreparationUniversity of Massachusetts

Charles L. MaraDivision of Physical EducationThe Ohio State University

Daryl SiedentopDivision of Physical EdubationThe Ohio State University

Introduction

We bea41 work on fhis prioject with the:propositionthat there must be many different ways to help physi-cal education teachers learn to teach. That observationis more ,than a platitude about possible alternativesand the powers of a pluralistic system. The proposi-tion is a fact of immense significance because it permitsthe exercise of special and compelling visions, theutilization of unique constellations of resources, ancIPthe development of educative processes which yieldspecial strengths in their teacher products.

We also held, however, that certain problematic fac-tors exist which are generic to all teacher educationprograms. These factors may be prioritized differ-ently, and certainly may be confronted through widelydifferent program provisions, but in the end most ofthem must be accommodated in any system which isto effectively work in the context of higher education.

Teacherpreparation programs in physical educationgenerally have been- a low impact enterprise. Whatpre-service students learn while passing throughthem makes little evident difference in their daily be-havior once employed as teachers. Other powerfulmechanisms not associated with formal preparationshape and maintain what physical education teachersactually do.

Note: We wish to express our special appredation to Dolly Lambdin ofSt. Andrews School and the University of Texas at.Austin for hcrinvaluabk assistonce in reviewing earlier drafts of this study paper.Her dual rok as an active practitioner and_workingleachcLeducatoronce again has proven to be a special strcngth: Where readers sense anoptimism about who can be accomplished within the hard constraintsof the real world, they have peiceived her.influence. We also wish tothank Kaihlecn Higgins, now a Graduate Fellow at Yak University,for the application of her expert editorial skills and unending patiencein translating our ideas into a readabk document.

A33

This arrangement, though certainly wasteful" andprobably dysfunctional, is not especially surprising.Programs for the, preparation of physical educationteachers are not 'designed with pirticular referenceieither to the nature of pre-service students or to thespecifications of the vocational' role which awaitsthem. Instead, preparation programs always -havebeen more responsive to the interests and abilities ofteacher educators and to the demands of the institu-tions in which the.y serve:

The perennial search for approval by academic col-leagues, the pursuit of rewards in the university com-munity, the insistent urge to conform to already estab-

)1lished traditio s, the enticements of new fashions inthe training o , classrcJm teachers, the attractive fan-tasy of an idealized physical education conducted inthe best of all possible gymnasia, a jaundiced andunreasonable pessiMism about what can be accohi-plished to improve practice and program in theschools, a romantic vision of preparation mode'sbased upon elegant exercises in abstract logic, andeven the personal convenience of faculty membersall have shaped what is 'now done in the name ofpre-service teacher education. What real teachers ac-tually do and believe in their roles, what pre-servicestudents actually leain to do and believe in their roles,and what one set of role dimensions has to do with .others, are questionswhich rarely intrude into theprocess of designing, operating, and evaluating prep-aration programs.

Fifty years ago, sociologist Willard Waller watchedyoung teachers entering their school careers andfound that2!-a-landmark-in-ones-assimilation-into theprofession is reached when it is decided that onlrteacher% are iffiportant". Socialization into the role ofteacher eduCator may involve a similar lesson, forpreparation programs often reflect greater concern for

the designers and operators than the raw material andproducts. To permit the nature of pre-sgrvice studentsand the real nature of teaching to become fundamentalarbiters for decisions about pre-service educationVv* ould violate our sense of priorities in professoriallife. It also would change beyond any recognition theway physical educators are prepared. ,

The substance of this paper, then, reflects our dualconcern for making undergraduate major§ and publicschool teaching the facts of first importance in pro-gram design, and for confronting some of the mosttroublesome problems which have bedeviled the pro-cess of preparing teachers. The first step was to iden-tify the primary 'factors which all teacher educationdesigns (including-dur own idealized model) have torecognize. Then, given personal priorities as physicaleducators and collective experiences in the operationof teacher education programs, a model wa-s designedwhich represents Ian alternative to the typical ap;,proach to preparing teachers. The product, a sub:ject-matter-centered preparation,program, is faithfulboth to what we regard as the proper cOntent of physi-cal education and a great deal that we know to be trueabout learning, teaching, and schools. Most impor-tant, however, because it deals directly with the dualrealities ofpre-service students and public schoolteaching, the program is designed to provide morepowerful forces in shaping the behavior and commit-ments of graduates.

Our sense of the constraints in higher education andour personal histories as thoroughly socialized teachereducators have served, no dotibt, to deflect us fromholding perfectly true to all of our intentions, even inthis idealized model of preparation. We hope, how-ever, that more daring and creative colleagues will findit possible to push beyond this,first step.

The material to follow is divided into four sections:

1. A list of factors which constitute problematic ele-ments within any teacher prepatation program, ir-

respective of its resources. We have included thismaterial because all models, including the four pre-sented at this conference, muSt confront these im-placable demons or exist only as playful abstrac-tio4 ns.

2. A brief list of-assumptions about teaching teacherswhich we elected to hold in developing our propo-sal. This material is included because it gives some,insight into the problems which received ourclosest attention.

3. A present don of the subject-matter-centered pro-gram, wit, brief explanations.

4. A short c girls discussion designed to draw theattention of the .reader to particular aspects of theproposal, and to anticipate some of the questionswhich will lie 'raised about its operation.

The Problem Chart -

The chart which follows is not intended as a list of allfactors to be considered in the design of a preparationprogram. This is a list of problematic factors which inour experience have been the least adequately re-solved in most existing programs. In short, these arethe endemic difficulties of producing good physicaleducation teachers. If the reader finds the table in-complete, suggestions are welcomed for its expansion.

Because of the nature of the material and formatused for presentation, most readers will not wish toread through the chart from beginning to end. fristead,we suggest that you read the Index of Problemsprovided below and then browse through the chart toobtaip a general sense of the content. Subsequently,the chart can be used as a reference tool in consideringparticular program elements.

Index of Problems

Cluster Problem Number Page

Bask Problems in Program DesignDefinition of Subject Matter 1 36I 'efinition Of Good Teaching 36

' tie of Knowledge in DCsign 3 36F 1,se

It(tegra of Theory and Practice45

36

36,rarn Sequence 6 37

Specialized Preparation 7 37

Problems in Entry; Progress, and ExitPoints 8 37_Entry

Progress and Completion 9 37t Selective Retention 10 37

Interruptcd Prepat=ation 11 38Placement' r.1 12 38Follow-up and SupPort of Graduates 13 38

34

Cluster Pro-blem Number Paie

Problems in Program Operation and DevelopmentProgram Monitoring and Evaluation 14 38Resource/Commitmeht Balance'. 15 38Flexibility Vs. Orthodoxy , 16 39

Problems Involving FacultyFaculty Consensus and Commitments 7.7\ 3.9-

Models of Professional Behavior - 18 \ 39Realistic Optimism 19 \ 39Faculty Development 20 39University Scholarship 21 40

Problems luvolving Pre-service StudentsPre-socialization Effects t 22 40:Academic Ability . 23 40 'Teaching/Coaching ComMitments 24 40Socialization Effect of Student Culture 25 40

\ssivity Vs. Responsibilityaes of Sfudent Concerng

2627

41

41love.of Active Play 28 41Personal Fitness . 29 41

Probleins Related,to Program Content: Motor and Analytic SkillsPlay Skills 30 41Perception of Movement

. 31 42Problems Related to Program Content: Values

Clarification of Values 32 4?Program Value Commitments 33 42

Problems Related to Program Content: Skills of Instructional DesignPreparing Edusational Objectives ,34 42Designing Instruction 35 42Maintaining Congruence of Objectives and Methods 36' 43Managing Instruction 37 43Influencihg Learner Behavior 38 43Recognrzing Learning Problems - 39 43Evaluating Learning 40 43Self-ewfluation 41 44

kills for Changing the School 42 44Instructing Special Students 43 44

Probkms Related to Program Content: KnowledgeKnowledge about Learners 44 44Knowledge about Schools 45 44Knowledge about Pedagogy 46 45Knowledge from Social and Biological Sciences 47 - 45Education in the Liberal Arts 48 45Knordedge About Carers in Physical Education 45 45

ProbleMs Related to External Articulation of the ProgramLocal Influence of the Program 50 45Involvement of Significant Others

51 46Institutional Complementarity 52 46

Problems Related to Practicum ExperiencesPracticurn Experiences: Logistics 53 46Practicum Experiences: Quality Control 54 46Practizum Experiences: Individualizing 55 46

0

IV

Ideal Condition

Problem Chart for Professional Preparation Programs

Sample Deviation from Idal

i3asic Problems in Program Design1. Definition of Subject Matter

Faculty members agree on a broaddefinition of the subject mattertheir graduates will teach. Expecta-tions for what pre-service studentsmust master themselves and learnhow to teach to others are reason-ably consistent throughout the

:program.

2. Definition of Gotia leachingGood teaching is defined in ex--plicit, unambiguous terms. Thedefinition is available to all, subject

reference point for all decisionsabout the program.

CaAgequences of Deviation

Faculty do not have a wolking consen-sus on what constitute h e subjectmatter of physical ectt Dis-agreement is so fundamental that stu-dents can not regard different visionssimply as possible alternatives'. Sharpdifferences in priorities and content in-cluded or excluded are reflected in in-consistent and conflicting program ma-terial.

NO--nous attempt is made to establisha definition of good teaching to whichall faculty can subscribe. Statementsabout teaching uged in the program areunclear, a mbiguOus unrealistic,_ andhighly generalized. No single set of

,

3. Usebf 'Knowledge in DesignDesign and procedures for opera-tion and evaluation-of the.prograrnreflecrwhat has been learned fromresearch orj teaching, teachers, andteather education. Specific effort ismade to acquire and apply knowl-edge in developing program com-ponentS.

4. False ConstraintsIn designing and implementing theprogram, faculty remain open toalternative means of accomplish-ing program goals and do not rejectpromising Strategies.without atrial. Judgment is suspended untilaltervatives have been attemptedaid assessed in practice.

5. Integrarion ofTheory and PracticePre-service students- acquireknowledge about physical 'activityand play, learn how to performplay activities, and learn how toteach physical activity and play inways which demoustrate and il-luminate the relationship.s be-tween those three domains.

qualitative/quantitative criteria.shained widely enough to be useddetermining program contentevaluating student progress.

Discrepant visions of the basic 'Subjectmatter of physical education produceunclear or inconsistent expectations forstudent behaVior, particularly in prac-ticum experiences. The consequence isconfusion and loss of rogram impact.

0

Individual faculty work toward dis-Crepant visions of effective teaching.This pioduces confusion and loss ofprogram impact. Some aspects ofteachingieceive little or no emphasis.Because faculty do not agree in evaluat-

is ing student achievement of pedagogi-in cal skill, students receive conflictingor and ultimately destructive messages

about their progress.

The literature on teacher edUcation isignored. Only tradition, personal inch;nation, trial and error, and abstractlogic serkre as resources in decidinghow to prepare teachers.

Subject 'matter, program arrange-ments, training strategies, and operat-ing procedures.are discarded from con- .

sideration because "everyone knows"they would not work.

Students encounter academic subjectmatter, development of personal playskills, arid development, of teachingskill in entirely separate experiences.There is little or no opportunity to inte-grate knowledge, skill, and pedagogy.Faculty in one area may be ignorant ordisdainful of content in other areas.

36

Practices known to be ineffective areperpetuated. Produres with a highprobability of' success are not utilized.Useful alternatives are not available forconsideration.

WIP

Alternatives for meeting programneeds are severely limited (largely totraditional strategies), and inferior so-,lutions are accepted as necessary.

Students are left with the unreasonabletask of devising their own applicationsof knowledge to performance problemsand the process of teaching. Becausestudents do not perceive how whatthey learn can fit together to aid under-standing and suggest solutions toOrob-lems, decisions about professionalpractice are baSed on inferior sources.Graduates may decide that knowledgehas little to do with practice. Physicaleducation loses resj:wct in the educa-tional community as a field without aknowledge base to guide action.

r (ideal Condition Sample Deviation from ideal Consequences of Deviation

6. Program SequenceThe order in Aich students en-counter courses and prActicuriis i§the result of decisions about whichskills and knowledge constituteentry requirements for a sub-sequent program component.

7. Specialized PreparationGraduates who are to be desig-nated as specialists and certified toserKe partictilar client populationsare provided with specializedstreams of study and field experi,,,ence,.

Problems in Entry, Progress, and Ex,it8. Entry Points

The prograin specifies particular.points at which students may enterand provides treatment which isappropriate to the needs of stu-dents entering at each point.

9. Progress and CompletionStudents who enroll in courseswhich demand particular entry

/ skills have actually mastered thoseskills. Minimum expectations forachievement in all courses aremade explicit and consistently en-Torced. Students who graduate candemonstrate mastery of all essen-tial technical skills at a safe,minimum level of competence.

10. Selective RetentionStudents are encouraged and as-sisted in self-selection into or out ofthe program. Whe'n required, fac-ulty take direct responsibility forretaining only those students whoare suitable candidates for profes-sional careers.

Either chance or convenierice deter-mines the. or4er of many program ex-periences. Concepts which make senseonly after a practicum, are provided be-fore Skills needed to fully profit from aheld practicum are delivered after itscoApletion.-.

Graduates who will be designated ascompetent to work at a particular levelof school or to serve particular clientsare offered only a thin scattering ofcourses and subsequently may obtaincertification without substantial fieldpractice in the specified area.

Students diiftnto the prograhi, at anypoint and are permitted to omit impor-tant program experiences or _are re-quired to repeat work accomplishedprior to entry.

Faculty have not identified theminimum level of learning required for

,safe practice and do not immediatelyand unambiguously identify studentswho fail to reach that,level. Studentscontinue to move through the programas long as they accumulate the requiredcredits, spend the reqUired number ofsemesters and maintain the minimumgrade index. Long sequences of inferioror incomplete learning-lead just as.surely to graduation as superiorachievement.. Nothing in either theprogram's formal record or the processof certification can discriminate be-tween the superior teaching prospectand the program survivor.

Students are not confronted by signifi-cant realities about teaC\hing until late intheir program of studie's when large in-vestments of time and money entrapthem into continuing despite negativeexperience. Feedback from faculty con-cerning performance is minimal, dif-fuse, or evasive. The program providesno mechanism through which facultycan, exercise their responsibility forscreening out unsuitable candidates forgraduation and certification.

37

Students are ill-equipped to learn effi-ciently. The perpetual complaint "If Ihad only known . . .!" or "What is theuse of that?" reflects the loss of pro-gram impact consequent to poor prog-ression.

When graduates without adequatetraining are passed off as prepared torender professional service, everyonesuffers. Employers are misled, clientsare deprived and endangered, thegraduate has been cheated and,mately, the program has been de-valued.

Students forced to waste time in repeti-tion lose motivation and respect for theprogram. Students w ho appear incourses or ,practicums -without entryskills disrupt the training process andwaste faculty time. Students who skipprogram experiences may be 'in-adequately prepared.

Students regarded as inadequate bythe entire faculty nonetheless becomeeligible for costly and sensitive field ex-periences simply because they havebeen passed with marginal grades.Such students may even graduate be7cause there is no serious review of.overall competence. The use of creditsrather than competence as the currencyof program operation makes rationalplacement impossible.

Students graduate and seek jobs al-ready knowing that they will not find asatisfying career. Students graduateand obtain positions even though, theentire faculty may regard them as in-competent or even dangerous to theirclients.

Ideal Condition Sample Deviation from Ideal Consequences' of Deviation

11. Interrupted NeparationStudents who ust interrupt theirstudies are ,assisted inp makingplans for o derly-departure and re-turn with a minimum of disruptionin professional growth and prog-ress toward graduation.

12. PlacementStudents who show special prom-ise for advanced study are guidedinto_ appropriate oppOrtunities.Faculty members act vigorouslyand in concert to influence theplacement of promising graduateSin positions which control the qual-ity or availability of field experi-ences utilized by the program.

13. Follow7up and Support of GraduatesContact is retained with allgraduates and those enteringcareers in education are followedwith special care. Whenever possi-ble, faculty visit graduates andprovisions are made to offer themspecial support services whenpeeded.

Despite the fact that a substantial andgrowing number of students leave allpreparation programs, they are re-garded as aberrant. No plans are madeto ease the process3of re-entry. Per-Sonal development -is needlesslypenalized by absence.

Graduates with limited or inferior po-tential compete for positions in localprograms on equal terms withgraduates of exceptional potential.Local programs persist in hiring physi-cal education personnel primarily interms of coaching ability. Graduates donot continue iheir development asteachers because they are not directedto and sponsored for programs whichprovide excellence in appropriateforms of graduate study.

Nobody knows how many graduatessought or obtained jobs in education.There is no way to contact recen tgraduates; many just disappear. No ef-fort is expended to make graduates feeltlat they are important to the program

'and worthy of special treatment,andsupport.

Problems in Program Operation and Development14. Program Mbnitoring rind Evaluation,

The faculty has reached a workingconsensus on what constitutessuccessful operation of the pro-gram. Process and product indicesof program health have been iden-tified. Individuals or committeesresponsible for ()Vera]] programoperation have regular access to_feedback about execution of pro-gram activities. Efficient proce-dures-collect concise information atregular intervals from each courseand practicum.. Feedback includesinformation about which program'objectives have and have not beenachieved, what problems havebeen encountered and whatchanges have been made or rec-ommended. Periodic evaluation ofthis information proVides the basisfor program revision.

15 ResourceiCommitment BalancePeriodic evaluation and monitor-ing make it possible to maintain thethree factors of available resources,number of students enrolled, andprogram commitments in a rea-sonable balance.

No single person or group really knows..what is going on in the program. In-formation can be obtained only by spe-'cial effort, usually in a crisis situationsuch as program review or accredita-tion. Courses change, whole compo-nents fail to achieve their intended ob-jective, important changes are recom-mended, but no procedure exists to in-sure that someone sees the whole pic-ture. Because there is no agreement onhow to judge the adequacy of programoperation, no one has more than animpressionistic notion of the program'squality.

The pfogram operates in a perpetualstate of tension as too many studentsare admitted, or available resources de-cline, or the facipty initiates trainingexperiences whi(l'h absorb more re-sources.

3 8e4 3

Students who interrupt their studiesmake poor decisions about departureand re-entry with consequent frustra-tion and waste of program resources.

The best products of the program faittoachieve their full potential. Localschools are staffed with personnelwho, because they possess inferiorteaching 'skills and little or no potentialforThe supervisory role, have only lim-ited or no utility to the program. Localprograms of indifferent quality fail togain and hold public favorcreating anegative climate for operation of thepreparation program.

Opportunities to aSsist the further pro-fessional development of graduates aremissed. Potentially important re-sources are lost to the program throughneglect. Vital feedback about productperformance is ignored. The programflies blind without information on jobplacement and market conditions.

The sense of faculty control-declines aseach person becomes less sure of whatis happening outside his or her ownarea. The absence of qualitative feed-back deprives the faculty of both moti-vation \and the substantive basis forprogramdevelopment. Overall pro-gram quality is not sustained or im-proved, and`may decline. It is impossi-ble to provide convincing evidence ofprogram success even when it isachieved.

Faculty are overextended- and becomefatigued, less effective, or embittered.Students receive inferior opportunitiesto learn because of progrSin festric-tions. Necessary economies make .de-velopment of new training proceduresimpossible.

Ideal Condition Sample Deviation from Ideal Consequences of Deviation

16. Flexibility Vs. OrthodoxyFaculty are sensitive to changes inthe needs or characteristics of theirpre-service clients, in what isknown about -teaching or teacheredUcation, and ih market demandfor graduates. Prompt change ismade in the program when hewneeds or opportunities occur. In-timate contact with schools permitssome prediction and anticipationof changing demands.

Problems Involving Faculty17. Faculty Consensus and Commttnwnts

Faculty have arrived at a workingconsensus about the core of essen-tial program goals. Even thoughthey may take vigorous exceptionto particular points, 'individ ual fac-ulty members are committed tosupporting all program actions de-signed to achieve jointly agreedupon goals.

18: Models of Professional BehaviorTeacher educators exemplify.whatthey explicate. Students see in ac-tion the vdlues espoused in theprOgram. There is high congruencebetween program means and itsends.

19. Realistic OptimismFaculty have an optimistic view ofwhat a strong teacher can do to im-prove school practice and pro-gram. Tempered by an intimateand current knowledge of schoolconditions, this optimism helpsgraduates feel responsible for ac-complishing realistic reforms.

20. Faculty Development'Provisions are made to assist fac-.ulty in developing //new competen-cies needed when the program isexpanded or revised. Faculty ac-cept the necessity for performingdifferent tasks ias the programevolves. The use of outside re-sources and exert assistance inupgrading faculty skills is a routineand accepted procedure.

Faculty members ignore social changeswhich call for program adjustment.Change is.threatening to faculty secu-rity. The established way of doingthings is cherished and protected evenwhen dysfunctional. Faculty arecaught off guard by the changes in theirown students which easily could havebeen noted in the schools a generationearlier.

Faculty do not share a common Set ofprogram objectives and no effort ismade to negoti'ate a compromise whichpermits consensus and group com-mitment. The "voting majority" simplyexerts its will without effort, to per-suade or accommodate members whohold other poSitions. Actions are takenwhich individuals can't support.

Humanistic goals and methods areidealized in faculty rhetoric while pre-service students are subject to rigid, in-sensitive, and depersonalized ele-ments in the program.

Faculty take a position of h4al pes-simism about the possibility of\ indi-vidual teacher action to stimulatechange. The world of work is portrayedas an alien environment with im-penetrable resistance to reform. Alter-nately, faculty may inspire studentswith reformist zeal without providing aclear'sense of the limits of individualefforts, or accurate information aboutthe barriers to Change in educationalinstitutions.

Faculty members expect to continue inexactly the same role they assumedwhen kiired. No effort is made to assistfaculty confronted with the need to re-tool for new assignments. Even the in-timation that faculty members mightprofit from expert assistance in urgrad-ing some of their teaching or researchskills is resented and rejected. Facultydevelopment is a stopgap measuretaken only after problems have dis-abled the prograrn.

3 9

Discontinuities develop between theworld as it is and the world as it ispretended by faculty..Opportunities toserve new needs or attract new re-.sources are missed. Students experi-ence disassociation from the world ofreal professional practice.

Some faculty members feel alienatedfrom the program and their colleagues.Divisive behaviors emerge and mem-bers of the minority fail to support oreven may actively undermine effortsthey do not approve.

Pre-service students learn that actionand ideals have no necessary relation-ship in education.- In turn, what theydo to their students will not be an-chored in an explicit and examinablesystem of belief. Self-improvement isimpossible under these conditions.

Students are alienated from the worldof which they _must become a part.They are encouraged to. accept whatthey find in practice and program be-cause they have not been encouragedto believe that change is possible. Al-ternately, they attempt naive and ill-considered reform and when rebuffedby school realities become confusedancr discouraged. Ultimately, suchnaive graduates beome cynical expo-nents of the status quo who regardtheir preparation experiences 4s havingbeen an irrelevant exercise in wishfulthinking.

Program development is restricted by'rigid definition of fa,culty roles. Facultylack the time or resources needed tomaster new knowledge or skills, butnevertheless are pressured into ser-vice. Faculty who -might providesuperior service to the program fail to

so because assistance is notprovided in developing their abilities.


21. University ScholarshipWhere university status demandsthat the teacher educator performscholarly functions in addition toteaching and professional service,the program accommodates andsupports this activity. Special ef-for\t is' expended in encouragingyoung faculty to establish careerpitterns of productive inqiiiry.

Problems Involving Pre-service Students22, Pre-socialization Effects

Faculty are aware that enteringpre-service students already havefully formed value systems anddeeply entrenehed ideas about thenature of teaching, schools, stu-dents, and physical education. Stu-dents are assisted in becomingaware of this and helped to exam-ine. the consequences of what theybelieve abbut physical education(see #32).

23. Academic AbilityThe program makes realistic ac--.

commodations to the actual level ofability and achievement reprezsented in the population of pre:-Service students. Faculty are pre-pared to start "where they are".:Students are assisted in remediat-ing deficiencies in' subject matterand study skills. Students arehelped to understand and acceptthe fact that both rernediation and

, extensionlrepetition of learningexperiences require longer time toreach completion.

24. TeachingiCoaching CommitmentsFaculty members are fully awarethat many pre-service students re-gard cgaching as their primary vo-cational goal. Lack of commitmentto teaching physical education isdealt with in open and positiveways.

25. Socialization Effect of Stuthmt CultureFaculty carefully monitor . thegroup-determinect perspectivesheld and transmitted by studentswithin the program environment.Attitudes that are dysfunctional toprogram gotals are vigorously con-fronted.

Inquiry is considered to be a personalenterprise .unrelated to the interests ofthe program, colleagues, or students.Productive faculty are expected to carrya full load of professorial responsibilityand pursue research interests on theirown time and at their own expense.Young faculty facing tenure review arethe most heavily burdened with teach-ing and service expectations.

It is assumed that whatever studentsknow or believe about physical educa-tion is learned in the program. Deepconflicts between program demandsand the lessons of prior student experi-ence are ignored or regarded as aber-rant. No effort is made to alter values orconceptions which will impede growthtoward professional status.

Faculty are ashamed or defensive aboutthe comparative impoverishment ofacademic skills in many pre-servicestudents. Adjustments in programschedule, teaching methods, and ex-pectations for achievement are notmade, often out of fear of "loweringstandards'''. Students are allowed to be-lieVe that any extension of requiredprogram enrollment beyond normaltime to completion is unfair and unrea-sonable.

Faculty ignore the primary orientationof their students to .the coaching roleand pretend-that learning how to teachis everyone's primary interest.

The powerful socialization influence ofstudent culture teaches new studentswhat really matters in the program,how pre-service students should thinkabout preparation and the careers be-yond graduation, and what kinds ofbehaviors are acceptable in the trainingcontext. Some of the perspectives fos-lered within student culture are in seri-ous conflict with central presumptionsof the program.

40'

Tenured faculty are unproductive be-cause intrinsic rewards are inadequateto motivate 'the extra required effort.Young faculty must rob their personallives, neglect their teaching, advise-ment, and professional service func-tions,, or simply move on when refusedtenure.

Students feel forced to give lip serviceto ideas and values which are belied bytheir' own experience. Without resolu-tion, these conflicts remain to confusestudents about fundamental issueseven though they appear to make satis-factory prOgresS..through the program.

Learning is made inefficient by filureto make realistic accommodations tostudent ability. Failure to deal with re-mediable deficiencies leads to unneces-sary drop-outs. Students think poorlyof themselves and faculty feel frus-trated and discouraged when studentsdo not live up to expectations foracademic achievement.

Students are unresponsive to efforts toprepare them for teaching careers. Poormotivation leads to poor achievementand frustration for everyone. Facultyare seen as out of touch with the realinterests' and aspirations of their stu-dents.

Students quickly acquire attitudes,values, and behaviors which are cOn-trary to their best interests and thegoals of the program. Faculty igno-rance about this level of program func-tion fosters a sense of separation be-tween "us" and "them".

Ideal Conk lition Sample Deviation from Ideal Consequences of Deviation

26. Passivity vs. ResponsibilityPre-service students ta'ke an activeand responsible part in the conductof their own education. They per-form specific functions in the oper-ation and developMent of the pro-gram. Student responsibilitygrows as they proceed through the'program. Instructional, tutorial,and supervisory tasks are assignedas students become ready for theseroles. Faculty are active in helping,students make the transition fromthe student rose' to the teachingrole.

27. Stages of Student ConcernThe fact that students enter theprogram with sharply differentprimary concerns is well under-stood by the faculty. Much pre-liminary effort is expended in iden-tifying and coping with these pri-mary student concerns. Programtasks are sequenced in terms of adevelopmental model of profes-sional growth:

28. Love of Active PlayAll graduates place a high, positive,value on active play. The fact thatthey enjoy participation in sports,dance, and exercise will be evidentto their students as a model of theactive lifestyle.

29. Personal FitnessAll graduates place a high, positiifevalue on personal fitness for an ac-tive lifestyle. Their attention tomaintaining personal health andspecific capacities needed for workand play will'serve as a model ofcommitment to and informed con-cern about personal fitness.

Problems Related to Program Content:30, Play Skills

Graduates can play with reason-able competence and demonstratethe key elements of basic skills in awide range of play activities.

Students are largely passive with re-gard to the program and completelydependent on faculty for all significantdecisions concerning their preparation.Pre-service students learn that com-pliance is the appropriate behavior for asubordinate client. Faculty are unwil-ling to share significant responsibilityfor any aspect of program operationan4 remain threatened by student par-ticipation inquality.

evaluation of, program

The studdnt's personal concerns areconsidered irrelevant to program func-tions. Training tasks often are out ofphase with the student's level of pro-fessional development. What the pro-fessor thinks is of vital importance isnot what concerns the student at thatpoint in time.

Some pre-service students do not liketo play or engage in physical activity.Self-conscious about their bodies ortheir motor competence, anxious aboutcompetition, uneasy in ambiguouS oruncertain situations, or threatened bythe fantasy element in play, such stu-dents may acquire a high level of skill inboth motor performance and pedag-ogy, but their fundamental distaste forexercise and play is evident.

- .

Some pre-service students have poorhabits of personal health, inadequatephysical capacity for skill acquisition inactivity courses, or an evident attitudeof unconcern for the physical imagewhich they will project to their clients.Students may graduate still ignorant of

. basic health principles, uninforMedand uncritical as consumers of prod-ucts related to health and fitness; anduncommitted to a life-long regimenappropriate to tileir fitness needs.

Motor and Analytic Skills -Students acquire playing competencein only a few activities, or fail to masterbasic skills in the activities which theywill teach.

4 1

The program is deprived ..of the valu-able contribution's which could bemade by pre-service students. Stu-dents are deprived of an opportunity topraCiice skills vital to their professionalddvelopment. Rigid definition of sub-ordinate/superordinate roles within theprogram prevent the emergence ofrich, intense, and significant relation-ships between faculty and students.

Because students are repeatedly re-quested to learn things which seem in-consequential when compared withtheir real concerns, motivation andconsequent achievement are poor.

As teachers, these students will be un-able to model the active lifestyle whichdisplays the personal joy and deep.re-wards of motor play. The negative in-fluence they exert on the lives of theirstudents will be subtle and thus par-ticularly destructive.

As teachers, these students will be un-able to model the 'advantages and re-wards of a personal fitness program.Such teachers are unlikely to convinceothers to believe that successful par-ticipation in a play activity is alwayspossible at the price of the required fit-ness level. Such clients remain foreverlimited by a rigid definition of their ca-pacity.

Unprepared to perform a reasonablerange of, teaching assignments,graduates have difficulty obtainingemployment. As teachers these stu-dents provide inferior instruction andth'iair clients fail to learn sufficient skillto enjoy -the activity.


31. Perception' of MovementStudents can see individual ele-ments of movement within com-plex Performances. They knowhow to accurately observe andhave had extensive practice in theskills of movement analysis (see#39).

Problems Related to Program Content:32.. Clarification of values

The program 1.ovides opportunityfor studentS to identify and clarifytheir already'existing values aboutcritical elements in physical educa;tion (for example, play, competi-tion, cooperation, freedom, com-pulsion) (see #22).

33. Program Value CommitmentsThe program faculty share strongcommitment to particular valuepositions in physical education.The program is designed to influ-ence what students feel and believeabout several Matters of -vital im-portance to physical education (forexample, racism, sexism, andelitism in the gymnasium).

Problems -Related to Program Content:34. Preparing Educational Objectives

Then program provides extensiveopportunity for students to iden-tify, select, and articulate .educa-tional objectives. Students under-stand the impotonce of havingclear objectives and can use themin a variety of formats as the basisfor designing instruction. Facultyconsistently use behavioral objec-tives as the basis for planning andevaluating courses and prac-ticums.

35. Designing InstructionThe pr,ogram provides opportunityto acquire theory ahd practical skillin the planning of units and les-sons, designing learning environ-ments, and selecting instructional.methods.

The program provides no attention tothe task of develOping skill in observingmotor performance. Students obtainonly vague or highly general impres-sions when they watch complexmovement. They are unable to pick outspecific elementc within a motor pat-tern. Their reports of movement areoften inaccurate.,

Values.-Students are not aware of their valuesin areas central to the teaching role. Theprogram does-not provide the kind ofsensitive, expert help needed to con-front personal attitudes and their con-sequences for behavior.

The program is not noted for espousinga Orticular commitment on importantissues in physical education. Facultyregard it as inappropriate to attempt toinfluence the personal beliefs of pre-service students. Faculty either have'nostrong convictions or display conflict-ing values about What is desirable inthe gymnasium.

Skills of Instructional DesignStudents have only a hazy conceptionof the possible objectives for physicaleducation. They often confuse endsand means and have difficulty com-municating their educationai inten-'tions to others. The objectives of pre-service students are so vague as to beuseless in designing instruction.

The program provides only piecemealexposure to the elements of instruc-tional design without integration -orserious opportunity to practice theSkills involved. Students have no senseof how educational intentions, cur-riculum content, teaching method,physical environment, and evaluationfit together.

42

Students are unable to assist learnersthrough the provision of accurate feed-back. incorrect analysis impedes theprocess of correction and skill de-velopment.

Lacking clear and specific informationabout what they believe, students areunable to examine their professionalbehaviors in terms of their intentions.Their work as teachers,.betrays confu-

,sion and inconsistency.

Graduates perpetuate destructive prac-tices in physical education simply be-cause they have had no opportunity todevelop a clear sense of personal values

.on these issues.

Instruction ,pot based on clear andexplicit objectives is often a randomcollection of activities which do notmove the client toward desirable ends(Teachers without /explicit objectivesmay select activities simply to fill theavailable time. Because 'administratorsperceive the lack of clear and believableeducational intentions, physical educa-tion loses priority in planning and im-plementing school curriculum.

As teachers, graduates must operate athalf power because they are unable toorganize and control the full range offactors needed to produce a_ powerfulinstructional design.


36. IVlaintaining Congruence of Objectivesand MethodsThe program provides opportunityfor students to practice creating,implementing and evaluating in-structional units which reflect con-sistent relationships between ob-jectives and the methods of teach-ing employed.

37. Managing InstructionThe pro-gram prOvides opportunityfor students to practice the skillsrequire.d to efficiently managelearning activities. Graduatesmake maximum use of available-time and waste little on housekeep-ing.

38. Influencing Learner BehaviorThe program provides both thetSryand extensive practice in the skillsof influencing human behavior.Students have command.of a rep-ertoire of skills with which to influ-ence what learners do. GraduateScan maintain good class order, ded1with deviant behavior and elicithigh levels of cooperative studentbehavior. .

39. Recognizing Learning ProblemsThe program provides extensiveopportunity for students to acquireknowledge of the most commonproblems in learning basic skills.Students can readily recognize anddiagnose the causes. of incorrectperformance. When correction isappropriate, they can draw from avariety of intervention strategies(see #31).

40. Evaluating LearningThe program provides opportunityfor students to acquire and practicethe skills used in monitoring,measuring, and evaluating theachievement of learners. SiudentSknow how to follow client learningon a daily basis as a means of mak-ing regular adjustments in instruc-tion. graduates know sophisti-cated lterngtives to letter gradesand understand the limitations of'terminal evaluation.

1

Practicu'rn'experiences tend to focus ex-clusively on narrow technical questionsof instruction rather than attending tobasic Matters such as the match be-tween educational intentions and ac-tual decisions about how to teach.

Pre-service students do not learn howto utilize time-saving methods. Theirclients spend excessive time on tasksother than learning.

The program centers primarily on thecontent of lessons and desirable ar-rangements for instruction without giv-ing equal attention ed specific methodsteachers can use to alter_student behav-ior: Topics such as reinforcement,shaping, .and modeling are left at thetheoretical level and not translated intotools for practice. Graduates do notknow how to obtain desired studentbehavior and in consequence, have dif-ficulty with class discipline, motivatingeffort, and eliciting positivelorms ofstudent interaction.

Students acquire personal skill withOutalso obtaining insight into the prob-lems commonly encountered by learn-ers. There is little opportunity and noencouragement to practicethe skills ofdiagnosis and corrective intervention.

Students associate evaluation with test-- ing and all testing with terminal grad-

ing. They do not learn to view evalua-tion as a continuous gburce of studentfeedback ,and teacher guidance. Stu-dents do n9t know how to select andadminister tests. There is no opportu-nity to practice the design of teacher-made measures, develop performancecharting ,systems, communicateachievement information to learners,involve students in self:evaluation, oruse test data to revise instructions.

43

Students employ methods of instruc-tion Which prod tiee' effects directly con-trary to their intentions. Because theyare not sensitive to this problem theyare often ineffective without 'knowingwhy.

The classes of graduates are filled withmeaningless activity such as waiting,moving equipment, role-taking, liningup, unproductive teacher talk, andoff-task student behaviors. Studentspractice less, learn less, and have lesssatisfaction with what they receive inphysical education.

Graduates attempt ineffective or ineffi-cient methods of influencing their stu-dents' behavior. They find themselvesin the tlangerous position of not know-ing exactly how to get students to dowhat they want. If learned by trial anderror on the job, these vital teachingskillS will be bought at the price of greatfrustration and personal trauma, if theycan be acquired at all.

Because they are not able to anticipatelearning problems, graduates are inef-ficient in designing and implementinglessons. Failure to recognize and cor-

ts.rectly diagnose problems in perfor-mance makes it difficult to facilitatelearning. Lack'of appropriate interven-tion stfategies makes it impossible.When student clients don't achievesignificant skl learning, physical edu-cation loses credibility as a school sub-ject.

Graduates use tests inappropriately orinefficiently. Client achievement can'tserve as a resource for Motivating effortor assessing teaching effectiveness. In-formation is not available for planningbetter actiVities. The teacher may beunaware that little or no real achieve-went actually occurs.


41. Self-evaluationThe program provides pre-servicestudents opportunity to practicethe skills needed to assess theirown teaching. Self-monitoring andcorrection of their own behaviorthrough the use of empirical pro-cedures are re§ponsibilities ac-cepted by all graddates of the pro-_gram.

42. Skills for Changing the SchoblStudents are provided with a rela-tively sophisticated understandingof power and influence within theeducation system. They acqpireand practice simple skills for induc-ing change in the school setting.Graduates are(inclined to believethat with patience and careful workthey can improve physical educa-tion by changing how the school op-erates (see *45).

43. Instructing Special StudentsThe program makes adequateprovision for students to work withclients having special needs.Graduates have learned methodsof instruction adopted to speciallearners and practiced some ofthem in clinical settings (see *44).

Problems Related.to P.ogram Content:44. Knowledge About Learars

The program provides opportunityfor students to acquire factual in-formation about learners:, theirgrowth, development, characteris-- tics, and educational needs. Bothcourses and practicums are de--signed to sensitize students to thedifferential impact of age, sex, cul-ture, and physical -capacity onmotor learning and play. Studentsunderstand the general nature ofemotional, cognitive, and physicallimitations and. how they impactthe learning process.

45. Knowledge About SchoolsThe program provide§ opportunityfor students to acquire factual in-formation about the school as a'so-cial political, and economic in-stitution. Students develop an ac-curate picture of the roles playedby various individuals in the schoolcommunity. Courses and pra,c7ticums are designed to make stu-dents sensitive to the differentialimpacf of community .enViron-ments on the natuie.of schools (see*42),

The program does not emphasize per-sonal responsibility for effectiveness.Students believe that the learning oftheir clients is largely under the controlof external factors rather than the spe-cific -i--'iA-ture of their own teaching.Models of self-evaluation are neitherpresented as program content normodeled by faculty.

Pre-service students have no real ideaof who controls what is in the schools orhow to infltience the way things are.The program makes improvement ofpractice a revisionist assignment forgraduates, but neglects to equip themwith the tools required for this difficultand delicate task.

Pre-service students never have en-countered students with special needs.They have not practiced the skills ofintegrating special students into thelearning activities of a regular class,and_ are ignorant of the demands man-dated by federal statute with regird toeducation of the handicapped.

KnowledgeThe program does not differentiateamong types of learners and is not de-.signed to provide encounters with awide variety of clients. Students mustdepend upon their own limited experi-ence to cope with differences in theirclients. Students do not understandeither the possibilities or limitations in-herent in different developmentalstages, cultural backgrounds, or abilitylevels,

Students have little information aboUthow schools really operate or why theyare the way they are. Acquired largelyfrom experience as students, their un-derStanding of roles and relationshipsin the school is incomplete and danger-ously inaccurate,

4 4

Graduates do not struggle to improvetheir effectiveness as teachers. Lackingskills in the use of methods for self-evaluation, they must rely on the in-frequent and often ineffective assis-tance of supervisory personnel.,

Graduates are first confused and thenoverwhelmed by the complex andS'eemingly impenetrable nature ofpower relationships in the school.After abortive attempts at changingthings they retire from battle and com-plain that improvement is imp6ssiblebecause "that's how it is in my school".

Graduates are unable to effectivelycope with mainstreamed studen ts.They fail to meet the needs of specialclients and are uriable to representphysical education in the process of de-signing individualized education pro-grams.

Students simply do not know whattheir clients are really like. They willoften' inappropriately project their ownexperience in learning motor skills ontoclients who have luite different charac-teristics and needs. Physical educationwhich is not appropriate to the indi-vidual learner is inefficient at best anddestructive at worst.

Their unsophisticated ,views of socialand political relationships within theschool and between school and com-munity leave graduates unable to makesense out of much they experience indaily work as teachers. Because theyare unable to identify sources of controlfor various school functions, graduatesare deprived of much potential influ-ence over decisions which impact theirvork.

Ideal Condition Sample Deviation from Ideal Consequences of De iation

46. Knowledge about PedagogyPre-service students have oppor-tunity to study pedagogy as an are'aof theory and substantive knowl-edge. They are aware Of alternativemodels for the instructional pro-cess, current topics of debate abouteffective teaching, and recent re-search which bears upon theirwork.

47. Knowledge from Social and BiologicalSciencesThe program provides opportunityfor study in sciences which arefoundational to exercise and play.Pre-service students acquire aIlroad background of informationconcerning the structure and func-tion of the human body, the placeof sport-in society and the socialand psychological meaning of playactivities.

48. Education in the Liberal ArtsThe broad and liberal education ofeach student is held as a responsi-bility shared by the program.Skilled individual guidance isprovided in course selection. In-tegrity of the liberal arts compo-nent is protected and supple-mented by program-related re-quirements.

. ,

49. Knowkdge About Careers in. Physicalrduca t io nThe program provides informationabout careers in physical educationwhkh is current, accurate, com-prehensive, and carefully articu-lated to decisions which pre-.service students must make:

The program provides only generalmaxims about good teaching, and

7 training in task-specific methods. Pre-. service students remain ignorant of

both the body of research concerningpedagogy in physical education andthe rich resource of theoretical modelswhich integrate knowledge aboutteaching.

Students remain dangerously ignorantabout the impact of exercise stress onbody systems. They are unable to intel-ligently talk or read about the systemswhich subserve vigorous movement.In short, graduates are uninformedabout the stuff with which they willwprk throughout their careers.

Faculty devalue the general studiescore and provide inadequate assistancein course selection. Experience in otherareas of ludic expression are neglected.Program components are designed tocompete with liberal studies.

tudents have unrealistic notionsabout the nature and rewards of careersin teaching. They have little factual in-formation about alternative careers inphysical education.

Prt,hlems Related to External Articulation of the Program50! Local Influence of the Program

Faculty retain close contact withphysical education in local set-tifV. Practitioners regara facultymembers as competent in profes-siohal matters and use them as re-sources fdr information or specialskills.

Faculty have no contact with local pro-grams. They lack credibility as expertsin teaching practice. They are regardedas critical or threatening figures wholack a realistic understanding of schoolproblems.

45

Graduates are deprived of a ense ofmembership and participation n thearea of knowledge and inquiry ostclosely related to their daily work. T eywill be unable to resist the powerfulforces of school soctety which teach theprimacyef personarexperience and in-formal exchange of folklore in attempk-ing to understand teaching. Systematicinquiry will be seen as futile and teach-ing outcomes as capricious and myste-rious.

Graduates _will have no appreciationfor the significance of play in humanexperience or the elegance of design inhuman motor systems. They will beunable to provide their own studentswith accurate information about exer-cise and play. They will lack informa-tion vital to the design of training regi-mens.

Graduates are ignorant in whole areasof the human heritage. They are dep-rived of the joy and meaning found inart, music, history, and science. What-ever their professional competence,

, they have an inferior education. Asteachers, these graduates will notinteract on equal terms with the rest ofthe school community, thus increasingthe isolation of physical education fromthe main stream of education:

Graduates, disappointed by therealities they dis aver in the schculs,become another statistic in the dropoutrate for young teachers. Some stay inthe program when they could haveselected other, more satisfying careerS.

Faculty are unable to exert positive in-fluence on policy and practice in sites '

needed for field experience. It is ,dif-ficult to establish the cooperative rela-tionships needed for quality control inpracticums. Students sense a gulf be-tween the program and the "realworld".


51. Involvement of Significant OthersIndividdhls whose interest are im-pacted by the operation of the pro-gram or the nature of its products

.are consulted and involved in de-sign, operation, and evaluation.

52., Institutional ComplementarityRational planning is used on a stateor regional basis to insure thatneeded programs are encouraged,duplication is avoided and: func-tions i!re placed where . they can.best,be supported.

Problems Related to Practicum Experien53. Practicum Experiences: Logistics

The *number .and types of prac-ticum sites are sufficient to meerallof the program's training needs.Available experiences include awide variety of types (field intern-ships, micro-teaching, simula-tions, on-campus teaching, andpet+ teaching). Faculty are in a po-sition to create artful combinations

\ of experience in which the factorsof expense, time, control, and-eCological validity are traded in log-icarpatterns.

\..

54. PracticUm Experiences:,Quality Con-trolWhat students encounter at mostpracticum Sites serves to reinforcemany of the values expressed inthe program. Much of what theysee is congruenr,with what theyhave learned. Cooperatingteachers are aware., of programgoals and attempt to provide con-gruent learning opportunities for'pre-service students.

55. Practicum Experiences. Indiviilualiz-ingThe program provides a variety. ofpracticums which permit gradtialassignment of responsibility at apaCe consonant with the develop-ing capacity of/the individual stu-dent.

The program is designed and operatedwithout the advice or participation of

I people who have interest in the processor the products. Faculty in foundationsubjects and other preparation pro-grams, local practitioners, school ad-ministrators, pre-service students, andgraduates are placed in the position ofpowerless outsiders.

Programs are expanded into areas ofpreparation already served byother in-stitutions. Programs are initiatedwith-out realistic appraisal of whether re-sources are adequate to meet long termneeds. Programs are retained whichare not cost-effective.

cesTile number of accessible sites is in-adequate to absorb all of the pre-servicestudents who require4practicum expe-riences at any one.time. Students havetoo much exposure to a single type ofpracticym. Students -may have no op-portunity for practical experience atcrucial points in their development.

Sites do not provide models of desir-able program or teacher behaviors.There is little or no opportunity for stu-dents to practice the skills urged byprogram training. Practitioners pro-nounce 7rogram goals to be unrealistic.

Supervisory faculty are not sensitive'tothe developmental status of the indi-vidual pre-service student. Upiformexpectations for teaching performanceoften demand too much too quickly, ortoo little too slowly.

4 6

Inferior decisions about program aremade when important sources of in-formation and expertise are ignored.Individuals who control needed re-sources are uninformed or alienated.The program is isolated from the envi-ronment in which it must operate.

Scarce educational resources arewasted through duplication and ineffi-ciency. The quality of new physicaleducation teachers is impaited becauseexisting programs are not adequatelysupported.

Vital field experiences are restricted innumber and kind. Without practice,teaching skills are inadequately de-veloped and without reality testing,students are left unsure or overconfi-dent. Visitor saturation may producenegative reactions in practicum sitepersonnel. Significant program re-sources may be diverted into place-ment of students in sites distant fromthe immediate area.

Pre-service students experience sharpdissonance betWeen the content of thepreparation program and what theyexperience in the real world of work.This results in confusion or discreditin-gthe vision of physical education es-poused by program faculty.

The student'sprogress toward masteryof the teaching role is disrupted by thedisenchantment of unchallengingroutine or the disabling anxiety caused.by demands which exceed capacity..Many students never achieve a safeminimum level of coMpetence in basicteaching functions. When graduated,such students are a lethal threat to theprogram and to theirclients.

.,Limitations and AssumptionsIn the program described in the next section we did

not attempt to deal yith any of the following matters:inservice teacher education; preparation of nort-teaching personnel; generic teacher education re-.quirements mandated by state law; general core re-quirements peculiar to each institution; required studyin the educational foundations peculiar te some in-'stitutions; preparation of undergraduates for graduatestudy in a discipline; state or regional accreditation orcertification requirements; the approval, of faculty col-leagues in academic disciplines; the sWdy of academicdisciplines in physical education as Liberal Arts.

The proper test of the utility or this model is noiwhether or not it could be implernented, .intact, in anexisting college or university. The more appropriate-.,question is "do elements in this approach to teacherpreparation seem better designed to deal 'with thenature ocpre-service students, the reality Of teaching,and the historic problemsof preparing teachers, than

, other ways of attempting that task?" If the answer is"yes", then the exercise has been. worthwhile.

Listed as a set of competencies, all of the possibleexpectations for the role of physicalyducation teacherconstitute an impossible set of skills for anyone tomaster: Likewise, listed as a series of problems,- all-of

;the difficulties encou,ntered by teacher preparationprograms constitute an impossible set of demands toConfront ,perfectly with any program design. Con-sequently,;if the first task for a teacher education fac-ulty is to.establish some sense of order and priority inthe multitude of possible expectations which could be.held for their students, then the first task for the pro-gram designer is to determine which of the manyprobleins must be,con fronted' most directly. The fol-lowing,list of assumptions reflects our priorities as webegan the task of building the Subject-matter-centered

. program. Some of these assumptions receive direct'Support from the researeh literature, and all were dic-tated by our experience as teacher educators,

I. Play activities in the form of sport, ganies, dance,exercise, and outdoor activities are the .subjectmatter of physical education. 7

2. The primary purposes of physical education inthe schools is to help students master the subjectmatter and to increase their tendency to engage inphysically active play.

3. Development of commitment to the task of teach-ing and the shaping of teacher values are the mostimportant tasks of profeSsional preparation,.

4. The interests and caabilities of faculty constitutea primary limitation on what can be accomplishedwithin any program desiAp. Their consensus onbasic queStions in physical education is essential if

4a program is to function effectivdy. .

5. The school as a social institution and the role of theteacher within the School are primary realitieswhich must guide the design of preparation.

47

6. Pre-service students entering teacher preparationare often racist, sexist, among the least able inacademic skills, pursuing. a secondary careerchoice, __primarily interested in coaching, notcommitted to teaching, and often motivated byco'ncerns other than career preparation.

7. Pre-service students must learn and practice'spe-cific Skills, for changing the behavior of theirclients. Teacher preparation is in part, a trainingtask.

8. Teaching is more than the process of instruction.Pre-service students must also be prepared to per-form important executive and interpersonal tasksas well.

9. :Much of the cognitive content required for prepa-ration should be embedded within the subjectmatter of physical education (physically activeplay). Performance skills, instructional skills, andfoundational knowledge should be learnql con-currently. This will presume activity courses whichinclude both academic and pedagogic content andwhich make extensive use of closstly articulatedself-instructional modules in a learning center.

10. To the degree possible the program should em-ploy capital-intensive technologies with sel f-paced learning and quality constant standar-ds asthe vehicle for instruction. Labor-intensive uses offaculty should -be restricted to the subject mattercore and practicums.

11. There must be regular and substantial opportunityfor intensive, mutual involvement of faculty andstudents in:the subject matter of physical educa-tion. Joint engagement of faculty and students inactive play should be a formal part of the program,as should joint exainination of values and socialconcepts embedded within these play experi-ences.'

12. ;There must be carefully directed opportunities forexamination and clarification of personal values,particularly those related to interperSonal rela-tionships in play an,d teaching.. Within this con-text, and throughout the program, the facultymust espove a single coherent position, with re-gard to sexism, racism, motor elitism, and multi-culturalism.

13. Knowledge from exercise science and social sci-ence as applidd to sport, play, and the process ofschooling must be communicated early in the pro-gram sequence.

14. Performance skills must-be developed beyond:theintroductory level and must cover a range of ac-tivities appropriate to the level and type of teach-ing certificate to be sought.

15. Practicum experiences must be a part of many,program components, whether through service inion-campus physical education, the importation oflearners for use in micro-teaching, use of peer

teaching, simulation activities, or field work inschools or agencies.

16. Identification of learning problems, practice in ob-servation and analysis of movemenLand the useof 'interventions for correction should be part ofevery activity course.

17. Graduates must be prepared to provide effectiveservice for a wide variety of clients, includingri4instreamed special education students.

18. The Cooperating teacher is the crucial actor in theprocess by which neophyte teachers learn "how-to-d6-it" in the school environment. If they arenot specifically working to achieve program goals,they will work:bgainst the intentions of the pro-

__ _ r-gram.19. While the time constraint imposed by the four-

year .tindergraduate program must be accepted asa given in program design, some students cannotgraduate without substantial work beyond 8semesters, and others should have the option pf

".an earlier exit from the program.

A Subject-Matter-Centered Model

Since we have argued that the subject matter ofphysical education is motor play activity: it is logicalthat a program designed to prepare teaching profes-sionals in this subject matter should be designedaround activity courses. What follows, then, is a cur-riculum model in which organizing centers are physi-cal education activities, where curriculum as a courseof study is defined primarily by a series of activity-oriented experiences.

Assumptions about important elements to whichprogram models must respond require us to examinecurriculum at two levels other than that of a "formalcourse of study". Curriculum can also be viewed at asysfenkic level as the effects of the _entire physical,social, 'and academic setting upon individual de-velopment-. Thus, from the macro-perspective, some-thing can be said about the contexts within which themodel should b'e operated. Still another view is that ofthe "functional curriculum", the degree and mannerto which the individual student interacts with sub-ject matter during the formal course of stiidy. At thelevel of this micro-perspective, a common agendumfor all courses within the model program will be advo-cated.

The purpose of this section is to describe the pro-gram as a course of study, to identify the organizingcenters, to explain certain features which might runcontrary to the ways in which university prOgramstypically function, and to show how the model reflectsour sense of appropriate attention to the priorities ofteacher education in physical education and the prob-,lematic elements to which all programs must respond.The model does not attend to general college/

universitY requirements, general professional studyrequirements, or electives. Aga.-1, this is not becausewe view these matters as unimportant. Rather, it isbecause w.e understand that the physical education

4 unit is but one of many faculty groups which exertsinfluence over the broad components of under-graduate study. In consequence, the unit can affectsuch components only marginally, and then only overfairly long periods of time. Thus we have chosen.tofocus on that part of the college/university ex,periencewhich most easily can be controlled by physical educa-

--tors, the requirements4or the phygical educationmajor within the physical education unit.

The particular version of the model shown herb isdesigned for a physical education major requirementof approximately 50 semeSter hours, distributed across7 semesters. While numbers of academic credit hoursand semesters/quarters available are potential con-straints, with appropriate expansion or reduction, thismodel could be implemented for either a four- ortwo-year program. The table which follows displayscredit allotments for each course assuming a seven-semester distribution.

Nine features of the model will be explicated toanticipate certain questions and to stimulate others.The nine features follow:

1. The use of physical education activities as.organiz-ing centers for the curriculum;

2. The intensive' Entry Core experience for all majorsbeginning the program;

3. The Learning center;4. The faculty/student Continuing Seminar;5. The physical education Activity Sequence;6. The common agendum for all teachers in the activ-

ity sequence;7. The Initial Internship;S. The Client/Context Seminar accompanying the

Culminating Internship;9. '.;he creation pf an influence system designed to

shape student commitments, beliefs, and values.

Subject Matter as Organizing CentersPerhaps the most striking feature of the curriculum

model is that the organizing centers are physical edu-cation activities, i.e., itis subject-matter-centered. Ex-cept for the activity foci in the Entry Core, we have leftthe activities unidentified so as not to prejudice theconferees with personal preferences. When it is recogznized that the Entry Core includes four activities, andthat students then proceed through a five-semestersequence in which they enroll in eight more activity-centered courses, then the degree to which the modelis subject-centered will be appreciated.

Entry CoreThe Entry Core receives 12 semester, hours .credit

and acts as the initiation period for the studententer-

48'

,Z5

EntrySemester

Table 1. A subject matter-centered physical education teacher education model.

Physical Education Major Entry Core.(12)*,Activities: Outdoor Pursuits, Fitness, Football, Movement Fundamentals

Entry + 1** Activity A Activity B Faculty/Student' LearningBeginning Beginning Continuing Center (2)Level (2) Level (2) Seminar (1)

Entry + 2 Activity A Activity C Continuing LearningAdvanced Beginning Seminar (1) Center (2)Level (2) Level (2)

Entry + 3 Activity D Activity C Continuing LearningBeginning Advanced Seminar (1) Center (2)Level (2) Level (2)

Entry + 4 Activity D initial Internsiiip (4) Continuing LeamingAdvanced Seminar (1) Cether (2)Level (2)

Entry + 5 Activity E Activity F Continuing LearningBeginning 'Beginning Seminar (1) Center (2)Level (2) Level (2)

Entry + 6v

Culminating Intern Ship Client/Context Seminar (2)

*Credit hours.**First semester after completion of Entry Core.

ing the major program. It is designed to be intensiveand intimate'so fhat faculty and students can form afoundation of relationships which can be built upon insubsequent semesters. The activity foci in the Ent%Core are Outdoor Pursuits, Fitness, Football, andMovement/Education Gymnastics: The activities werechosen because they appear to be particularlywell-suited for beginning articulation of the knowl-edge base foundational to physical education with thesubject matter itserf. For example, and these are meantto be suggestive rather than/exhaustive, the personal/existential dimensions oVsport and sport ,instructioncan be explored fruitfully through wilderness ac-tivities. Fitness activities can be tied neatly to the studyof exercise p,hysiology and kinesiology. Football, in allof its'international forms, repregants a series of ac-tivities through' which to examine the socio-culturalimplications of subject matter. Finally, MovementFundamentals and Educational Gymnastics lendthemselves to a host of foundation areas includinghuman development, motor developinent, movementanalysis, aesthetics, and others.

The Entry Core would, also be used to introducestudents to the major pedagogical features of the cur-riculum, namely the Activity Sequence, the Continu-ing Seminar, the Learning Center, and the*Praica.Each of these elements, which appear more clistinc-tiyely as the program develops, are embedded. in theEntry Core. Since physical education activity coursesare appropriately viewed to be;/ithin the "laboratory"rather than the "classroom" Nnfiguration in univer-sities, they typically, *arrant two contact hours foreach credit hour, thus making 24 contact hours poten-

49

tially available for the Entry,Core. This time should be"blocked" so as to provide flexibility in schedulingvarious activities.

Learning CenterThroughout the program;capital intensive methods

are utilized to help students acquire cognitive content,while labor intensive methods are devoted to skillacquisition, practicum experiences, and sharedfaculty/student experiences. ' The capital intensive fea-ture appears in the program as a five-semester, con-tinuous Learning Center involvement for two credithours each' semester. Major content is hierarehicallysequenced and fitted; as much as possible, with theactivities being offered during any, given semester. -Most of what is typically taught in physical educationmajor courses (professional and disciplinary) is pro-grammed througfi the various technological resourcesof the Learning Center. Clearly, thelecture is a methodeschewed in this model.

The Learning Center utilizes explicit, sdf-pacedlearning modules with clear objectives, appropriatelearning aids, and criterion-referenced standards em-

'Labor intensive simply means that the task depends on competentpeople and the time they spend directly engaged in performing thetask; generally, the more people available and the more time spenton the task, the better the outcome. Capital intensive, as used here,simply means that the task depends on a substantial initial invest-ment in the form of space, equipmentlearning programs, andsystem design, followed by an operational phase in which theoutcome depends on the quality of the initial investment, rather

,,, than extensive use of competent people and their time.

54

plpying frequent mastery-checks for adequate studentfeedback on progress, status checks for faculty coun-seling, and sumrnative information for program rede-sign. Faculty involvement in the Learning Center isprimarily that of instructional design with on-calltutoring and discussion leadership where appropri-ate. While it ,inight be ideal to program much of thisma teiial on `a PLATO learning system, there arepumerous less expensive InodelS available indUdingthe Keller Method, auto:tutorial materials and CBTEsystems, all of which havesbeen thoroughly tested andfound compatible with the model proposed here. TheLearning Center is meant to be a place (more about thekind of place it should be will be indicated later). It

should be open often, particularly at times convenientto students. While this requires some staffing, we donot believe it necessarily requires professional in-volvement on a regular basis.

Continuing SeminarThe Continuing Seminar is that time when faculty

and students are directly and intensively involved inthe subject matter together, i.e., they play together.This might take 'the form of intra-program intramur-als, learning a new game together, outdoor adventureexperiences, or any of a host.of other relationships thatare possible within the play context. This also is a time_when they may talk together in ways that are designedto minimize the hierarchical relationships that developbntween faculty and students, a time "to explore per-sonal values regarding sport, competition, practice,ethics, and related issues.

The Continuing Seminar is a regularly scheduledpart of the curriculum. It iS. not extracurricular. It isdesigned to be a 2-3 hour block, perhaps on a Fridaymorning when students and faculty gather together totake part in planned ediica tional experiences, just as adramaliaculty might together with students produce aplay, or a music department might together with stu-dents perform as a band, woodwind qyintet, or a jazzeAemble. Skill development is not to be neglectedhere. The experience is seen as a natural variant of themajor organizMg centers, the activities pf physicaleducation, and as such receives one credit hour persemester.

Activity SequenceThe Activity Sequence is most likely to be defined by

specific activities, that together constitute the subjectmatter of physical education. Thus, one might findcourses in badminton, swimming, lacrosse, gymnas-tics, team handball, and others. But, it is conceivablethat certain courses might be defined by some broadercomposite labe.i such as.outdoor play, which mightinclude hiking, camping, Climbing, and orienteering.Or, certain activity courses might more appropriatelybe defined through a client focus, such as games anddance for the young child or fitness activities for spe-

50

cial populations. Regardless, a primary feature of themodel is that the major defining focus is activity, andthat performance skills, instructional skills, and re-lated foundational knowledge will be learned concur-rently within these activity-Oriented experiences

In the 'version of the model shown in the previousfigure there are six activities taken subsequent to theEntry Core, in which th-ere are four activities. Thus, astudent preparing'in this version would cornplete aminimum of 10 activity experiences (more might betaken through elective options). Activities A, C, and Dare 'tudied through the advanced level for two con-secutrve semesters. Activities B, E, and F are taken atthe be nning level only. Thus, this version of themodel e sures fairly skilled performance and instruc-tional skills in a minimum of seven activities (includingthose in the Entry Core) and beginnkng level skills inthree others which, taken along with capabilitieswhich mar6x students have at program entry andothers acqUired through elective .options, suggeststhat the gradnating student would indeed possess abroad range of performance and instructional skills,much more 'so at ,least than is typically acquiredthrough many current prop:am models.

Common Agendum.1.t is in the Activity Sequence that the functional

curriculum is attended to-directly, where Certaincodicils are adoPted which affect the degree and na-ture of contact the individual student has with: thesubject, matter in the course of study. It is importantthat the program act as a. faithful model for thepedagogical philosophy embraced by its rhetoric' andevaluated as its intended Outcomes. To achieve astrong modeling effect, a common agendum is pro-.posed for the Entry Core and subsequent activity se-quence. Designed and executed as the common obli-gation of all PrOgram faculty, the common agendumhere is defined from the student perspective and forour version of the model appears as follows.For each play activity the student must:

1. Learn to perform all skills and master all playingconventions at the beginning level.

2. Make substantial progress on intermediate skillsand assimilate higher order strategies.

3. Learn to identify appropriate educational goalsand learning progressions for successful learningbased on Client characteristics.

4. Learn how to organize and manage, instruction soas to optimize client interaction with the subjectmatter within a nurturant class climate.

5. Learn to recognize and analyze common leawingproblems at individual and systemic levels.

6.. Learn a repertoire of intervention strategies spe-cific to the learning problems and an analysis oftheir causation.

.7. Learn the technology of the activity (equipment,aids, facilities, and resource materials).

8. Leafn the specific safety and fitness demands ofthe activity, including a variety of training regi-mens appropriate to different clients.

9. Learn the nature and status of the activity in con-temporary culture (who plays it, when, where,trends, place in the school curriculum).

10. Practice planning instructional skills in a prac-ticum.

11. Practice soeial interaction skills in a practicum.

This common agendum, althOugh defined from thestudent outcome perspective,/clearly implies that theEntry Core and Activity Sequence must be taught in amarmer thal is congruent with the intended outcomes,i:e., nurturing climate, succeSs-:orieriled progressions,high rates of time on task and experience with a widerange of corrective intervenhons.

.During any given semester, faculty teaching coursesin the activity sequence md/st also be thoroughly famil-iar with the tasks concur4ently programmed in theLearning Center, be they/ modules on legal liability,characteristics of the phYsically handicapped, expla-nation and application oi biomechanics to movementanalysis,

. or methods 6f criterion-referenced mea-surement in the schools. Tasks programmed in theLearning' Center will be designed so that certain as-signments require students to utilize what 'they aredoing in their activity sequence to complete the as-signments: Faculty will also integrate the -LearningCenter materials with daily work in the activity se-.quence._ ,

COntinuing SeminarDuring anV given semester, majors will be at differ-

ent levels in \the prjogram, depending on when theycompleted the Ent& Core. But, the Continuing Semi-nar is for the entire faculty and stutient population,wherever they miOht be in the program or whatevertheir assignme t might be for that semesier. Whilecertain experien e in the Continuing Seminar mightbe designed for s den ts/hichlty who are in a particularpart of the progr (thatiis, a tournament for studentsand faculty in the n try fr 2 semester, or a New,Gamesexperience and d scusslion fer those Working in theEntry Core), the e erience is primarily intended to beshared at the syste itlevel and to provide program-wide integration fculty and students.

Beginning Internship'During the Entrly + 4 semester there is a Beginning

Internship in a schhol'or agency setting. This does notsuggest that this Will be the first reality experience forthe pre-service ticher. Practica Of some kind are to beassociated with e Entry Core and each of the activitysequence course . In many institutions the studentwould also have ad an early school placement as part

. _,of a general:professional course requirement. The Be-ginning Internship is designed to provide a more ex-tended and intensive physical education teaching ex-perience at least two semesters prior to the Culminat-ing Internship. Not only can teaching skills be furthershaped in the Beginning Internship, but the experi-ence can beused in subsequent semesters to breathelife into the Learning Center activities in a way thatmuch better prepares the student for the importantculminating experience of full participation in theteaching role. For both internships, the major is as-signed to a public school teacher or agency prOfes-sion al who has been specifically prepared fo serve as achange agent in directions that are congruent withprogram goals. This person becomes a clinical teachereducator in the most real sense and is the major sourceof in fluence in this important drama. Universitysupervision is viewed as back-up, on-call serviceoriented to the practitioner/teacher educator, who as-sumes the primary responsibility for the intern.

Client/Context SeminarThe Culminating Internship is accompanied by .a

Client/Context Seminar, the primary purpose of whichis to help the intern better understand the nature of theschool as an institution, the forces which foster orprevent change in education, and the skills necessaryto be an effective change agent. The Client/Contextseminar should include clinical faculty whenever pos-sible and should be linked to the internship in a mean-ingful way, for example, by having as a major projectthe creation of change in the practicum.site, i.e., start asport club,. introduce a new activity, utilize a newteaching method, or employ community resources in adifferent way. An alternative project, equally well-suited to the purpose of the seminar, woild be for acluster of interns to uqdertake a participant 'observa-tion study of some aspect of the working school soci-ety.

Systemic.InfluenCeWhile the proposed model might accomplish much

if implemented only at th course of study level, andperhaps even more if the pr osal were attended to atthe level of the functional curri ulum, the model can-not achieve its full potential unless attention is alsospecihcally directed to the systemic level, the degree towhich the contexts- of the program as'a whole aredesigned to effect change in those who com in contactwith them. This is particularly true if one ta es seri-ously, as we have done, the notion that commitmentto the task of teaching and the shaping of teathevalues are high priority items in teacher education (seAssumption 3). The."school" was once routinely c7x-pected to influence students' beliefs in certain d/ i ec-tions. A few private schools and colleges still attp.mptto do that today, although a vast majority of educa-

/tional instituhbns have withdrawn from all pre ense of

I

r

effecting change at the systemic level, partially be-'. eaustritis-often 0.101/Olt to-be-um-eahstic-and par ttally

because tt is sometimes thought to be improper. Wefeel that such influence is ndt only realizable and ap-propriate, but essential as well. Teacher educationprograms must operate at the systemic level if they areto make a significant impact on their graduates.

While i is no doubt true that we know less abouthow to efiect change at the systemic level, we suspectthat there might be widespread agreement about somenecessaryipre-conditions for programs to exert influ-ence over student commitments and values. The Con-tinuing Seminar is clearly an intended effort to exertsuch behavioral influence through deliberate attentionto program context. The following additional sugges-tions are offered as other kinds of arrangements thatseem to be reasonable pre-conditions for exerting sys-temic influence;(they are illustrative rather thanex ha ustive):

t Physical education faculty and majors ought toshare a common locker room space that is reason-ably. well-appointed, appropriate to professionalsand pre-professionals involved together in an im-portant preparation process.

2. A student/faculty lounge should be provided forinformal meetings and as a gathering place.

3. A departmental library/study room (perhaps as partof the Learning-Center complex) should house cur-rent professional periodicals and other items of in-terest both to faculty and students. .

4. If possible, a Studentlfaculty lunchroom should bedeveloped and maintained as a pleasant place tomeet and share time.

5. Students and faculty should attend professionalmeetings together as part of a planned pre-professional socialization process.

To expect that student values will be changed with-out some sense of shared intimacy and mutual respectis Unrealistic. If the program does indeed, as wesuggest it should, openly espouse value positions on,sexism, racism, motor elitism, .and multiLculturalism,then these places and times of shared intimacy areprobably more potent change settings than the moreformal settings of class discüssion and Learning Cen-ter academic tasks.

Discussion

We have attempted to define a set of primary ele-ments that all teacher education programs must attendto, and to suggest a model which does indeed attend tothem whilei also reflecting Our:personal convictions asphysical educators and teacher education specialists.The model we have developed is consistent with ourunderstanding of the subject matter of physical educa-tion and our knowledge about the realities of prepar-ing teachers. We must reiterate our strong conviction

52

that many different Models might be developed whichare alsli connstent with the set of reality constraintsidentified. While it is intriguing to examine the modelmore closely and to respond lo questions about it, wealso encourage that attention be directed toward theassumptions on which it is based and the reality con-straints to which it responds. As a result of carefulreadings by colleagues and questions asked by con-ferees, the following issues are explicated more fully.

Program EvaluationA professional preparation program centered upon

the subject matter of physical education would be nomore and no less difficult to evaluate than other train-ing models. Process .e\ialuation would deal withmeasuring the degree to which a given institution wassuccessful in maintaining the general environment ofsystemic influence and the requisite mechanisms forthe program's operation.. Some of those conditionsand mechanisms are explicitly made in the preceedingdescription; while others are implicit in the problemchart and list of assumptions. Product evaluationwould be concerned with the exit characteristics ofgraduates as well as with their subsequent- employ-ment and performance records in the field. Evaluationof this latter type hinges on the intentions of the pro-gram as expressed in the objectives which shaped itsdesign and guided its operation. To the degree that thesubject-centered model is a generic p'roposal createdwith the primary intention of increasing program im-pact, without specification of program objectives, dif-ferent institutions would be expected to employ dif-ferent criteria.for product evaluation. These standardswould reflect the particular dispositions of the residentfaculty. To the degree that thernodel proposed in thispaper reflects a particular set of concerns, presump-tions, and commitments (those of the three authors), itis possible to identify some of the broad standardsdlich would.be used to evaluate success or failure for

tht articular version of the model. Assessment of stu-dent exiting the program and follow-up of graduates%vould we priority to four clusters of characteristics:

1. Mastery <subjeC t matter (see Assumptions 1 and 14,as well as R)blern Chart itemS 1, 28-31).

-) Commitment JLiching (see Assumptions 2, 3, 6, aswell as Problem Chart items-24, 32-33, 38).

3. Possession of a reperttf pedagogical skills, practicedand secure at the safe miniNon level required for begin-ning professional prctice (s'1'ick,Assumptions 7, 8,15-17 as well as Problem Chartitems 2, 34-43, 46,53-55). ,

4. Realistic knowledge about professional roles, workplaces,and clients (see Assumption 5 as well as ProblemChart items 19, 22; 42, 44-45, 49).

In each of these clusters it would be necessary toidentify behavioral indices through which to assessstudent achievement. Some of these measures wOuld

. .

be as obvious and straight-forward as a Sport skillstest. Others might be as subtle and indirect as the useof a semantic differential test to record changes in theconnotative and denotative meanings assigned to sexand race related cOncepts in the motorplay setting.

FacultyAs -suggested in Assumption 4, the interests and

capabilities of faculty members constitute the primarylimitation,on implementing any program design. Theproblems presented for-faculty in the operation of thesubject-matter-centered model are not different fromthe generic difficulties hoted in the Problem Chart(17-21). What is different lies in the strenuous de-mands for faculty consensus in designing and imple-menting such a program. At every point the assump-tion has been made that 'individual members of a fac-ulty can come to working agreements on sensitive andOften controversial educational issues. Given this, it isclear that recruiting new faculty with skills and dispo-sitions particularly attuned to the program would rep-resent a far less important strategy than staff de-velopment procedure's designed to help existing fac-ulty form themselves-into a community with the ap-propriate range of skills and shared value commit-ments. The technology required for such developmentactivities is in common .use throughout the businessworld, government, and Other areas of education.Even in an economy of scarcity, the cost would not beprohibitive provided faculty development was held asthe first priority in creating an effective program.

Specialization and OptionsAs indicated in the section which lists the limitations

imposed on this brief program description, no attempthas been made to deal with the question of non-teaching options. The subject matter was specificallyselected with teaching physical education in theschools as the training goal. Other progiam objectives-(for example, preparation for prOfessiOnal positionsinvolving adult fitness, or the study of sport as a liberalarts approach to undergraduate education) would in-volve both distinctly different subject matters and dif-ferent assumptions about the nature of program influ-ence.

,

Whether any portion of the subject-matter-centeredmodel would be helpful in planning nbn-teaching op-tions is beyond speculation. There are two questionsconcerning specialization within the model, however;which demand consideration here. First, could themodel accommodate the specialized preparation re-quired for tedchers at elementary, middle-school, andsecondary levels? The answer is that all three shouldeasily fit into the model given appropriate adjustmentsiti the content of the Activity Sequence and the Learn-ing Center. Second, can the model accoModate thepreparation of coaches for interscholastic athletics?Here the answer must be qualified in terms of the

\definitim given to the coaching role.

53

In the broadest and best sense of coaching as teach-ing in an educational program which extends the pur-poses of physical' education, the model is an idealsetting for the preparation of coaches. For the manygraduates who will find employment in the dual roleof teacher/coach, the values and commitments whichare central to the program should be invaluable inavoiding the serious forms of personal conflict andprogram dysfunction which so often accompany thedual vocational arrangeme-nt. In the narrifWe-r sensewhich defines the coach as a highly skilled technicianwithout commitments either to education goals or to aunified 'school program of play education, the pro-gram would be dysfunctional, wasteful, and entirelyinappropriate.

Learning CenterThe Learning Center houses all of the substantive

content normally found in courses for the major stu-dent. The knowledge base for this model is different'than but not less than that for a traditional or adiscipline-oriented program. Content would draw ondisciplines such as the sociology of education and in-structional design in addition to relevant materialsderived from physical education sub-disciplines.Since the Learning Center utilizes self-paced learningmodules as a primary instrUctional format, it is con-ceivable that each student could have a slightly differ-ent program, reflecting differing needs and interests.Certainly, the modules completed by a major specializ-ing in elementary physical education would differmarkedly from those completed by a student inter-ested in secondary certification.

Horizontal articulation in any given term betweenexperiences in the Activity Sequence and modulescompleted in the Learning Center would be mediatedby activity instructors who would be familiar with theLearning Center program. This articulation would befurther enhanced by having Learning Center assign-ments that would be completed through experiencesin the Activity Sequence.

Horizontal articulation is made easier by the fact thatthe entire substantive content of the major programcan be vertically articulated in the Learning Center.The total material for the major would be sequencedhierarchically and programmed in small moduleswithout the need to worry about "courses".

Afterword

From the beginning, the completion of this assign-ment has been a labor of love. There has been the funand warmth of working with valued colleagues, thesatiSfaction of rethinking our collective experience asteacher educators, and the job of creating a new visionwhich might free us from some ,of our most painfulconstraints. Many might wonder, as did several con-

ferees in Chicago, how much playfulness entered intothe design of the subject-matter-centered model. Inother words, just how serious are we in propOsing thismodel as an alternative for the preparation of physicaleducation teachers? This deserves an honest answer.

The title of the paper, and thus the'na me given to themodel, makes perfect sense to us. But, we must alsoconfess that it was selected as a bit of good fun. Ourcolleagues in the aradeluic-diseipline4ike-te,-ttrink othemselves as stewards of the real subject matter ofphysical education and in this bit of earnest folly makethemselves natural targets for such leg-pulling. Asidefrom- the fun we had with the title, all else _was seri-ously taken. The model is offered as our best and mosthonest appraisal of what would constitute an appro-priate strategy to reform the nature of teacher educa-tion in physical education.

In the final analysis, we suspect that many in ourprofession might agree with our analysis of what isthought to be important and necessary in preparationfor effective professional practice in physical educa-tion. Yet we also sense that many who might so agreewould also have serious doubts about both the pos-sibilities and the prOprieties of teaching and measur-ing these knowledge, skill, value, and attitude objec-

54

tives in a formal preparation program. Physical educa-tors are not alone inthis dilemma. In counselor educa-tion it is widely known as the Krathwohl-CarkhuffParadox, the notion that there are certain skills, par-ticularly in the affective domain, which while neces-sary for siiccessful practice are either impossible toachieve_or inappropriate to explicitly state and deliber-ately teach in training programs.

t is for this latter reason that one ought to carefullyseparate arguments that are directed toward "can it bedone" from those that are directed toward "should itbe done"-. The "can it be done" arguments are easier todeal with simply because they are amenable to bothlogical and empirical evidence. The "spr61d it bedone" arguments are much stickier. NonethelesS,, theyneed to be raised and raised quickly. A i.ecent \Timearticle heralded the demise of schools in this cultureand one educator has characterized our esponse tothe present crisis as "shifting deck chairs on theTitanic". We are convinced that physical e 4ucation inthe public schools requires dramatic improvthe best way (perhaps the only way) to cnature of physical education in the schoolprove teacher education. It is to that end thatwas directed.

ment andange theis to im-

this effort

A Disciplinary Model for aCurriculum in Kinesiological,Sciences

Burris F. HusmanDavid H. ClarkeDavid L. KelleyDepartment of Physical EducationUniversity of Maryland

Introduction

The Kinesiological Sciences program was designedto satisfy a need. It was felt that physical education ingeneral, and the Physical Education Department atMaryland in particular, were not offering the breadthof service of which they were capable. We were turn-ing away a large number of students who wanted tostudy our subject matte-r but had no desire to train forteaching in the public schools. It was the conviction ofsome of Our faculty members, therefore, that our sub-ject matter must serve in a capacity beyond that ofpreparing students for a single occupation. Just asmusic may be studied for its own sake and for teachingit, the "human movement scienges and sport" havemuch to offer as a core around which a basic bac-calaureate education can be fashioned. Thus, the pro-gram which resulted was designed to impart to thestudent a scholarly understanding of the human beingas hn individUal, engaging in the motor activities ofdaily life which serve as an expression of his/her physi-cal and coMpetitive natures.

No carefully designed curricular mOdel was. Con-sulted when the program was originally organized.We conceived of our approach to_be the developmentof a curriculum which identified human movementand spoit as the subject matter core and set about tobring together Hie then presently available courses aswell as new onesIo cover the knowledge base as bestwe could. No spedal decisions were made as towhether or not our approach was to be cross-disciplinary vs. interdisciplinary. We simply .orga-nized a plan whereby the University's resources, out-side and within our department, could be utilized inan intelligent manner to satisfy stddent and facultyinterests. If such a classification of our curriculumwere required of us today, the only reasonable re-sponse would be that it demonstrates both characteris-tics; we primarily believe it is a cross-discipline ap-proach.

55

i..

Definition of the Field-called Physical/Education

Physical education is that field whLse body ofknowledge focuses upon and is deri ed from thestudy of human.movement, exercise, port, and thecurricular practices and methods of tea hing this sub-ject matter in a public school setting. A though it has along history of use, our feeling has b en that there isnothing sacred in the name Physica Education. Onthe contrary, its use as an umbrella term to broadlydescribe our ever-changing field is becoming less andless appropriate. Consequently, if ome better namecould be adopted, it would appear a pro priate to iden-tify separate but related curricular jaths which lead toseparate baccalaureate degrees rather than the ae-

cumulation of a series of options', under one degreedesignation. Thus the teacher preparation programwould continue under the name Physical Educationwhatever the new umbrella term for the departmentmight be. Others, with different 'aims and thrusts,mould be labeled to identify their special natures. OurKinesiological Sciences program is an example of sucha separate bachelor's degree program.

Definition of the Field called Kinesiological Sci-ences. Within the broad definition given in the pre-ceding paragraph, we, have partitioned a subfieldcalled Kinesiological Sciences which limits its focus ofattention to the human movement sciences and sport.In partitioning out the irOolvement with pedagogicalmatters, significant additional time is available to pur-sue and emphasize disciplinary approaches to the sub-ject matter and provide increased elective flexibility.

SpeciarAssumptions. The program was developed inaccordance with the following assumptions. It is as-sumed that:

1. There is an audience ready to join in the study of .

such a curriculum.

2. The special body of knowledge is sufficiently de-veloped to support such a curriculum.

Go

3. The program can meet the needs of today's stu-dents with their more diversified interests andbackgrounds.

4. The program can strongly encourage interdiscip-linary activity.

.5. The parent department can assimilate the additionof such a program without undue strain.

6. The science-based program can be adequatelysupported by laboratory facilities.-

7. The faculty can provide the enlightened advise-ment which is required in. a program with exten-sive elective flexibility.

8. The, program can encourage the beginnings ofspecializations.

9. The program is flexible enough to include future"emphasis options" on the general theme withoutrequiring the awarding of a separate degree.

10. The program can make special coritributions topreparing students for acceptance into advancedstudy in_ graduate and professional schools.

11. There are reasonable possibilitie for employment. for the graduates of the program.

P. The program rnakes no claims as to preparinggraduates for specific employment.

The Plan

The organization of the subject matter sources un-dergirding the field presently called physical educa-tion is ,seen to follow the plan depicted in Figure 1.-Assume that a small circular disc is centered over itslarger mate:' The large disc identifies the traditionalsubject Matter field of knowledge. The small disc iden-tifies the subject matter concerns specific to physicaleducation. On its periphery are the "specializations"'contained within our field while its center identifiesthe core elements 61 the kinesiological sciences. If thesmall disc is permitted to rotate about its central axis,the subject matter specializations witlyin physical edu-cation can be placed to adjoin any of the traditionalsubject matter fields so that "information passage"routes between them- and the kinesiological sciencescore are develOped. As a result, we see our spelcializations acting as information and application. fil-ters, giving the foundational information coming tothe student from the traditional fields the urimIstaka-ble and unique hues characteristic of our special inter-ests.

The filtering function noted above must not bethought to be a passive process. Rather, it is an activeprocess in that our courses do more than simply re-move matters beyond our specific interests. They in-troduce new knowledge, embellish and_manipulate itbetween and within the specializations, and set it upfor scrutiny in light of what has been 'learned in thetraditional disciplines. This is particularly important

for a curricujun? 14.12ich_seel6 to motivate high leyels ofstudent scholarship, for the introduction to and appli-

'cations of recent research findings is an .absoliifflynecessary corn ponent of programs with :disciplinaryemphases. If the students are then given the opportu-nity to demonstrate their own independentcapabilities for conducting investigative work, the un-dergraduate, educative circle has reached closure.

Three divisions, named Curricular Studies, SportStudies, and Biophysical Studies, have_been orga-nized to encompass the sulaject matter interests of ourfield (see Figure 2). Referring once again to Figure 1,the Curricular Studies division of Figure 2 consists ofAdministration, Curriculum and Supervision,Teacher Education, and Adapted Programs. SportStudies encompasses flistory, Psychology, andSociology of -Spork. Biomechanics-Kinesiology,Physiology of Exercise, and Motor Learning make upthe Biophysical Studies Division. Departmental pro-grams sample from these three:divisions to constructthe scope of their coverage. A program which samplesequally from tlie three content divisions would bediagrammed as in Figure 2a.;This sort of program isseldom offered in physical education departments.The :more common case is one which finds the selec-tion of content skewed to meet special needs. At Mary-land, the two undergraduate program emphases maybe depicted as in Figure 2b,.the solid circle represe,nt-ing the B.S. in Physical Education (Teacher Prepara-tion) and the dashed circle representing the B.S. inKinesiological Sciences. As woullci be expected, theKinesiological Sciences program emphasizes biophys-ical and sport matters with very little attention paid tocurricular matters.

zooi-owi 0/ ICNee S /

8

. a

7.1)...1

9.

1?09

Oce.0 X4 a

-J

1O-

-v)qs.tT

44'oe4,49

0°OV0*

CO'

Human.Movement

Sport

IWOdSAO

AO010100S

el0414.0,9 , 15,

44./Os

Cool.

Vm 0c c M1:1 zm -z _4

r& Z C 0.

0?"

,007°°3AHAOSOINd

kr

-4

Figure 1. Organizational plan for sUbject matter sources.

56C 4_

From the beginning, a -bothersome problem con-cerning the wfifing of thi8---pal5eYhas been-the seeming

mandate to categorize our program under the rubric ofprofessional preparation. We have no quarrel with theterm preparation as long as it may be broadly thoughtto mean the study of and mastery of a subject matter.

a. Key ALarge Circle

P.E. body of knowledgeSmall Circle

Program sample

Key BP.E. programK. S. program

Figure 2. Physical education-body of knowledge and pro-gram samples.

The roblem arises with the term professibnal and allthat i ,impliregarding fhe cliaraaeristics of a profes-sion. There is no clearly-identified-profession-ponenf in the KinesiologicalScience program, that is,no professional mission as traditionally defined. Wesee the \ program as being similar to liberal arts pro-grams where no specific employment automaticallyawaits the graduate. Certain 'career directions havebeen established nonetheless, and they are covered ina later section of this paper.

The program's orientation- is both theoretical andtechnical. To av,oid the seemingly endless task of de-scription, perhaps the best way to present the inter-play, of theSe characteristics is to include a short pas--sage from Thomas Mann's; The Magic Mountain,which establishes the hoped for appreciations whichcan be derived from careful study.

". . . He had learned in his technical school aboutstatistics, about supports capable of flexion, aboutloads, about construction as the advantageous utili-zation of rnkhanical material. It would of course be

-childish to think that the science of engineering,therules of Mechanics, had found application in organicnature; but just as little one might-say that they hadbeen derived from organie nature. It was simply thatthe mechanical laws found themselves repeated andcorroborated in nature . . . The thigh-bone was -acrane, in the construction of which organic nature,by the directionshe had given the shaft, carried out,to a hair, the dame draught-and-pressure curves(he) hadhad to plot in drawing an instrument serv-ing similar purPose . . . He enjoyed the reflectionthat his relation fo the femur, or to organic nature.generally, was three-fold:it was lyrical, it was medi-cal, it was technical . . .

It would be possible to establish certain emphasisoptions which could require field experiences. If thesenecessitated the alteration of the basic_program as it isoutlined in Section IV, and these experiences contrib-uted substantially to the development of specific jobqualifications, then a bona fide professional cbmpo-_nent of the prograin would exist. We have consistentlya voided any tendencies, which are very markedwithin the profession of physical education, to act asan employment agency. Consequently, our energiescan be given, unabridged, to the task of dealing withthe basic subject matter. t should be noted, however,that all ,Kinesiological S iences students are encour-aged to volunteer servi e in our Sports Medicine-Physical Fitness Center, egardless of their inclina-tions towa rd specia liza tioi s.

Performance skill, as p ,rceived in the traditional, physical education prograi 1 emphasis, is- almost en-

. -firely absent from the Ki esiological Sciences pro-gram. Six credits in activitk s courses are required ofthe students. These experie ices are included not forthe usual teaching, coachin , and skill developmentreasons, but to jgrovide movL -lent background which

1

57

may be brought to bear in theory courses where the The only exit requirement, other than the Unimer,actual mechanisms of the active human being are sity's 2.0 (C) average for all Bachelor's degrees, is the:.-.Audied,ror-exarn-ple, if gelf-an-d-gymnastiLs aLtivittes-Independenr:Studies, seminar. This senior levelwere elected, it will be apparent within the physiology course is described in the program section that fol-

,of exercise course that strength and endura,rice train- 14s.ing elements for optimum performance cat4fer widely In Maryland it is legislated that every Universitybetween the two. The societal importance placed upon -program be articulated with all 'other college pro-the two activities in our culture will become evident in grams. An assistant to the Vice-President of Academica sport sociology course. Similarly, the historical and Affairs has articulation records for all community Col-philosophical consequences of the differing develop- leges. Community college counselors as well as facultymental.patterns toward "professionalism" of the two advisors know what courses are acceptable to our pro-activities will be appreciated. Since mbst of our stu, gram:Since the elective credit in the program is high,dents come to us with rather wide backgrounds in with careful counseling it iS relatively yasy to adjustphysical activities, we always try to steer them toward the transfer student's program to our Kinesiologicalactivities beyond their original experience. If they Science program with minimal loss of credits. It issi-iould improve their performance skills and learn often more difficult to accommodate transfer studentssomething about- skill vrogressions during these from within the University, out-of-state, or fromcourses, so mUch the better, foreign couhtries. Regardless, since there are so Many

Entry and Exit Requirements

There are no special entrance requirements for thisprogram except an, abiding interest in the humanmovement sciences and sport. The entrance require-ments of the University are applicable to all Bachelor'sdegree programs. At the University of Maryland it isnot Possible to establish special entrance or retentionrequirements in specific programsunless approved bythe Board of Regents and the State Board of HigherEducation; and then only in those programs wherethere is overcrowding or insufficient resources.

FreshmanYear

Course

*ZOOL 101*MATH '110*CHEM 103, *104

PF-IED '181NUTR 100 ,

ActivitiesUniv. Studies 'Req.

electives, careful advising is necessary if the student isto successfully complete the requirements in fouryears. The importance of enlightened advisemeracannot be overemphasized..

a

The Program

Recently the basic program has been substantiallyrevised. Although the .new requirements have notbeen fully implemented, that process is only a for-mality. The recommended sequencing of course workfor the new program is given below, followed by sec-tions which explain several of its special requirements.

Table 1.

Title

General ZoologyIntroduction to MathematicsGeneral ChemistryFundamentals of MovementElements 'of NutritionSee program sheetSee University Regulations

Sophomore YearCourse Title

ZOOL 201, 202 Human Anatomy and Physiology*PHys 121 or *141 Fundamentals of Physics*PHED 287 Sport and.American SocietyCMSC 103 introduction to ComputingActivitiesElectivesUniv. Studies Req.

Credit

434,42336

Total 29

Credit

4, 443333

Total 33*These courses may, be applied to both major requirements and University Studies Requirements.NOTE: For those students with highly defined social science interests, the CHEM 103 and 104 requirement maybe replaced by suitable social science courses. See ,-our advisor for selection.

58 :p

junior YearCourse

pHED 400PHED 381

*PHED 350Restricted ElectivesUniv. Studies Req.

Kinesiology.Advanced Training andPsychology of SportSee program.sheet

Title

Conditioning

Credit

43 ..3

129

Senior YearCourse

,Title

f

PHED 493 . History & Philosophy of Sport and P.E.*PHED 360 Physiology of Exercise*PHED 385 . Motor Learning & Skilled PerformancePHED 489E Biomechanics of SportPHED 496' Quantitative Methods (Statistics)pHED 497 Independent Studies SeminarElectives

Total 31

Credit

3333339

Total 27Grand Tota1120

Courses Especially Recommeniled for ElectionCourse Title

PHED 451 American Women in SportPHED 461 Exercise and Body CompositionPHED 487 Physical Education and Spott-in Contemporary CulturesPHED 293 History of Sport in AmericaPHED 489L International, Aspects of SportHLTH 285 Controlling Stress and Tension

. HLTH 456 Health Problems of the Aging and Aged

*These courses may be applied to both major requirements and University Studies Requirements.NOTE: For those students with highly defined social science interests, the CHEM 103 and 104 requirementmay bereplaced by suitable social science courses. See your advisor for selection.

Restricted ElectivesA minimum of twelve ..credits (nominally four

courses) is chosen from a prepared list of courseswhich has been subdivided into seven categories.These categories are: Physiology; Kinesiology; Psy-chology; Sociology; History; Philosophy; Measure-ment and Statistics. Seven lists of appropriate cofirseshave been prepared from the University catalog, onefor each of the listed categories, by department facultymembers who have related specializations.

Courses from the following departments are in-cluded within the specialization categories.

1. PhysiologyZoology, Chemistry, Biochemistry,Engineering, and Nu trition.

2. KinesiologyMathematics, Physics, Engineer-ing, Anthropology, and Zoology..

3. Measurement and StatisticsMathematics, Educa-, tional. Measurement, Computer Science, Psy-

cholbgy, and Sociology.

The remaining categories (History, Psychology, andSociology) contain courses which are limited to those'departments.

Two from these seven are elected as areas for stu:dent specialization. Two . courses are then selectedfrOm the courses listed under the two Chosen

59

categories. Often the Physiology and Kinesiologycategories are a chosen pair. Similarly, the Psychologyand Sociology pair are often elected. Since this is anelectiVe process, any combination of two may be cho-sen.

The emphasis behind this requirement is to encour-age additional specialization after the student has beenintroduced to our program and a number of its intro-ductory courses. In this way, the subsequent require-ment of choosing an Independent Studies Seminar(PHED 497) research problem as the culminating expe-rience of the program, is facilitated. In addition,greater depth of subject matter penetration on an in-terdisciplinary basis is encouraged.

University Studies ProgramDuring the early 1970's, submitting to student pres-

sures, the University of Maryland developed a Gen-eral University Requirements program which was al-rpost wholly elective and consisted of 30 cretdits. Thisprogram replaced the old General Education Re-quirements Program which was' very similar to suchprograms throughout the United States at that time,that is, a traditional.sampling from theestablished andvenerated disciplines, including physical education.Very recently, the University has instituted a newUniversity Studies programfor all students which

closely reserhbles the original General Education pro-gram. The new program entails the completion of39-40 credits, distributed as follows:

1. Fundamental Studiesa. English Composition 6 Creditsh. Mathematics 3 credits

2. Distributive Studiesa. Culture and History 6 creditsb. NatUral Sciences and: Mathematics 6 creditsc. Literature and the Arts 6 creditsd. Social and Behavioral 'Sciences 6 credits

3. Advanced Studies (upper bivision) 6 credits

Independent Studies SeminarA number of curricula in universities today require a

culminating experience where the student demon-strates a particular depth of knowledge in a part of thegeneral subject matter. The Independent StudiesSeminar was designed to give the student, under thecareful guidance of the faculty, an opportunity to de-velop (research) a major seminar paper in an area oftheir own choosing, i.e., in one of our specializationareas. The project, when completed, is submitted induplicate, written form and is presented to the semi-nar ,r/hich is open to faculty and graduate students aswell: The completed papers are'kept in the departmentlibrary so they may be studied and consulted in thesame manner that is typical for.Master's and Doctoraltheses. The students in the seminar also have theopportunity to participate in presentations given byselected graduate students, members of the faculty,and invited guests. Since this course demands verylarge quantities of time, it is recommended that nomore than 12 credits be carried durihg the semester it is

_taken. Below is an abbreviated list of seminar researchproject titles which demonstrate the breadth of inter-est covered:1. Justification of Salaries Received by Superstars in

Baseball and Basketball2. The Efficiency of the Oxygen Debt Mechanism as a

Function of Level of Fitness3. The Leer Ski Injury: What Research is Telling Us4. The Need for and Implementation of High School-

Athletic Training Programs'5. The Roles of Essential Nutrients in Athletic Per-

formance6. The Geographic Origins of Maryland Athletes7. History in the Making-Title IX: Flow One

County School System Has Handled Change8. The Effect of Hypokinesis on the Aging Process:

Focus on the Locomotor SystemAnalysis of Injuries in Basketball: Male VersusFemale

10.. A Comp_arison of Womon's Athletics in Englandand the United States, 1920-1925

Ilnte:rest in this paper has been so widespread that approximately150.copies of it have been distributed to professionals throughoutthe United States.

9,

60

11. The Uses and Abuses of Anabolic Steroids12. Aggression in Sport13. The Heart Differential in the Palmer Area of the

Forearm During Various Intensities of IsometricExercise

14. Knee Joint Ligament Stresses and Strains Usingthe NASTRAN Model

To demonstrate further the nature of this program, itwas suggested that the course content of severalcourses be included. Below are to be found two ab-breviated course outlines for PHED 350, Psychology ofSport, and PHED 360, Physiology of Exercise. For thesake of brevity, listings of laboratory exercises havenot been included. The knowledge base for the con-tent of these courses is research.Course Objectives: PHED 350=Psychology of Sport

To explore the personality factors, including, but notlImited to motivation, aggreSSion, and emotion, as theyaffect sport participation and Motor skill performance.

Unit Headings

1. Introduction to the Psychology of Sport2. Attitude and Character Change Through Sports

Participation3. Personality and Sports and Physical Activity4. Psychological Problems of Outstanding Athletes5. Social Facilitatiohand Performance6. Body Image,. Self-Concept, and Motor Perfor-

mance7. Emotion, Activation, Arousal, and Performance8. Anxiety and Performance9. Motivation-An Overview

10. The High Risk Athlete11. Mental Health, Social Adjustment, Life Quality,

and Sport12. Academic Achievement, Intellectual Peror-

mance, and Sports and Physical Activity13. Aggression and Violence in Sport14. The Coach and the Athlete15. Perceptual Characteristics of the Physically Active\Course Objectives: PHED 360-Physiology of Exercise \

The objectives of the course are to provide the stu-dent with an understanding of the physiological ad-justments of the varioug systems of the body as manengages in physical activity. It is designed to study thesystems of the body as they interact with each other inresponse to the stress of exercise, to examine thechronic effects of exercise and conditioning on thevarious physiological parameters of the body, and toreveal the adjustments that are made in response toexercise in changing environments.

'Unit Headings1. Work and Energy2. Muscle Stimulation and Contraction

o

Skeletal M uscle4--S tructure,T--ypes_oECon traction4. Energy Transformation in Muscle5. Metabolism and Respiratlory Quotient,6. NIutrition and Athletic Performance7. Energ-S, Metabolism and Oxygen Debt8. Work and Mechanical Efficiency9. Oxygen and Carbon Diwdde Transport

10. Transport of Gases in thE, Blood11. Respiration12. Blood and Circulation13. ,Cardiac Output14. Blood PreSsure15. Physiology of Physical Conditioning

Matters of Interaction

The Department of Physical Education is one of thedeprtments contained within the College of PhysicalEducation, Recreation, and Health. The College isplaced administratively within the University in theDivision of Human and Community Resources, alongwith the Colleges of Education, Human Ecology, andLibrary_ Si Information Services. Of the 18 degree-granting programs of the DiVision, all have profes-sional missions except Kinesiological Sciences.

The Kinesiological Sciences program is 'adminis-tered under the aegis of the Assistant DepartmentChairman who is responsible for all undefgraduateprograms. The Kinesiological Sciences Committee isthe policy-making body for the program and its rec-ommendations are forwarded to the DepartmentExecutive Committee for action. A similar committeeserves the Teacher Preparation (Physical Education)program. The two undergraduate programs th US haveequal status in the department structure. To date therehave been no problems arising from the interactionsbetween the two,programs.

As is clear from the material in the program section,the curriculum in Kinesiological Sciences isolates andconsolidates the body of knowledge commonly calledphysical education into a discipline,, i.e., it pulls ittogether under the title, Kinesiological Sciences. Anumber of courses serve both the Kinesiological Sci-ences Program and the Physical Education TeacherPreparation Program. These courses are: PHED 181,Fundamentals of Movement; PHED 360, Physiology ofExercise; PHED 385, Motor Learning and'Skilled Per-formance; 141-IED 381, Adianced Training and Condi-tion,ing; RHED 493, History and Philosophy of Sport

'and Physical Education. One important way thesecourses differ from those at other institutions whichoffer only a teacher preparation program in physicaleducation is that our courses strongly adhere to thefundamental_subject matter, with performance andpedagogical applications offered only where they areabsolutely necessary. It is not unusual to see courses

withthe sameames offeredby same physic aLeduction departments where the fundamental subject mat-'ter is touched upon only for the purpose of applica-tions.

One very interesting result of our course emphasis isthat students from other disciplines within the univer-sity are enrolling p our courses. In the past this was"rare. In fact, we were always sending our studenis toabsorb "good things" from other departments withoutdemonstrating any real drawing power forour own°theory courses. One reason for this influ3( of outsidestudents into our theory courses, we believe, is that itis recognized that our subject matter is now availableto them without the former, ini'O'minable emphasis on

'pedagogical matters. We believe this interaction willdo more to establish an enviable discipline-orientedreputation for our department than most other effortsthat might be Chosen for iMplementation.

With no clear prpgressional mission for the pro-gram, Kinesiological Sciences is more akin to liberalarts and sciences programs than education, recreation,and health education. No binding relationship, there-fore, exists between these professional fields and ourprogram. In fact, if any trend is developirctg with w-gard to how khe univerSity scees u?, it would be as anemerging science. A continuafion of this discussion isto be found in. the section concerning Implications.

Our program depends heavily on the traditionaldisciplines for background and stipport information.However, these ancillary disciplines for the most part,do not research or teach the relationships betweenhuman movement and sport and their disciplines, sothere is little or no overlap or duplication of coursecontent.

Program Evaluation

Since all gracIuating seniors are required to completethe Independent Studies Seminar, it has been thepractice, since the inception of4he program, to spend anumber of class meetings evaluating every aspect ofthe program with the students. Not only are the physi-cal education courses eValuated, but the courses in theancilliry disciplines are also critiqued and evaluated.Courses and requirements not making a significantcontribution to the program are replaced by othersmore cogeni and workable. Thus evaluation is an on-going, continuous process.

One measure of the program's success has-been itscontinued growth. It was approved by the Board of-Regents on September 21, 1973, and by the State Board

Higher Education on January 4, 1974. It was lateApril, 1974, before the program could be,implementedvithin the department. table,2 demtinstrates th6steady growth of the program.It is gratifying to note that students come to us fromdiverse backgrounds. We have had students transferto Kinesiological Sciences frorn nursing, biological sci-

' ences, pre-medicine, pre:physical therapy, health, li-r. I,LItJ61

Table.2. Growth of the Kinesiological Scie.nces program._

Semester - Year Total

Spring 1974 3Fall 1974 15Spring 1975 23Fall 1975 , 39Spring 1976 30Fall -1976 28Spring 1977 48Fall 1977 .43Spring 1978 53Fall 1978 65Spring 1979 81Fall 1979 91Spring 1980 108

brary science, and-even horticulture, to name but afew.

Those students w,ho have sought employment im-mediately upon graduation have been generaBy suc-cessful, with jobs ranging from chief technician," Exer-cise Cardiology Laboratory, Georgetown University,to coordinator of tennis programs at a year-round re-sort community, to executive trainee in the YMCAorganization. Although we know the whereabouts

- 'and activities of most of our graduates, no formalstudy of their involvements has been undertaken. It isobvious that as our list of graduates grows over the'years the task of staying abreast of their work pursuitsWill become more and more difficult. Unless somesystematized fe'edback plan is implemented to gatherthat information, knowledge of their activities will bevery limited. For a list of those employment opportu-nities available to graduates, refer to our paper, "AKinesiological Scienceslirogram", in-Alternative Pro-fessional Preparation in Physical Education, AAHPERDPublication, P979, p. 51.

Another indication of the program's success is thedegree to which it.satisfies the special assuMptionslisted in the introductory section of this paper. It is ourbelief that all have been satisfactorily met. We areparticularly proud of the success our graduates have

\ had entering graduate and professional schbols. Ourstudents have found their way intoSchools of PhysicalTherapy,. Corrective Thera py, Law, Chiropractic,Podiatry, and Business. A large percentage of our stu-dents pursue Master"s degree programs in physicaleduca tion. Many of these are a warded teaching and/orresearch assistantships.

What all of this reduces to is that if we can learn thespecifiC interests and goals of our students very earlyin their college careers, we can develop individualized'programs which will go far in fulfilling theft required_.

62

competencie. The elective flexibility of the programmakes this feasible, while careful and enlightened ad-visement makes it happen.

c.

Implications

Of particular value to us is the continuedhigh inter-est of the students toward the program. They tell us,that the content of the program istconsistently interegt-ing and, on occasion, exciting.1 Communication be-tween students then passes this same informAtionalong to eventually publicize the program as a worth-while enterprise. For example, the University recentlyhost1 a Science Career Day in which high schoolsophomores were invitedvto visit science departmentsand learn of their programs. pf the 400 students whoparticipated, 35 specified an interest in the Kinesiolog-ical Sciences program and joined us for discussions ofthe program as well as in tours of the facilities. Thus, inthe minds of future students, present students and theperceptions of the University, the Kinesiological Sci-ences program seems to be taking its place next toAstronomy, Chemistry, Entomology, Physics, etc., asa program with, interesting science content.

Of equal importance is the recognition given to anumber, of our theory courses. Five PHED prefixcourses have been selected as applicable for Phi BetKappa. Thiee of these courses and two others havebeen selected as eligible for meeting the DistributiveStudies requirements of the'ne.w University Studiesprogram (see the section on programs). In our Divisionof the University (Human and Community Resources)11 courSes were so selected from the offerings of the 18degree-granting programs. With. 5, of those comingfrom the Department of Physical Education, we feelthat the desired recognition of our subject matter'splacement in higher education is on firm footing.

The phenomenon called the Kinesiological Sciences-program has made it clear that we, indeed; are makingsignificant strides in the development of an academicdiscipline which stands secure by ykue of its ownunique subject matter, a coherent subject matterworthy of study for its own sake. This program haschanged the image of the Physicai Education Depart-ment on our campus just as similar programs havedone -on other campuses Toss the United States.There, are those' among ius who would support thecontention, arguable as it ir that the continued goodhealth of departments of physical education in majoruniversity settings depends to a large measure on dis-ciplinary progi'ams than on presently constituted pro-.fessional preparation ptograms. Only the passage oftime will reveal the accuracy of that prophesy.

Undergraduate PhysicalEducation: ACross-Disciplinary Model

W. Robert Morford and Hal A. Lawson ,

School of Physical Education and RecreationUniversity of British Columbia

Robert S. HuttonDepartment of KinesiologyUniyersity of Washington

Intro ductipn

A complete picture of undergraduate educationusUally includes three components, one or which isoptional. Undergraduate education beOns with a gen-eral education requirement. This requirementprovides foundational understandings in a universitydegree program and is equated with liberal education.It also paves the way for a second component. Sub-sequent 19 the breadth of sturdy found in the case ofgenerar education, specialized study of a subject`mat-ter field in delth builds vertically upon the above-mentioned faindation. In addition to these two com-pOnents, there is customarily a third component. Thisoptional facet is professional education, or preparationfor a specific cpreer. All three components can be ac-commodated in a cross-disciplinary model. The pur-pose of this paper is to identify and describe the com-ponents, assumptions, and advantages of this rnodel.But first, pivotal definitions and distinctions are inorder.

Definitions and DistinctionsIf the cross-disciplinary model is to be understood,,

then a major reorganization oT the reader's conceptionof undergraduate education may be necessary. Liker"\Kuhn's (1975) paradigm or exemplar' shift, this reor-ganization or reorientation toward a cross-disciplinarymodel begins with a change inlprimarKassump ions.It follows that the first step reqtiired of the'veade toshed the tratlitiónal assumption that the under-

' graduate major is desigtned to serve onlyPe schodls inthe enterprise known as teacher educatiort Certainly,

,-,

this is the historic meaning associated with physicaleducation in, universities. For this reason,- the labelphysical education is an appropriate descriptor forteacher education and associated work in the schools.But physical education cities not accurately depict themodel, nor does it adequately apply to the careerstreams, other than teaching, \A/Rich are embraced

463

with the model. A number of separate labels, then, areassociated with the cross-disciplinary model, but sep-arate labels do not imply diminished importance forteacher education or a severing of relationships be-

- tween degree progranis and faculty who woyk withinthem. The cross-disciplinary *model is an integratedmodel.

Other necessary distinctions can be generally iden-tified stating what the model is not. This is not a model 'in which performance. courses and experiences arediminished in importance. Moreover, not all degreeprograms in this _model are professional in nature, sothis is not a mOdel of professional preparation. It is amodel of undergraduate education. It follows as wellthat the disciplinary component of the model is not a'discipline of physical educa tion, but one whichprovides useful study for physical educators. In Thenext few paragraphs these key distinctions, aream pliTied.

The more precise identification of physical educa-tion is a professional program in higher educationpermits a clearer distinction between it and a disci-pline. A discipline is structured to permit impartialinquiry quite apart from ar(applied or professionalmission. In other words, inquiry proceeds withoutstrings attached and is propelled by curiosity. It fol-lows that in the cross-disciplinary model any discus-sion of "a discipline of physical education" invokes acontradiction in terms.

It is for this reason in the main that labels other thanphysical education have evolved in an attempt toadequately idenpfy and describe the field of sfudy. Forexample, terms such as Human Kinetics, Leisure5tildies, Exercise and Sport Sciences or Studies, andothers have.all been employed to describe the discipli-nary component. Forour purpose, the label Kirsesiol-ogy will be used. The subject matter embraced by itincludes:

"Selected biological, psychological, and sociologicalfactors associated with the growth and develop-ment, functional status and ability of the individual

to eagage in physical and ludic activitieS\; the histori-cal, socio-historical, and ,ontemporary roles ofphysical and ludic activities in culture, in both primi-tive and advanced societies, and Hie contribution of'these activities to the emotional', -social, physical,and aesthetic development of the individual."

Clearly, this body of knowledge entails more than thestudy of school programs of physical education, yet,prospective teachers of physical education would andshould profit from this broader exposure to humanperformance, motor control, and sport studies. Thus,a program in Kinesiology is viewed as providing apre-professional foundation for teachers and for per-'Sons interested in other careers.

To reiterate, performance courses and experiences.are not relegated to the perimeter in a cross-djsciplinary model. ln faet, a primary assumption forthe model is that Kinesiology and physical educationare, in part, performance-based, with the former de-votal,to an understanding of performance and thelatter to, its' acquisition and' refinement. Within thecontours of this model, performance courses and ex-periences may be vieWed as means to other ends or asintrinsically valuable. That is, performance coursesserve as a, valuable laboratory setting in which per-sonal knowledge (Polanyi, 1958) a'nd skill areamplified quite apart from any other purpose.' On theother hand, such courses can also serve, as \ik fieldsetting within_which knowledge about performanfe isblended with the performed act. In the latter context,students confront the variables which define skillcomplexity and delivery. In short, the personal, qual-itative experiences which accompany, or stem from,actual performance are as indispensable to a completeunderstanding of it as are the disciplinary perspec-tives. Like opposite sides of the same coin, they join togive the student the basis for apprehending the natureand significance of human involvement in physicaland ludic activity.

Any true profession must have a disciplinary basewith which to identify. This identity involves the ques-tion of uniqueness, often a politically-charged concernin higher education. Monopoly of a unique body ofknowledge is part of \the nexus for a group interestedin its professionalization, and uniqueness of a field ofinquiry is indispensable to the existence of depart-ments in colleges and universities. The problems asso-ciated with establishing in higher education a uniquecross-disciplinary oriented program within one de-partment will become obvious; foremost among these \is negotiating 'relationships with related disciplines, \However, solutions td these problems have, been lo-cated in the advAtages of a cross-disciplinaryframework (Lawson and Morford, 1979).

But the importance of a disciplinary base goes be-yond political expedience to practical necessity.. Thekey to responsible Eict ion in the name of service; e.g.,teaching, is clearly an understanding of the

phenomena involved in the service, i.e., the subjectmatter herein called Kinesiology.

To recapitulate, the cross-disciplinary model lead-ing to professional training in physical education em-braces three components: general education (pre-major), Kinesiology (pre-professional study), and pro-fessional studies. Since a major in Kinesiology in-cludes other non-professional degree programs, it isnot strictly a model of professional preparation, butrather, the orientation bf the major rests on assump-tions which are embodied in the uniqueness and inte-gration of the subject matter studied. It is now appro-

priate to turn to a more complete description of themodel.

Features of a Cross-Disciplinary Model

Two related characteristics dra.,,k/otal in a cross-diSciplinary model. The first, identified earlier, is that:the model can accommodate one o\r many degreetracks or options. In cases where only dne degree trackis offered, the program is strictly non:professional.That is, the degree is comparable to a liberal arts de-gree. There are varying amounts of specialization inthe departmental courses which may be elected; all

, courses are Structured without an eye toward a profes-sional mission. This degree in Kinesiology is, there-fore, similar to other programs found in a College ofArts and Sciences. Indeed, this cross-disciplinarymodel is best harbored in such a unit instead of themore traditional housing in a School or College ofEducation.

A second feature ofs the model can be presented bycontrasting it with ad hoc curriculum designs. When anumber of degree tracks are Offered in an ad hoc for-mat, there results a series of separate or parallel degreetracks. This is a logical outcome because ad hoc modelsare by design riveted upon a particular role. An an hoc-program is in fact constructed after an analysis of theperceived role requirements and role behaviors ofpr'actitidners. What people do or have done isanalyzed and broken down into a series of Courses, allof which tend to be role-specific. For example, in a'university where ad hoc degree programs might beoffered for teachers, fitness managers, and sport scien-hsts, these three degree programs would be epectedto have few common courses. In principle, if not inpractice, each degree program, would have a life apartfrom,the others. Each would require its own resources.These and other difference2s between ad hoc and,cross-disciplinary programs are reviewed in Table 1.

By contrast, in the cross-disciplinary model there isa common denominator of study which is centralizedfor all degree programs. This second, key characteris-tic of the model is its "core" set of courses and experi:ences. Such a core is structured in relation to the ques-tion which follows. What must all undergraduatespossess in common to be considered educated in and

64

omparison of assumptions underlying a traditional ad hoc model and the cross-disciplinary model ofprofessional preparation in physical education.

Cross-Disciplimary ModelCourse content is oriented toward free examination of

Ad Hoc Model

1. Course coltent tends toward strong value orientation;knowledge is selectively filtered in accordance with thesevalues.

2. All courses are,structureci in relation to occupational rolerequirements;'attendant emphasis is upon technical con-cerns from the-beginning of the major.

3. Performance focus equally upon methods ofteaching.

4. ProfesSional courses concentrate on efficiencyfor goal attainrnent; goals are viewed as unpro

f meansematic.

about Kinesiology? This question obviousl calls intoplay value jud ements and requires a th rough as-sessment of fa ulty resources. Just as tilue judge-ments and fac lty resources vary, so, t o, does theexact compositi n of the core vary from hstitution toinstitution. Th fact remains, however that in thismodel the common denominator of cour .es and expe-riences, forms the foundation for all deg ee programs.All students enjOy a comnion fund of k owledge con-cerning perforrhance. There is parsim ny here be-cause core cour es serve'all undergradu te majors andcan .easily accoinmodate non-majors. pecialized ormore ad hoc c iurse resources surface only later, inthe professional degree programs rath r than at theoutset.

Such a core program .of studies carri s with it tworiders. One hin es upon the meaning a d delivery ofcross-diktiplina study; the other is co cerned withperformance an1 performance courses.

The first rider centers on the organizatio of coursesto fit this frameLfork. Critics of disciplina modelscharge that courSes become overly-speciali d to en-compass moleculr or atomistic distinctions i subjectmatter. There are two sides to this issue.The critics, onthe one hand, tend to view disciplinary study om. anad hoc vantage point. Here, knowledge and tech iquesare directly applie\d to an identified work role. incedisciplinary know edge exists apart froin applic tion,and since many pr ctitioners now attempt roles ith-o tt it, this knoWle ge is often cursorily waived at ayby critics without ft Ilattention to its potential. On heother hand, it mus be granted that some disciplinrians have been overly ambitious in the design a dconduct of their courses. One root.of this problem, it I

suggested, is the dikiplinary framework which is em.ployed to organize ind disseminite knowledge. Inmany institutions an nter-, Multi-, or sub-disCiplinaryapproach is in use. he inter-disciplinary approachhas its merits, but It Idoe. differ significantly from across-diSciplinary apOroa -h.

knowledge.

Core of subject mattei\ is n t occupation-specific; attendantemphasis is initially uPon ubject matter and understandingOf theory, with applicati s and technical mastery comingla ter.

Skill is refined foi its o n sake and as a fundamental experi-ence in the major.

Professional courses concentrate on examination of goals.Means are consider d in relation to basic assumptions aboutproblem-solving ai2d goals.

The adjectiv7e, inter-disciplinary (or multi-disciplinary) describes the interaction among two ormore different/ disciplines (departments). Ideas arecross-fertilized with an eye toward the iputual integra-tion of the dqciplines conterned In other words, aninter-disciplivary framework involves the specializedapplication o1f traditional disciplines to probl2ms insport and p ysical activity. The focus is upon how aphenomenoi such as sport, for example, can bestudied as means of solVing specific problems andfurther dev loping the parent discipline. .

It is suggsted that such an inter-disciplinary struc-ture for p irtraying the body of knowledge embracedwithin Ki esiology brings continued and unavoidablefragment lion. Affected in this regard are both coursesand facul y. Differences among faculty become laccen-tuated b cause each sub-discipline borrows from theparent dscipline subject-specific concepts, constructs,and syn ax. Courses, in turn, tend to become equallyisolatedj and specific. As Wolman (1977) has noted,". . . a educational effort along interdisciplinary linesconfro ts major difficulties in virtually every area re-lated t the process of education. These problems in-volve philosophy, faculty, students, curriculum, re-search, money, and evaluation" (p. 800).

Sport and -physical activity require multi-facetedexamnation if they are to be fully understood. Theymust/be viewed as the objects of analysis instead ofmere means. For this reason and others, a cross-disci linary framework is more appropriate because itallo s faculty to continuously interact within a singledep rtmental setting.

B contrast, with an inter-disciplinary framework,in vhich the parent discipline provides principally avertical glimpse at aspects of human involvement inph sical and ludic activity, the cross-disciplinaryframework promotes both a horizontal and a verticalex mination Of these phenomena. This integralfr mework is reflected in the definitions of three broadar as of study within Kinesiology. These are:

65 70

1. Biodynamics of Human Performancethe_ study ofacute and chronic systemic and cellular human ad-ptations to movement activity.

2. Ail or Controlthe study of neural and behavioralpro 'esses underlying pre-selection processing,selection, Mitiation, execution, error detectioncorrection, retention of movement behaviors andtheir adaptive properties.

3. Sport Studiesthe study of play, games, and sportfrom socio-historical and contemporary anaJyticperspe5tives wherein the social, economic, andpolitical relations existing in the society at large andassociated psychological parameters aredramatized.

Academic components involving human developmen t and biomechartics are viewed as inextricably in-tertwined with these identified areas of inquiry.

To elaborate, a .student of biodyriarbics of humanp h y sica I perform a nce-mostb-e-exp-etted-toiaussess-a--prerequisite knowledge of basic systemic physiology

,and anatomy. Only then can this student address, forexample, that pdrtion of biodynamics which concen-trates on problems 'related to human adaptations toincreased demands on metabolism. Specific dincerns,in this example, relate to work intensity-energy ex-change support systems and their respective interac-tions to yield specific adaptations, both *acute andchronic. Yet, the focus of the student's study here isnot on 'physiology per.se, but on the biodynamics ofphysical performance. To more fully comprehend theproblem.. posed in this example, the student needsa multi-faceted approach involving elements ofbiochemistry, physiology, motor control, bionie-chanics and principles of exercise training.:

Differences between, cross- and inter-disciplinaryapproaches can be further illustrated. (For example, inthe socio-cultural area, not the sociology of or tke

1psychology of sport, but sport studies results from across-disciplinary orientation. Its scholars, whiletrained and educated in part in traditional disciplinessuch as sociology or psychology, are not socielogistsand psychologists per se- but rather academicians insport studies.. Consequently, these persons are col-leagues in the strictest sense, because they sharenomenclature, concepts, and syntax. They are appro-priately .housed in the same administrative unit tofacilitate the development and dissemination of anintegrated and multi-faceted \body of knowledge.)

Such claims for uniqueneSs which are associatedwith a Cross-disciplinary model should hot blur rela-tionships which are enjoyed with other disciplines.

,Three convenient clusters from the traditional disci-plines provide contributions to three academic com-ponents of Kinesiology. The physical and biologicalsciences offer con tributiops to biodynarnics of humanperformance, the neuro-sciences to motor control, andthe. social sciences and humanities to sport studies.These relationships are depicted in Figure 1.

In summary, there are important differences be-tween inter- and cross-disciplinary frameworks whichform one of the two riders to the model described here.The other rider pertains td performance courses.

In this model, performance courses share features ofdisciplinary course work. Like disciplinary courses,they are conducted without an eye toward a profes-sional role. Simply put, methods and materials forteaching are not central to these courses. Statedanother way, practical extractions from theory to per-formance are examined to test the validity of the con-structs entertained, but not in the context of pedag-ogy. Since not all students in the core courses plan tobe teachers, performance courses of this kind are es-sential.

Performance mastery provides an experiential com-ponent around which Kinesiological study is orderedand in which disciplinary study is anchored. This is noless the case in other performance-based fields such as

-music,- art, an d- drama.- -.The art of perform ing a n d edir

knowledge about performance proceed hand-in-handfor students. In fact, upper division courses in themajor can serve to further weld the two together.Called performance analysjs courses, these offeringsrequire as prerequisites both performance masteryand core courses in Kinesiology. Their intent is toprovide laboratory settings in which students gaingreater skill in analyzing performance. In fact, thisassumption which accords performance, such signifi-cance is one of the distinguishing features of a_cross-disciplinary model. Although scholars outside thefield of Kinesiology may gather knowledge about per-formance, these same scholars, who have a lesser un-derstanding of the actual experiences of performing,will always have less than a complete grasp of perfor-mance. The situation here is akin to the distinctionbetween a spectator and an athlete. The athlete's un-derstanding of the subtleties and complexities of theinner world of sport are rich and cumulative. Al-though the spectator can enjoy the athlete'S perfor:mance, a complete picture of it can never be attained.As Cady (1978) has pointed put, the performance re-sulting from physiqd acts is a language unto itself.While one may discuss its parameters, it remains dif-ficult to fathom perforMance unless one has beendeeply engaged in it. NO less is expected when scho-lars outside the field make isolated and selected at-tempts to look inside.

Proportional Representation and Sequences forDifferent Kinds of Courses in the Major

lh the typical interdisciplinary framework, discipli-nary study is often postponed until the later second orearly third year of a student's' degree prwgram. Thisoccurs in large part becfluse study in the respectiveparent disciplines for each .of the sub-disciplines is aprerequisite to intra-dcpartmental. courses, Further-more, each sub-discipline generally requires a sepa-

66-1

Mathematical Modelling

Computer ,Science

Neurosciences

History_ Economics

Communications

Philosophy

Anthropology

Physiology

Animal Medicine Biostructures

OrthopaedicsEngineering

Figure 1. Kinesiology-major components and knowledge stratification for the cross-disciplinary structure.

rate.and specialized course or set of courses for knowl-edge dissemination.- By contrast, a cross-disciplinaryframework permits an earlier exposure to theory be-cause knowledge generation and dissemination do notoccur by dependency upon or borrowing from parentdisciplines. Nomenclature, concepts, and modes,of.inquiry can, therefore, be presented with less exten-sive prerequisites because much of the material pre-.sented is uniquely integrated as Kinesiology. Further,courses organized in this fashion can be deliveredthematically which results in a refinement of coursescomprising the core program.

The schematic outline for a typical cross-disciplinarymajor in Kinesiology is comprised of several area com-ponents which, for the sake of this description, may beviewed aS discrete from one another when in actualfact they are integrated for any given student's pro-gram of study. ,The outline for such a Anajor is pre-sented in Tables 2 and 3. The latter shows a coursepercentage breakdown for each component within themajor. Along with the performance cornponent, the

Sociology

first tier of cross-disciplinary course work is comprisedby comprehensive core of courses representingbiodynamics, motoccontrol, and sport studies. Pre-requisites may be mandatory but these can, in largepart, be accommodated through the general educationrequirements as defined by the faculty of the college oruniversity. Conceivably, core courses could be offered'at the second level, and, in some instances, at the,first-year level, particularly in selected courses offeredin sport studies.

The final tier of courseS in Kinesiology is at theupper division level. These courses are not corecourses. They are required for certain specializationswithin Kinesiology and are open to election 1))4 qual-ified students from other disciplines and from profes-sional tracks within the department. These coursesand seminars are organized around a more focializedmethodology and related set of substantive concernsin Kinesiology. Their intent is to disseminate knowl-edge and formulate questions which result in a special-.ized depth.of understanding. The student of Kinesiol-

67

Table 2. Course areas in a kinesiology major.

Perforrhance & Analysis (21% of program)personal skill development & refinementanalysis of skill and game strategy

Cross-Disciplinary Theory Core (21% of program)A. Required in 1st and 2nd years

introductions to: study of sportbiodynamics of physical activitydynamics of motor skill acquisition

human functional anatomy and applied physiologymeasurement in sport and physical activity

B. Required iri"3rd and 4th yearselective courses selected from the three sub areas:biodynamics; sport studies; motor control.

Professional Electives (11-15% Of program)introduction toprofessional studiesplanning sport and exercise programsinstructional design and analysisfield experienceexercise managementsports medicine and athletic trainingfoundations of coachingphysical education for special populationsadvanced courses in cross-disciplinary sub areassport management

ogy, whether in a pre-graduate (research-oriented) orliberal arts degree program (terminal degree intendedat the bachelor's level) thereby acquires specializationwhich is anchored in the breadth which characterizesthe core. The implications of this pattern of curricularorganization are dear for the future scholars of.Kinesiology. It paves the way to integration -andUniqueness instead of identification only in relation to-a parent discipline.

Professional education is accommodated in across-disciplinary model by the provision of profes-sional options or tracks. Like their non-professionalcounterpafts; these courses build from the core. Twokinds of courses can be so organized, but both kindsshare two-characteristics.

First, in these professional courses, disciplinaryknowledge derived from the 7o.re is to be mixe'd withapplied theories a n d orien ted t ) professional roles an drole settings. In short, the core courses in Kinesiology,for example, are not just niceties for a liberal educa-,tion. They are important prerequisites to professionalcourse work. .

For example, a course which focuses on the.exami-nation ot school physical education curricula givespriinary attention to the design, planning, and im-plementation of programs in relation to findings fromall three areas of Kinesiology. From human perfor-mance and motor control comes findings which haveimplications for exercise training regimens, physicalfitness, optimization of performance, and skill acquisi-tion. In sport studies, im plica bons are derived frominvestigations of sociali:zation into, and via, sport and

physical activity. In the same course, curricular theoryfrom a College of Education provides models for de-sign, implementation, and evaluation which harbournicely these applications from Kinesiology. The finalingredient in the blend is scholarship in physical edu-_cation curricula. It is this kind of blend, throughKinesiology, ,aat findings from relevant models andtheories, and approaches from physical education andother professional fields bring uniqueness to profes-sional courses wittiin the department. That is, Withoutsuch an approach, differences, for example, between acurriculum course in education and one in physicaleducation become narrow. This situation is, therefore,akin to the difference between cross- and inter-disciplinary in that the latter involves the same bor-rowing from and dependence upon parent disciplines,while the former requires the generation and integra-tion of knowledge into unique packages.

The second characte?istic of these professionalcourses, perhaps obvious by now, is that they aretheoretical and scholarly in nature. That is, they arestructured to give a free examination of the profes-Sional role or role setting. The intent here is not respec-tability in relation to kinesiologists, but rather to.provide tested and testable theoretical constructswhich serve as adequate blueprints for practice in thereal world. To some extent, such theory and the spe-cific findings and techniques which it anchors willalways be nd hoc. Bur to grant immediate or direct'

Table 3. Curricular componentsePercentagebreakdown,.

AreaLower

Division

2°-/)°, eoafrtotal .

Uppe4.Division

2°-/y° eoafrtotal

Total% of

4-yeartotal

Performance & 20 23 21

AnalysisTheory Core & 27 3

Core Elective's 1.0

Professional Electives 21230 11-15.

Related Fields & 53 34-43 43-47Prerequisites,,Electives

68

RELATEDFIELDS

PRE-REQS.THEORY

PERE.ELECTIVES CORE

PROF.ANALYSIS

ELEGY. ELECT.

45% 21% 21% 13%

applicability is not to grant at the same time an uncriti-cal, missionary zeal; the guiding norm is one of ra-tional analysis in the ineerests of service to society.Professional education in any field is an importantcatalyst for.change in the roles practitioners performand in the settings within, which they work. If this,function is to Iciedischarged, then nothing short of a'free examination of roles and role settings, which in-cludes where necessary a critique of existing 'opera-tions and beliefs, is absolutely necessary. The termprofessional studies is, therefore, an appropriate de-scriptor for such- courSes.

This second characteristic Of professional courses inthe cross-disciplinary model is clearer when the rolesof field experiences and internships is bared. Fieldexperiences precede, accompany, and follow profes-sional studies courses. TITose which preeede are de-signed for career selection and for introduction to theprofession. Those which accompany and follow arestructured to permit the student in whatever careertrack, to move from role observation, to role perior;mance, to role analysis. These experiences, are, inshort, predicated upon the assUmption that the fieldprovides the optimaitite for ad hoc role training. Herethe important tricks of the trade and situation-specificpractices can be unearthed for what they are and mas-tered accordingly'. These field experiences gainamplified meaning, however, because of their inter-communication with professional studies courses.That is, the relationship between theory and practice isplanned in lieu of the sink or swim exposure to fieldwork which was characteristic of days gone by.

TralTITIM , professional.courses have wo cnarac-teristics. They require core courSes. in Kinesiology asprerequisite and they are struCtured to allow a theoret-ical and scholafly examination of roles and role set-tings. Two kinds of professional courses can be soorganized. Which kind is employed hinges upon thenumber of career streams or tracks offered in a particu-lar department as well as upon external requirementsfor certification. Put simply, some patterns of courseorganization require more time than others, and timerequired to complete the degree is often a pivotal factorin curricular decisron-making.

Aith one or two tracks, professional courses can beexpected to be more role-sp'eci fie or ad hoc. With manydegree tracks, more generic professional courses maybe prerequisite to role-Specific. counterparts.. Forexample, a generic course which concerns itself withplanning and, programming for sport and physical ac-tivity may be prerequisite to a specific course on schoolcurriculum for physical education, Or a course on in-structional design may be requisite to teachingmethods for secondary schools. The question here isnot with right or wrong kinds of courses, but rather,with different sets of assumptions which may be enter-tained. The advantage's of the generic courses are: theyprovide, training and education for careers which,while related to aspects of the schools, occur outside

69

these institutions and differ in form and substance;they pave the way for tudents to, view the entirepicture of the work world of physical activity andsport, both within their own and across other profes-sions; they provide a way of uniting students in thesame profession, despite the fact that they may havequite different career plans:- that is, students areequipped with the same models for problem-solving,speak the same language, and understand their com-mon goals and heritage.

Generic courses are prerequisite, then, to the spe-cialization which is inherent in a profession. Since thismodel of professional preparation takes the assump-tion that Kinesiological subject matter applies directlyto work roles, it follows that certain of the three areasof specialization with Kinesiology apply more to someroles than to others. For example, a student in exerciseprescription and management would be expected,after completing the core, to emplibsize biodynamicsand, perhaps, human performance (see Table 4), whilea perceptual motor specialist would turn to motor con-trol (see-Table 5). Still others may desire the prepara-tion of the generalist, as in the case of the master

'teacher. These kinds of degree patterns are demon-strated in Figure 2.

In the case of professional preparation for a career,then, the sequence in the crost-disciplinary model issummarized in- Table 6. During the pursuance of ageneral education requirement, prerequisite coursesto a major in Kinesiology. are completed. Studentsthen complete a Kinesiology core of course work, e.g.,designated by a KIN prefix, integrated with perfor-'mance courses. An introductory field experiencecourse is preferable at this same time. Following com-pletion of the core, and depending upon the institu-tion, students next proceed to professional :courses(designated by a KINPE prefix), whether career-specific or generic, and pursue other electives in

Table 4. Exercise prescription and management.

Relaied Fields Prerequisites

PerformaTice Core

Theory.Core & Electives

taincluding advanced electives in:Physical Growth and DevelopmentPhysiology of Exercise

Professional ReqUirements and ElectivesIntroduction to Professional StudiesPlanning Sport and Exercise ProgramsInstructional Design and AnalysisExercise ManagementSports Medicine and Athletic TrainingField or Clinical Experience

Related Fields ElectivesPhysiology and BiophysicsOrgani-6.a.tional BehaviorMarketing

28%

21%

21%

15%

15%

a. Sport Pedagogy and Sport Coaching

c. Early Childhood/Perceptual Motor Specialist -

r\.

b. Sport Management

CoreCourses

Advanced Courses

d. Exercise Prescription and Management

Figure 2. Cross-disciplinary model fur undergraduate education. Four examples of special options.

Kinesiology. These professional studies courses arelinked to field experiences which both precede ands,LiCreed this foTmal training. Students completing thisoverall sequence will have moved from an under-standing of important phenomena, to.questions and

70

approaches surrounding their applicatitm and organi-zation in professional vork roles, and to direct experi-ences under field supervision in the real world. Thegoal at the.end of the undergraduate program is suc-cessful role performance.

Table 5. Early Childhood/perceptual motor specialist. ,

Related Fields Prerequisites 28%

Performance Core 216/0

Theory Core & Electives 21%including advanced electives in:

Human Motor ResponsePhysical Growth and Development

Professional Requirements & Electives 15%Introduction to Professional StudiesInstructional Design and AnalysisHuman Motor PerformancePhysical Activities for Young ChildrenPhysical Education for Special PopulationsField or Clinical Experience

Related Fields Electives 15%Early Childhood EducationGrowth and Development in Psychology Home Eco-

nomics or PediatricsChild PsychologyRecreation

Prototypes and Evaluation

Prototypes for the cross-disciplinary model con-tinue to evolve in several North American insiitutions.While not all are identical in structure, these programsshare a similar conceptual focus, namely, the study ofhuman involvement in physical and ludic activity.While the model has withstood the test of time in someinstitutions, there is some evidence to suggest that itremains widely misunderstood by colleagues in moretraditional professional programs. In fact, iris interest-ing to note that at least one prototype isrdivorced fromall professional training while others may serve morethan one professional option beycind the core, e.g.,physical educatiOn, sport administration; and pre-physical therapy. Some colleagues have difficulty un-derstanding this outcome.

Evaluation of this cross-disciplinary model has ocicurred in less formal ways than the desirable norm ofexperimeo research. In the professional fie1d, stu-deny ha enjoyed successes in job placement;graduates who become physical education teachers, inparticular, have initiated school programs in whichKinesiological concepts are taught to elementary andsecondary school students; their work is completedwith an eye toward theory from both Kinesiology andpedagogy. Liberal arts graduates-are as diversely oc-cupied as those from other fields. Some are employed

7 1

"Table 6 Hierarchy of degree program componentsprofessional options.

for two

28%

21 %

21%

15%

15%

RELATED FIELDSPREREQUISITES & ELECTIVES

PERFORMANCE & ANALYSIS

KIN'ESIOLOGY-19

LEVEL KINESIOLOGY

CORE

SECOND ELECTIVES

PROFESSIONALCOURSES

GENERIC

PROFESSIONALELECTIVES

PROFESSIONAL P.E.ELECTIVES

P.E.

RELATED FIELDSELECTIVES

RELATED-FIELDSELECTIVES

in fields which related to their education, (for example,the sporting goods industiy) while others exhibit nosuch linkage. In relation to the research enterprise, thefirst generation of kinesiologists with doctoral degreesis just being produced, i,e., those who conform to thecross-disciplinary mold. It will be an interesting exper-iment to observe how successfully these individualswill compete for teaching-research appointments inhigher education and to note whether these ap-pointments will ultimately be resfricted to the fields ofKinesiology or physical education. On the basis of theobservations at present, these itrdividuals appeafr to befairing quite well both within and outside the cross-discipline of*Kinesiology.

ReferencesCady; E. H. The Big Game. . Knoxville: University of Ten-

nessee Press, 1978.Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press, 1975.Lawson, H. A., and Morford, W. R. "The Cross-Disciplinary

Nature of Kinesiology and Sport Studies," Quest 31, 2:222/23T. .

Polanyi, U. Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1958.

Wolman, M. G. "Interdisciplinary Education: A ContinuingExperiment." Science 198: 800-804.

ki

PART Rllllk

Accreditationof Programs?

t.

Accreditation: Is the Horse.- Already Out of the Barn?

,

P. Stanley BrassieThe University of Georgia

Introduction

NASPE has been studying accreditation over thepast three years, and this has been, most appropriate.When the experience of other disciplines is examined,the accreditation process emerges as the most influen-tial force in the design and conduct of programs ofprofessional preparation: Since accreditation is rela-tively new in physical education, its impact has yet tobe fully realized.

The author has served as coordinator for NASPE'sstudy of- accreditation. In this connection, the issuesand problems associated with accreditation have beenidentified, evaluated, and synthesized. It is the pur-pose of this section to explore these issues and prob-lems. In so doing, a major question must be con-fronted directly by the reader: Does the profession ofphysical education have anything to gain by participa-ilig i;t Cu accrechtatiorrprocedure? It shall become

apparent that there are numerouS- possible answers tothis question. The author has come to the conclusionthat there aye many reasons why accreditation is worthpursuing hy physical educators, and there are somequalifications which must be established in this re-gard. But first, some groundwork must be laid.

To begin, it is necessary to define the latest, fashion-able jargon used in higher education, to differentiatebetween confusing terms.

Accreditation. The proe'ess whereby an agency rec-ognizes a program of study or' an institution aS meetingcertain predetermined qualifications or standards.

Institutional Accreditation. Involves a look at the en-tire institution without identifying the quality of anyone of its parts. (Regional Accreditation Associationsare examples.)

Professional Accreditation. A look at the quality of a'professional pmgram of study by agencies establishedby members of the professional discipline.

. Certification. The process by which a non-governmental agency grants recognition to an individualwho has met certain predetermined qualificationsspecified by that agency. (WSI, Scuba, and NATA are

'examples.)Licensure. The process by which an agency of gov-

ernment grants permission to an inylividual meetingpredetermined qualifications to engage in a given oc-

cupation or grants permission CO an institution to per-form specified functions. (Teachers=state grants ateaching license; State licenges a university to prepareteachers; university'certification.)

Itreaders have read the Ghroniclepf Higher Education,they have probably recognized the increasing fre-quency with which articles on accreditation have beenappearing. Accreditation is a proverbial "volleyball"which is being "sworn t*O" by professional associationsand "sworn at" by administrators. It is a very live issueas the decade of the 1980's begins. .

For example, in the June 16, 1980 Chronicle of HigherEducation an article announced that Dr. KennethYoung had resigned as pressident of the Council onPost-secondary Accreditaticfn (COPA) after a five-yearbattle to keep the fedeial government ;rom encroach- .ing into the accreditation arena. Few physical educa-tors probably bothered to read that three-column arti-cle, but many colleagues in other disciplines (those gov-erned by accreditation) were very, very concerned thatDr. Young had thrown in the towel. The rea on for thisconcern is that govenment has been 'tryi lo en-croach into the accreditation arena for purposes ofawarding federal grants. If Uncle Sam succeeds, fac-ulty in physical education may someday i.:)e confrontedby the stark reality that Co qualify for a federal grant theprogram in which they work must be accredited by anagency representing their profession. Accreditation is,then, a process with far-reaching consequences. It istime that physical educators be given undivided at-tention. .

History

Accreditation began in this country at the turn of thecentury. From its beginning, it w-as a non-governmental, voluntary process. This has made it a-unique system in the world, In nearly every othercountry, programs and institutions are controlled andevaluated by governmental ministries of education.Accreditation did pot' become an influential factor insetting the standards of a profession until 1920 whenaccreditation developedinto a controlling force in thefield of medical education. They were the first to feelthe impact of the non-governrnental program of stan-

.

75 -

dard setting. Within less than a decade (1920-1930)the number of medical schools in the country Was re-duced in half as shoddy, inept operations were forcedto close. This first accreditation process began withthe financial backing from a foundation, and with itthe medical ,profession accomplished through ac-,creditation what many members of -the AMA and theAssociation of American .Medical Colleges had beenendeavoring to accomplish for some years.

As a consequence, accreditation was established asan irriportant and legitimate means by which a profes-"sion could raise t\-ie standards of education of its future,'Members and exert further control over entrance into,its ranks. This example Was later follow iectn order bylaw, dentistry, business:, chemistry, psychology, and

.countless other professiOns. It Should be added herethat some phySical educators apparently stu5lied ac-creditation in the. mid 1960's, but the fruits *of these.efforts have been difficult to locate.

Physical education is today one of very few degreeprograms on the nation's campuses which has no pro-

). fessional accrediting agncy monitoring standardsthat are established by the profession. Once again,tBere are consequences' for physical education as com-pared to those degree programs that are being gov-erned by professional accreditation agencies. Theseconsequencesspan those which are fiscal "and capital,although there is no doubt that many other depart-ments on niany-campuses.have used accreditation asleverage for new faiOlities, equipment,.and supplies.These consequences can be traced to the very roots ofphysical education, including its definition and scope.What, then, has happened or not happened-in the--past 20 'ears with the absence of professional ac-creditation?

1. It appears that there is little or no agreement onwho pllysical educators are. Today, there .-arean jn-creasing number of scholars in the most _prestigiousinstitutions who want to be called historians, psychol-ogiSts, sociologists, physiologists, biomechanists, butnot physical educators. (This is not, by the way, alobby for, the name "physical education" per se, but theuse of, it as a collective noun is justified because of itsheritage.) The point is, some persons are in a paradox-ical position. They want to dissociate themselves fromour discipline, yet contribute extensively to its scho-larly literature.

Diseplines .that established accreditation twentyNars ago are not having these dilemmas. Scholarsaccept the parameters of their body of knowledge andsubscribe to the.standards which define it. Es the pro-fession of physical education stronger or veaker-in1980 in the-absence of such definitions?

2. It appears that there is little or no agreement onwhat physical educators do. Alter reviewing the well-conceived papers prepared for this publication, onemav-.ask a pointed question: are divergent views ofprofessional preparation within a discipline being pre-sented, or is the question one of professional pre pa ra-

76

tion in divergent disciplines? In connection with apre-convention conference in 1980 on accreditation ofgraduate programs faculty from one of the most pre-stigious graduate programs (as identjfied by a recertsurvey) declined to attend. Their reason was: "We donot have a graduate program in physical education."-Yet their graduate program, known by another name,is considered by colleagues as one of the very best inphysical education. Disciplines that established ac-creditation twenty years ago are not facing this di-lernma. They know who they are, what their productmust be able to do, and they have identified ways toaccomplish this-goal. To return to the question, then,is physical education stronger or weaker in 1980 be-cause of divergent views on the identity and functionsof the field?

3.' It also appears that there is a question of wherepl4sical education is going. This is the most seriousindictment. Even more alarming is that physical edu-cators have no established procedure for determiningwhere they are going. Disciplines that established ac-creditation procedures twenty years ago have estab-lished an organized procedure for determining futuredirections based upon information systematicallygathered from, the public sector, professionals in thefield, and the institutions involved in professionalpreparatioh. Today there is indeed diversity in physi-cal education. It has had great impetus on our growth,but at the same time this has been growth' without aunifying element. Perhaps accreditation would haveprovided that during the 1960's and 1970's.

2 Accreditatiop in the 1980'

There is, then, good reason to consider accreditationas the 1980's unfold. Yet,..physical education findsitself handling the issue of accreditation at a strangetime. Physical educators missed the golden moment inthe 60's. Although accreditation seems to have well-served many professions during the past two decades,it is ironically enough, being challenged as never be-fore in its history, just at the time when physical edu-cators appear .to need it most. Why is accreditationbeing challenged? Two primary reasons can be iden-tified:

1. Cost effectiveness is one reason, and twin criteriaare employed: cost in terms of financial commitment;cost in terms of faculty/administrative time. On theother hand, most departments and most colleges/uni-versities would be willing to. pay the PRICE (financialand faculty/administrative) if it was concluded thatBENEFITS being derived were commensurate withthe cost. What institutional/departmental benefits arebeing derived presently for the cpst? There appear tobe three which accrue to a single institution, including:self-study (a chore oft61 delegated to an administra-tor); external peer evaluation (very valuable, but ex-pensive); recognition of quality by the profession.

"1kj

*In addition, there are presently some collective pro-fessional benefits being-de-rive-dr the cost: the provi-sion of a data bank for the profession; the provision ofa vehicle for identifying problems, addressing prob-lems collectively, and implementing solutions; theway of transferring.the profession's suppoit to institu;tions to maintain standards in view of decliningbudgets, etc. These all sound like reasonably goodbenefits for the cost. Consequently, there must be anunderlying reptoy why accreditation is being chal-lenged.

2. The validity of-the accreditation process being chat-ler,-ig-a is the second reason. The goal.of accreditationis to establish standards, measure a department's pro-gram against those standards, and identify strengthsto be commended and weaknesses to be corrected. Butis there evidence for the validity of the standards?,Forthe past seventy years, accreditation standards havefocused on what- this author calls RESOURCE IN-PUTS. Included in this category are the following:recruitment standards;- admission standards; reten-tion standards; administrative structure standards;acuity and support personnel standards; curriculumtandards; library and technological support stan-prds; facilities standards; financial resource stan-

dards. It is true that all of the above resources areimportan t to departments of physical education.However, the issue focuses on how much of each andhow many on each are required for quality. The re-seatch that has been done by COPA and USOE showthat these independent vadables taken individually,collectively in groups, and collectively in total have but--a loth positive correlation with a program's overallquality. The highest predictor was a student's admis-sion standards. For years, accreditation agencies firstdoubted, then challenged, and finally accepted thefact that their standards were low predictors of quality,biit -reOgned themselves that this was the best wayknown to evaluate a program.

-- It might appear at this point that questions of valid-ity might bury the NASPE accreditation project, butthere is more to be said.on the issue. It is this author'sview that accreditation may emerge from this crisis asan even stronger influence in the next 20 years than ithas been for the past 20. The reason for this predictiaris that accrteditation is finally proceeding beyond re-source inputs to program outcomes, i.e., to the stu-dents gradu'ating from our institutions. The key toaccreditation in the future will be the ability to measurethese outcomes in addition to the more traditionalrecource inputs. All decisions about faculty, curricula,teaching methods, facilities, institutional and de-partmental governance, and finance can be rationallyand deliberately determined only if here is someknowledge of their effects on outco s. Furthermore,all of the terms being used today to evaluate educationrefer to outcomes. These include efficiency (the ratiobetween outcomes and resources employed), accoun-

-lability (the ability to produce outcomes that are corn-

mensurate with costs), and management (the selectionof technologies that will produce the best outcomes inrelation to the amount of employed resources).

In each case, the assessment of outcomes need notbe so precise and expressed in cardinal numbers, butwe crnust be able to get a subjective reading at least.There is no way to solve questions of value by easyquantitative formulas. In the opinion of the author,thisis especially so in education where the purpose isto facilitate the sound development of a unique humanbeing. Statistics are no substitute for judgment.

There are better ways and poorer ways of approach-ing teaching, research, and service. The most efficientways are those which yield the highest ratio of resultsto costs. Colleges and universities could be more effi-cient if they paid greater attention to discovering theiroutcomes. At present, colleges and unWersities, andyes, physical education departments, know very littleabout their results and next to nothing about t e ef-fects of change in their procedures and metho s onresults. What passes for evaluation has little to dil withthe outcome, what happens to students!

Without a knowledge of outcomes as it pertains to_students, physical educators are destined to merelyfollow tradition, or do what is expedient in the light ofprevailing pressures, or be vulnerable to every fad thatsweeps education, or manage by intuition, or maybeall of these! (We have all attended faculty meetingswhere scholars debate educational or curricular policyand make speeches on the advantages of this require-ment or that without the remotest notion of whatdifference their proposarcWill make Oirthe students,the outcomes).

The author has concluded that physical education,by virtue of its being twenty years late, can definitely

, benefit from accreditation and become a leader in thefield of accreditation. There are, however, some qual-ifications.

1. The study of outcomes in physical educationmust avoid the confusion of resoUrce inputs. How cana real measure of program effectiveness in physicaleducation be derived i.e., how do our studentschange and grow as a result of their college experi-ences?

2. Assessment of outcomes should be based uponthe study of alumni as well as of students. Thereshould be interest in the values and attitudes ofalumni, their interests, their citizenship, land theircareers as they may have been affected by their collegeexperiences.

3. Assessment of outcomes should bd vconcernedwith change in students as a result of their collegeexperiences, not merely with their absolute lei*ofperformance during and after college. The outcomesto be 'measured center around changes, not absoluteperformance, as the criterion of a true educationaloutcome.

4. Assessment of outcomes must be practical, nottoo time consuming or expensive. _It should concen-

7 78 0

trate on major goals and avoid trivial detail. It can be'based on small samples of students .and alumni andnot attempt to cover the universe.

5. Assessment of outcomes should be related to thespecial missions or philosophies of a particular de-partment..A department should not have to-adjusttheir goals and programs to the requirements of astandardized evaluation scheme, or measure its per-formance to uniform set standards established byNASPE or any other group. However, they should beheld accountable for affecting change in their stu-dents. The documents'which were presented in De-troit last year dealt excluSively with resource inputs.This information will Ebntinue to be a source of valu-able guidelines and measures, but only useful in termsof outcomes of the programs.

Now that the issues associated with accreditationhave been identified 'and analyzed, it should be clearthat there is a yet-unreaped potential associated withthe process. There are also some immediate problemswhich -must be solved, especially those related to themeasurement Of outcomes from programs/Of profes-sional preparation. When it comes to the.selection ofvalid measures, subjective judgments of' competentpeers will be a central as quantitative, objective data.Despite such initial problems, the benefits associatedwith accreditation, in the author's opinion, off-set thecosts. Accreciitation can serve well Vie profession ofphysical education during times sqh as these whendiversity clouds both its identity add purpose.

9

,18

-

41.

PAWL nh

Analysis andSynthesis

gr

N1

a

Professional Preparation:Quality and Diverisity

Linda L: BainUniversity of Houston

Introduction

The ,ntral theme of this publication 'and the 1980Detro_. conference has been diversity; the major goal'has been quality. It seems worthwhile to examine eachconcept and the relationship between the two. Xnder-son's (1,980) review of previous professional confer-

/ ences was helpful in putting this particular conferencein perspective. Those earlier conferences asked what isthe best way to prepare a, person to teach physicaleducation in schools and resulted in the developmentof standards for professional preparation programs.Here, however, a broader.question is addressed: Whatare alternative ways to prepare physical educators Yra range of professional,responsibilities? The emphasishas been upon understanding each of the modelsrather tlian upon identifying and endorsing the bestway to accomplish.the task. Anderson anticipated thatsome would react with frustration to ans diversity andlack -of national unity. However, NASPE's decisionnot to endorse a program model for professional prep-aration of the physical educator does not indicate theabsence of a policy. It is a visible, forceful statement ofcommitment to pluralism.

Pluralism is more than the passiVe tolerance of dif-ferences, more than a reluctant admission that com-promise is impossible. It is a strong commitment jo thefact that,diversity is desirable, that diversity does notmerely lead to progress, but that diversity is progress.Ellis (1980) has described rather convincingly thestrengths of plurahsrn in resPonding effectively toclient needs and to changing social conditions.Sociologists have suggested that the building ofknowledge does not proceed in linear fashion but in-volves struggle between alternative paradigms orworld views follOwed by sometimes sudden shifts inbasic perspective. (Ritzer, 1975) In addition to thispragmatic belief that diversity builds knowlehe, ourability to embrace those different from ourselves isperhaps the deepest and most significant expressionof our assessment of the unique qualities of eachhuman being. A true commitment to pluralism indi-cates that our goal is not unity but dialogue. NASPE'swillingness to publicly affirm-alternatives rather than asingle standard approach to professional preparationis an important' step.

Our commitment to pluralthrn does not diminish ourneed for coherence, our need to make sense of it all.Many of us are searehing for a comprehensive pro-gram design which can accommodate the preparationof professionals who provide physical education for avariety of clients in a range of settings. Declines inenrollment in teacher education programs were fol-lowed by band-wagoning for "non-teaching" options.(Considine, 1979) Such Options often were tacked on toexisting programs without careful consideration of thetotal program. After an initial flurry of activity, morethought is being given to the search for a coherentdesign for the whole program. .

There are both practical and philosophic reasons forttiis search. In an era of limited resources, it is notfeasible to develop a separate program fOr each profes-sional speciality. In most universities the same basicprogram must accommodate all of the options. For thestudent this has the advantage of permitting moreflexibility and perhaps simultaneous preparation formore than one professional role. Such multiple prepa-ration maximizes employment potential and respom-siveness to future trends in the job market.

This search for prograrn coherence is originating` ate local, not the national level; that isit is not impor-

ta nor desirable that there be national agreernentupon some common program design. At the local levelit is more necessary and More realistic to identify acoherent program philosophy and to develop a pro-gram consistent with,it. The faculty at any institytionare certainly a diverse group, but they share a common'context and common concerns and they have the op-portunity for the prolonged deliberation necessary tobuild a consistent, logical program model which effec-tively provides preparation for physical education pro-fessionals who will serve a range of client populations.

The Four Models

Each of the four models presented co101d serve assuch a comprehensive program design. Each couldpresumably be expanded to include preparation ofteachers and other professionals regardless of whetherthe 13.i.esentors have done so. It should be noted thatthe absence of such an extension does not reflect neg-

83

ligence on their part. lEach group was requested todescribe a model in its Current state and not to explorepossible extensions of the mbdel. They have thor-oughly,well-performed"this task. Yet it may be helpfulto us to explore the Viability of-each model as A'gom-prehensWe program cleign.

Bruce Joyce (1975) has ,discussed various concep-tlons of human beings and of education and hasanalgrzed the implications of these conceptions forteach'er education. He prbposes that teachei educationwas built around a prevailing industrial conception ofeducation oriented toward efficient attainment of out-comes, particularly literacand occupationally-relatedskills. Against this backdrop, Joyce identified fourmajor reform movements -s,rhich have had some im-pactl on teacher education in this century:

1,, The P,rogressive MovementEducationknowledge emergent from groupprocessTeacherproblem-soler group leaderThe Academic Reform MovementEducationinduction into practice of the disci-plineTeacherpracticing scholar

3. The Persbnalistic Reform MovementEducationprovision of diverse, growth-i n d uci ni`en viron men tsTeacherself-actualized person, "gentle guide"

4. The Competency Orienta hon.Ed ucationsystet1-0 to provid% for assessed [

° needsTeachersystems engineer with repertoire of [skills

.Althoqgh Joyce's analysis was limited to teacher edu-cation, it seems applicable to the preparation of pro- !fessionals who deal with physical edueation in settingsother than schools. [

The Competency-based model (Engberg, Har-1rington, and Cady, -1980) described at this conferencecan be easily categorized. Joyce desCribes the cornpe .tency orientation as a logical extension of the inclUstrialconception of education with its emphasis i4pon effi-ciency and accountability. Howev6-, the sought out-comes haVe expanded beyond literacy and occupa-.tional skills to include a broaclrarcge of human needs.Cybernetic analogies, systems anal{,sis, and improvedtechnology have made delivery systems much Moresophisticated and have permitted individualization ofthe content, rate, and mode of learning.

The competency-based program described here ad-dressed only teacher education:but it could be used asa model for a comprehensive program. ExpaInsion toinclude professional roles other thpn teaching \k/ouldrequir2 a, process similar tp that uged,in the develop-iment,of a teacher education program. The positions [for N[s,'hich students are to be' employed would besek±ted and a team of university faculty and personscurrently employed in such positions would identifythe competenees needed to perform the role. Any

-om etencies identified as .essential for all physical-ducation professionals would constitute a core pro-t.am. Program components would have to be addedo de ,lop any competencies not currently providedy the acher education prograrn. One of the practical

iifficuit es with this'qpproach is that each new option-equires -new planning committee to integrate new

qompetei cies wifh the existing programs which is adifficult ask. However, an advantage of theompetenc-based approach is that its reliance upon

modular leaTing would permit small numbers of stu-dents to pu sue specific alternatives through inde-

endent lean ing.Both the cress-disciplinary (Morford, Lawson, and

Hutton, 1980) -Ind the kinesiological sciences (Hus-man, Clarke, sind Kelley, 1980) Models vem toexemplify the !academic reform movement. Theteacher (or otherrofessional) would become a practic-ing member of th disciplinç who would subsequentlyinduct students/c ients into the discipline througheither deductive learning or inductive process-:centered learning oyce, 1975). In both programs,acbre of kinesiolog or kinesiological science wouldprecede any prepar tion for a Professional career. Theprimary differences I.etween the programs are the useof a; broad fields ap roach in the cross,c(isciplinarymodel and the diffen\ g role of performance courses,Performance mastery in specified number of courses igviewed as essential knowledge in the cross-disciplinary model wh le in the kinesiologicarsciencesmodel, activity course are taken merely to providebackground for theore ['cal analysts. -

Professional .skills a -td knowledge would be de-veloped subsequent to he completion of thecOre. Thestudent, having beco e a practicinescholar inkinesiology, would no1/4 begin professional study. Inthe cross-disciplinary me del a broad fields approach isagain eMphasized. Gen -ric professional courses ap-plicable to teaching and to other pnysical educationprofessions examine isSL es from a scholarly perspec-tive. -A practical advanta e of'such generie[courses isthat small numbers of stt dents with a particular spe-ciality can be absorbed into the program with littleextra expenditure. The-generic approach may also in-crease the student's professional

The kinesiological sciei ces model as described hasno professional mission lthough some of its liberalarts graduates were cited as having_accepted profes-.sional positions. If the m idel were extended to be-come a comprehensive &sign for the total program,ccTurse work needed to accluire professional skills andmeet certiffeation requIrm nts wbuld be addechto thisrequired core. In contrast , nth the cross-discipHnarymodel; students ivould enerlly be sen.t. to otheracademic units to acqui e necess,ary professional'skills, to education, usirAs, jburnalism, etc.'Few additional resources ould be needed'to offer awide range of professional' ontions because the re-

.

sources.would be available in other academic _units.

.4

One practical problem may be the total nUmber ofhours required to complete both the kinesiological sci-ences program and the professional preparation re-quirements. The recommended solution was a fifthyear for professional preparation. Another issue re-lates to tne responsibility for the Kotessionalqualific_a-tions of liberal arts graduates who are employed inprofessional positions without professional training.The responsibility for evaluating professional qualifi-cations has shifted from the university to the em-ployer. In situations without certification or licensurerequirements, e.g., exercise centers, private schools,etc., neither the government nor the prOfession cur-rently has influence upon these decisions.

It is more difficult try place the subject-matter cen-tered model (Locke, Mand, and Siedentop, 1980) intoone of Joyce's classifications. The learning resourcecenter employs the technology common to thecompeteney-based approach. The continuing seminarwith it emphasis upon camaraderie between-fatulty

. and students suggests the personalistic reform move-mOnt, but the, collegial relationship is'also consistentwith induction into a community of scholars. Uponclose examination the emphasis seems to be uponJducation as induction into the discipline, but the dis--cipline has been defined as activity-centered ratherthan concept-centered. The definition of play activitiesas the subjea-matter of physic& education and theidentification of mastery of subject-matter and in:

creased engagement in subject matter aS the pritharypurposes of physical education are clearly consi,stentwith the principles of the academic refor,m movement.

TI-Isubject matter-centered modekvotdd presum-ably continue to use physical education activities as

_the organizing centers in the preparation of a physi-cal education /professional. Since the activities in theentry core were selected_because of their appropriate-ness in articulating activity with the knowledge' base,there vould seem to be no need to Modify thiS core ifthe program were expanded to prepare professionals,other than teachers. The subsequent activity sequencewhiche,is representative of the subject matter 4 physi-al education and of client interest might require some

modifications if a wider range of professionals werebeing prepared. In addition, appropriate new mod-ules \vould be added to the learning ccnter and rele-vz.int internships would be arranged. V-I,owever, thebasic structure of the program would remain un-changed. Relatively few added resources would tbeneeded because of the reliance upon the learning re-sourcie cente'r. Thi; individualized delivery system.would alsd permit o'ffe,ring Options with low enroll-nuinrs because there would be 'no concern aboutminimum class sizes.; One word of cautionthe lines Lhave just aided to

the drawing of each of these models are my lines. Thepresentors might not agree,with my extrapolations. Ihave taken the risk and prOk.eeded with my Sr ulation because of the 'urgency I feel about handling the

-v

program _coherence. Each of these models has an.

internal consistency which could provide the basis forcomprehensive and coherent programs and for re-search regarding the profession& preparation process.To build a body of knowledge about any subject it isnecessary to frame one's research questions in the'context of a theory. -Although each of the proposalsbegins with a value judgment of what ought to be,each alsO contains hypotheses which could be empiri-cally tested. Research comparing the effectiveness ofthe models is of limited value beCause they are notaiming at the same goals and therefore share no com-mon criterion of effectivenss. But.the components ofeach model can and should be evaluated. Perhapseach institution has the obligation not only to'develop.and justify a comprehensive professional program,but also to conduct both program evaluation and pro-fessional preparation research...

It is interesting to note that three of the four modelspresented seem to fit into the discipline/subjectmatter-based category. Does this reflect the directionin which-we are. headed or merely the biases of theplanning coMmittee? Are there models.of progressiveor personalistic professional preparation programs inphysical education?'

One of the clearest descriptions of the application ofthe progressive philosophy to physical education hasbeen the wofk of Rosaline Cassidy. The chapter inCassidy and Caldwell (1974).von the development oktunits df instruction portrays the teacher's role as'theleader in a group, planning process. This recent workalso reflects a strong influence by Maslow, Combs,_and others .associated with the personalistic Move-ment. Don Hellison (1978) has been a major spokes-person for the personalistic approach in phlcal edu-cation. He describes the teacher as a helpirig, caringperson whose role isto assist students to Clarify andattain theirown goals. It is uncertain whether there areexisting professional preparation programs whichutilize these approaches. The" absence at the confer-ence of Models exemplifying the progressive and per-

osonalistic movements and the Keay)/ represen tatio,rofmodels from tbe avidemic reform movement is signifi-eant as istfte increased prissence of college and univer-sitv faculty other' than, teacher-education specialists.The emphasis in colleges and universities upon schol-

,- ar;hiyand disciplinary study appears to be having adramatic impact upon our perceptions of prOfessionalpreparation.

OnUissue raised in the, preceding papers aincernsthe definition of the disCipline: Is, the substance ofphysical education best defined in terrns of thovementactivities or in terms of scholarly perspectives used-toexamine movement? Tha t issue may be of little interestor consequence to those whose commitment is to theprogressive, personalistic, or competency orientationssince none of these approaches uses .the strlicture ofthe discipline as the basis for program development.These models insteadtldvocate the selection and struc-

CZ)

turing of curriculum content around student needsand goals. The academic reformists object to this in-strumental use of the content area which they see asintrinsically valuable and worth knowing for its ownsake.. The apparent Jack of discussion of this issuecould indicate a growing acceptance of the intrinsicvalue position, the non-attendance of the instrumen-talists, or a failure to recognize the 'significance of thisfundamental difference in positions.

One question persistently asked is whether it is pos-sible to be eclectic without being contradictory andinconsistent. have become increasingly convincedthat the answer to that question is no.-Such a denial of-eclectism doe's not imply that there bre not elementscommon to more than one program model..vidualized modular instrüction or problem-solvingmethodologies could be used to develop competen-cies:to acquire disciplinary knowledge, or to reachpersonal or social goals. Information about the mo-chanical analysis-of skills could be identified as a nec-essafy competency for teaching, as an essential coM-porient of the body of-disciplinary knowledge, or as-information with personal meaning to the student or

udents. There will be common program componentsbut the principle for determining what is to be, in-cluded differs in each program. With the exception ofthe progressive and personalistic movements, thoseprinciples for progkm development seem, mutuallyexcrusive. Develdpment of a comprehensive; coherentprogram design requires a commitment to one alterna-tive. Theprocess of selection and implementation of amodel will involve both examination of models anddarificatiomof personal values.

What is the _tole of a professional association in this-1,process? HoW does NASPE contribute to the overallquality of professional preparation and professional.practice? Historically AAHPERD and later NASPE.disseminated S'tandards which were prePared and ap-proved .by leaderS-of the professional organization.Although compliance with standards has been volun-,tary/ NASPE's increased involverment in the NCATEaccreditation 'process is anticipated. How does onereconcile th al,. desire for standards to guide 'practicewith a commitment to diversity? My suggestion is thatNASPE's role, is twofold. clearlyone responsibility is

, to provide forum for debate; and- deliberation.Perhaps the most potent force for quality in educationis the need for public jukification of one'sjdeas, one'sprogram. Dialogue and debate not. only subject one'swork to critiques by others but the process of explain-ing and justifying often leadS to, clarity and under-standing of one's own assumptions.

The other role of a professional organization is polit-ical. Anderson raised questions regarding the degreeto which a cOnference such as this would improveteacher education and subsequently public schoolphysical educaition programs. He cautioned U about

p e ting a conference to have a marked effect onwhat is conducted in the 'gym. I wish to take this

caution one step furthet and say that to attempt to curethe woes of public school physical' education by in-creasing the competence of the individual teacher maybe a sophisticated example of blaming the victim. Ifonly the teacher would get better .and try harder,school physical education would be saved! My obser-vation is that our new teachers already have more'skills id knowledge than permitted to use.. What

' ,needs to, be cured is the System,and not just the indi-vidual teacher. Giveri reasonable class sizes, adminis-trative -support, and relief from the domination' byathletics, many teachers can teach! We need to beprepared to .participate in the political process neces-saryto effect these changes. Weneed.to be prepared atevery level (NASPE, the university, the individualteacher).

l-fow does NASPE fulfill this political role? Onemajor approach may indeed be the dissemination ofstandards. Standards are not the Mechanisnoto createquality innovative pr6grams. But standards may be aneffective political togl to influence administrators to

,K) allocatepcleguate resources so-that a quality programcan be developed. Standards are the responsibility of aprofesionarorganization, but program developmentremains the responsibility of faculty 'at the specific

stituti&c. When stanaards are viewed as a politicaltool it is easier, to write them in such broad terms so

they will accomodate any one of several programphilosophitss. Dissemination strategies Must bringstandards to the attention of administrators;. theplanned involvement with NCATE seems to be an:effective political strategy.

AAHPERD's political strength would seeM to be,greater than that of NASPE. In depth discussion ofinnovative programs may require a conference just forphy'sical educators. However, our political survival

; may require maintaining our allian-ce with health, rec-reation, and dance. This will involVe thoughtful con-sideration of issues resulting from our broadened vi-sion of physical education as more than school pro:grams. Many of the new profeSsional position's do notfit nicely into ouepresent,claisification scheme. Whoshould prepare the person employed by an induqtrialfirm to conduct exercise programs, to lead seminars onwellness, lifestyles and stress management, to teachracket sports and swimming, and to manage the em-ployee recreation programs?:. Although immediatereactions tend to be territorial, the rnore5Ogical re-sponse seems to be a reVamping of the Vd lines ofdemarcation developed during an, era of identity-crisis. This thought process seeniS to haVe begun at thelocal level in some institution's although it is not yetvisibl6 at the national level.

Professional organizations cannot be expected to beinnoVative and risk-takirig. Stich organizations are in-.herently burea ucra tit and reactive because they must'respond to and represent a widely .varying mem,ber-ship. Maintenance of this broad coalition provides abase'for political power' but it necessitates an eclectic,

0

84 cv

middle ground approach to program issues. Innova-tion and excellence will depend upon the develop-ment of model programs by small groups of dedicatedprofessionals and upon an organig,ational structurewhich provides mechanisms for the sharing andexamination of our diverse efforts.

ReferencesAnderson, W. C. "Professional preparation conference:

one more time." Paper presented at Professional Prepara-tion Conference of the National AssOciation for Sport andPhysical Education, Chicago, November, 1980.

Cassidy, R.; and Caldwell, S. F. Hwnanizing Physical Utica-tion . Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Co., Publishers, 1974.

Considine, W., ed. Alternative Profrssional Preparation in0 Physicry Education. Washington, DC: American Alliance

for Health, Physical Educati6n, Recreation and Dance,1979.

Ellis, M. J. 'Curient context and future curriculum. Paperpresented at Professional Preparation Conference of theNational Association for Sport and Physical Education,Chicago, November, 1980.

Engberg, M. L../ Harrington, W.; and Cady, L. V.'!gompetency-based teacher preparation in physical edu-cation at Washington State University." Paper presented

at Professional PreparafIon Conference of the NationalAssociation for Sport and Physical Education, Chicago,November, 1980.

Hellison, D. Beyond Balls and Bats. Washington, DC: Ameri-can Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recrea-tion, 1978.

Husman, B. F.; Clarke, D. H.; and Welley, D. L. "A discipli-niry model for a curriculum in kinesiological sciences."Paper presented at Professional Preparation Conferenceof the National Association for Sport and Physical Educa-tion, Chicago, November, 1980.

Joyce, B. "Conceptions of man, and their implications forteacher education." In Teacher Education, edited by K.'Ryan. Part II of Seventy-fourth yearbook of National Soci-ety for Study. of Education, 1975.

Locke, L. F.; Mand, C. L.;,and Siedentop, D. "The prepara-tion of physical education jeachers: a subject-centeredmodel." Paper presented at Professional Preparation Con-ference of the National Asso6iation for Sport and PhysicalEducation, Chicago, November, 1980.

Morford, W. R.; Lawson, H. A.; and Hutton, R. S. "Under-graduate physical educatiOn: a cross disciplinary model."Paper 0,esented at Professional Preparation Conferenceof the National Association for Sport and Physical Educa-tion, Chicago, November, 1980.

Ritzer, Sociology: a multiple paradigm science. Boston: Allynand Bacon, 1975.

85 Ar.

4

Textures

William HarperPurdue University

Introduction

Wedged somewhere within the many fine com-ments made in the two opening papers were severalstatements whfcli bear-directly on my analytical andsynthetic task. Both, in their own way, were warnings.The first warning (Ellis) was that we sensibly ought tofind our way between knee-jerk optimism and de-structive pessimisM. The second warning (Andersem)was that we had best no4yearn for unity and that weresist the temptation to try to create a false vision ofunity by pretending that all these diverse points ofview- can be neatly fitted together into some granddesign.

Now, of course, both of the -warnings must beheeded, at least by you, the reader. What I want to dois ignore the warnings,- I am going to streSs optimism; Iam going to try to fit together what are thought to bediverse views. It will be for you to determine whether

inr not my approach is a knee-jerk "or pretentious.My plan is as follows. There are two parts to thiS

paper. First, I will say a few words about analyzingthese papers, in which I will not analyze, myself. Sec-ond, I will say many words about synthesizing thepapers, in which I will synthesize, myself. TheSynthe-sis will depend upon the simple idea of what I will calltexture. And texture, in turn, will be discussed in thethree Manifestations of pretext, context, and ,the text

. itself.

Some Words on Analysis

Please remember that each presenting teani wasrequested to encourage the conference participantsand readers to clearly understand the position theirprogram endorses with respect to professional prepa-rallon in physical education. It is my g4ess thAt thewritten "explanation and charting more thanadequately meets this stipulation.

It is also my guess that each of theSe approaches tophyical education undergraduate preparation, bynow, has gone under the analytical knife. Althoughsome of this is destined to be with well-polished butblunt knives, for the most part most of the poking, ;cutting,. shaving, ,slicir,g, and whittling, was with agharpiand incisive knife,

87

I-will offer a; few suggestions which we must alwayskeep in mind when making a legitimate effort to un-derstand projects such as these:

1. Attend closely to the stipulated assumptionsgiven in each program. It is here that we must thinkclose aud hard, for if -assumptions are given, conclu-sions are difficult to deny.

2. Try to think of some assumRtions which have notbeen stipulated in advance. You might ask yourself:"What have they assumed to be true in order for theirposition to ring true?"

3. Tryto stick to the content of the paRer and not tothe background or personalitiesof the team presenting

10,

them. Nobody gets anywhere by using the tactic ofarguing "to the person".

4. Try not to condemn these teams for failing toanswer questions they did not ask.

5. Do not criticize them for posing questions theyadmittedly cannot answer. They should be thankedfor posing the question and for being candid enough to,admit that they don't know the answer.

6. Perhaps you can see other possibilities for theirapproaches they have not seen. In other words, giventheir assumptions, there might be some equal or betteralternatives they haVe not considered.

7. Please be generous enough to know that even ifyou can show them to be in error, you have notthereby shown that your approach is right. The bur-.den of proof remains with you to. show how youralternative improves the world.

8. Maybe there are some disadvantages to theirproposals that they have not seen? Identify them foryourself. Maybe there are'some advantages they havemissed. You are obligated to point them out as well.

9. Look carefully to see whether or not, in yourmind, the prescriptive program meets the descriptiVestate of affairs, In other words, does their approachsolve the problem with which they are grappling?

10. Finally, remember that practice ought to be theconsequence of thought. Ultimately, the genuine testof some of these ideas will be to try them out.

think that these teams are to be sincerely congratu-lated. They have each conjured up an approach Whichissued from reason and which they ultimately knowmust appeal to logic. Of course, the papers are notunassailable, nor are they entirely year given theiroccasional lapses into jargon and mystification. Butthey have been created and piesented with the good

/-

(/

intentions of giving substance, choice, and work fo bedone. Although the individual commitment to theirapproaches must not be underestimated, they have allpresented their views in the best spirit of disinterestedscholarship. For this, we express thanks.

Many Words on Synthesis

Taken ind4lually, these approaches are quiteworthy of our continued reflective attention, criticism,and experiment. Taken collectively, these papers maybe cause for some quiet celebration. Indeed, I think thebasic conference theme (Progress through Diversity)has not only been satisfied in these papers, but in fact

- extended one step- to the theme for my synthesis:Likeness4in Diversity. We are, as a field, becomingtexture& In my opinion, it is both good and true thatthis is Ne.

SP Texture is that which has structure or body. Theword is commonly used .in refmne-e)to an aspect of

1 matkrial objects, such as hair, l';. d, or a fabric. Whenso used, we mean that the object\has more than onedimension to it, or that it has a feel or a certain qualitynot present when the same object is untextured Forexample, if we speak of a textured 'ceiling, we meanthat it is of a given character or pattern, that It. hasundulations, or that it is in some way thicker thanordindry ceiOgs.

It is somewhat .dangerous to use this. word whenspeaking of a non-material object, such as a field ofstudy. There is a certain meaning the Word bringsforth wiiich helps me in seeing the similarity betweendiversities to which I have referred.

It is appropriate to speak of the texturing of a field inthis way because it is the form not the content which makesthe field tt`.xtured. Even with the texturing of the mate-rial objects, texture results more from the way thestrands are woven, or the way the paint is plastered onthe ceiling, than from differences in the strands orpigments themselves.

Reflect back for a moment on the workirig defi-nitions of the-subject matter put forward Neach of thef0.ir approaches to undergrad uate study in physicaleducation.

I . (CBTE)' ". . PhysicaLeducation (is) the studyof hifinan Movement phenomena, including the playelement in our culture."

-10-1

'(CBTE) refers to the Competency-Based Teacher Prepara-tion paper. Presentation of program at Washington StateUniversity, Mary Lou Enberg, Wilma Harrington, LillianCady, Chicago, IL, Nov. 6, 1980.

8

2. (SMCM)2 "Play activities in the form of sport,games, dance,.exercise and outdoor activities are thesubjecfmatter of physical education."

3. (CdDM) 3 "kinesiology,will be used as the subjectmatter explored . . . involving various factors as-sociated with the status and ability of the individual toengage in physical and luck activities, the role of theseactivitieg in culture, and the contribution of these ac-tivities to individual development.

4. (InDM)4 ". . . human movement and sport (are)the subject matter core oikinesiological sciences . .

and the program was designed to impart to the stu-dent a scholarly understanding of the human being asan individual engaging in the motor activities of dailylife which serve as an expression of his/her physicaland competitive natures.", Essentially, these are the answers each team wouldgive to our question concerning what we are to be busyabout:One does not have to ponder over these work-ing definitions very long to discover that they are farmore alike than diverse. Except for the turn of a phraseor two here and there, maybe preference for more orless specificity, and an occasional difference in wdra.choice, these "whats" are quite alike; our subject mat-ler is (for the sake of economy and convenience) motorplay activity.

If there is likeness here, then what is diverse? Well,the what may be largely shared; the why and how arethe causes for diversity. These approaches differ onreasons for studying our subject matter. They differ Onhow that subject matter is to be studied. Regarding thewhy: some say because we are to be teachers of it wehad better know it to excel at teaching it to others;others say because the study of it will lead to a career ofone kind or another in addition to teaching; otherssuggest we study it because it is there to be studied-andthat is good in itself regardless of what comes of it.Regarding the how: some say that we ought to experi-ence it first and foremost, and thereby study itsnuances; others want us to intellectually master it, yetat the same time such mastery will be enhanced if weexperience it too; others suggest that we ought tolargely sit still and measure or think over this subjectmatter. in short, the whys are both instrumental and

r

2(SMCM), refers to the Subject-MatteriCenter Model, "ThePreparaiion of ,Physical Edycation Teachers; A Subject-Matter-Centered Model," by LaWrence Locke, CharlesMand, and Daryl Siedentop, presented in Chicago, IL,.Nov. 7, 1980..3(CrDM) refers to the Cross-Disciplinary Model, "Under-graduate Physical Education: A Cross-Disciplinary odel,"by Robert Morford, Hal Lawson, and Robert Flut , pre-sented in Chicago, IL, Nov. 7, 980.

4(InDM) refers to the InterdisciPli ry Model, "A Discipli-nary Model for a Curriculum in Kinesiological Sciences," byBurris Husman, David Clarke, and David Kelley, presentedin Chicago, IL, Nov. 6, 1980.

intrinsic; the hows are both dramatic and discursive,These whys and hows make up the form of the field; itis the form, not the content that renders it posSible tospeak of texture..Let me be even more specific.

Everybody has probably studied, at.. one time oranother, Henrys (1964) paper. Indeed, many havereferred to thi s-piece as a classic. What if there isanother way to see this notion of what, exactly, consti-tutes -a discipli- e? If this were so, there might be good'reason to reevaluate the gist of our modern literature(the last tWenty or so years)- and the significance ofwhat meaning it has for us. In kit f,,it mighr be thatithas only been in appearancLC-that we have beensteeped in earthquake-like spasms w hich4g said to berending open the field leaving a fault line into whichwe will all tumble, being swallowed up like so muchsand and silt. The rumblings may be far more, inrealk perhaps like the orogenic behavior associatedwith-the birth of mountains (or at least small terraces),-from which more, not less of the- World, enters Ourvision. 64

What I arn wondering is whether or not,,we have..theright notion of the nature-of a discipline in our c011ec-tive heads. Henry did not put it in our heai,all byhimself, of course,- We were ready for it. We have keptthis notion of what constitutes a discipline before'-lisfc-fr 'all these years. It is taiken for granted, by Hensry and,by most of us as well, that a discipline is (in his words)"an organized body of knowledge which may be ac-quired without an eye to application". He goes-on tosay that the content is "theoretical and scholarly as

. ctistin-guished-7from ' technical and professional". Inother words, the notion of a discipline is that it iscontent-specific.. .:r

'But what if a discipline is form-, not content-specific? Such an outlook goes against our normalthinking about what constitutes a discipline. Indeed,much literatdre outside the physical education field,even the normal and popular uslr. of the word disci-pline, points to the content-specific meaning of theword: the body of knowledge (organized, preferably).If the original meaning of the word, discipline, is re-viewed one wonders how it,ca me to be used.the way it

%is. Instead of being concorned with academic orabstract theory, discipline actually has more to do withpradice or exercise, Discipline 'means the instructionof disciples. It refers to a course of training or instruc-tion. ft means orrJ,ething that is a process or act of alearner. It doeS not .refer to that which is taught, somuch as it does to the fact that it is taught or the ferm inwhich it is taught. WHa t is the antithesis to discipline isnot the profession, but the doctrine. It- is the doctrinewhich is taught. Doctrine is What is possessed by theteacher. Although doctrine may be a body of instruc-tion, it is generally taken to be that which is laid downaS true, Concerning .a subject. The word doctrine iscloser to the meaning-ordinarily gis. en to the worddiscipline, it being the system of principles or tenets.

--Thus, the doctrine is the subject matter; the discipline

z 89

is-the form in which the subject is approached or givento the learner.

I may not have advanced the reader very far withthis distinction. One could say that I have simply sub-stituted the word discipline for the word profession,and in place of the ordinary uy of the word discipline I

*aye- chosen to use the word doctrine. Thus, 'onemight say, weare still left witlithe original problem of-theory versus yractice only couched in different terms.Then we woulci speak of our "new doCtrinarians" andour "old disciplinarians!"

But it does seem .to me, at lease' that this way ofseeihg things does make an interesting difference, and

-in at least twO ways. First, if what Ihave noticed...to betrue about what these four undergraduate approachesto physical education largely agree upon (the what weare to study), then instead of being at war over disci-pline/profession matters at the expense of the field,they in fact (noisy though they may be) are cooperat-ing (perhaps unknoWingly) in creating the disciplinarytexture of the field, all of them, to a one. They hold thedoctrine, the subject matter, in common. What areconsidered perverse ia each other's scheme of thingsactually are only diverse disciplinary forms spaNWOedby the inherent nuances of the doctrine or subjectmatter. In other woLds, they are friends, not foes.

gcond, thig'waYof looking'at the noting of whaic'onstitutes.a discipline also suggests the possibilitythat it is by giving form to the doctrine that the doctrinecomes to be at all. It may be that content is Only aphantornor ghost until it becomes embodied in a form.Sometimes we get the idea that there is this ''body" ofknowledge sitting around somewhere, someplace,having been created by us but stored in some tidyloc?tion to be served Up'a t will. I f, by a body of knowl-edge, we mean ideas, or facts, or judgments then wesurely ought to know better. It is in giving expressionto ideas and facts that they become manifested. Vis-ions of reality are given by means of an expressive act:a word; a -movement;. a gesture; a piece bf music; anovel; a proposition; a dance. We give that vision abody. Hence, in giving shape or form to a doctrine (letus say, the subject matter of our field) we are expres-sing it. The expression of it niay take a variety of forms.Until-it is eptessed, it does not exist. In a way then, itis true to sdy that until such time that there are compet-ing disciplinary forms giving epression to a doctrineor su6ject rn-atter, the doctrine is not embodied andaccess to it is denied us.

The mere fact that there are thought to be diverseways of obtaining access to Our subject matter, somediscursive and some dramatic, and that' there are anumber of some intrinsic and instrumental expla-nations which make access to it desirable or nec-essary, are illustrative of a present conditioin inphysical education which calls for celebration, not de-spair. As we discover and .elaborate different ways or -modes of knoWing our subject matter, we are discoVer-ing and elaborating the doctrine itself. In the physical

9 0

education field, as in most others, our answering de-fines our questioning.

Please don't think that I zim underestimating thequite real differences between the approaches to un-dergraduate study in physical education. No doubtmany of the people representing these different ap-proaches think each other are twits, and that the. re-spective approach:for ,which they are singing is meretwittering. This is possible because there are funda-mentally different answers being given about ourquestion. For example, there are differences with re-

_gardwhether and how to prepare teachers and coaches;

\ whether knowledge learned discursiYely (by mind)necessarily matters in teaching motor play skills;whether researd) in the so-called basic areas willever improve the'iust-as basic realmof the teachingact itself; .

whether the basic research should even be expectedto.improve the, practice of teaching;.whether the teaching act itself is in need of special.research attention or is merely a t&hnique pickedup plong the way, preferablyin the department ofeducation;Whether thinning and doing are recondlable; 4

whether there is in thinking a special kind of doing,in doing a sPecial kind of thinking;whether there are any number of differences regard-ing time, method, vocation, skills, and the like.What I am suggesting, is that these differences are

with regard to form, not tlio content. En exploringthese four approaches (and others in existence or pres-ently-being conceived) we are discovering'features.ofour content we,scarcely knew existed twenty and moreyears ago. The word diversity, after all; means some-thing like a turning, strictlY speaking, a driving about.More literally, we take it to mean somethingwhich hasmulti-forms. The multi-forms for the ways in which--ludic activity (in the la`rgest of senses) manifests itself,have a shared likeness because of the shared doctrine.We ean.see th'e likeness if what is implicit in -theseproposals a rix1 programs is examined. In making theimplicit explicit, We find this similarity appearing in atleast three ways. These are the pretext, the context,and the text itself.

NetextThese four approaches to undergraduate study are

alike insofar that they reject pretE4t. Remember thatpretext means, figuratively, a zet.Wing before. Mpkingpretext is to adorn,, lt sometimes means having anostensible reason for something, such as using thepretext of playing chess in the middle ages to get intothe bed chamber' of a Indy or a man, the modernversion of which is the invitation to come on up and"see my etchings". In these papers pretext is shunnedwith regard to two important themes.

First, each team is wise enough to allow -their ap-proach to be no more than it appears to be. In this theyhave cautioned the readers or listeners to look and seefor themselves`, to study the asspmptions and the limi-tations, to realize that the approach in question willnot satisfy everyone, th understand that there are ahost of contingencies i-issociatedwith..the approach inquestion, to understand the problems the particularapproach is aiming te solve, and so on: Further, they

, have not made the mistake of giVing rig an eitherorsituation. They each seem to acknowledge the possi-bility of an excluded middle, and theY appear to knowthat their' differing approaches are not mutually exclu-sive,contiary, but -not necessarily contradictory.Th us, 'even though these teams are quite cominitted totheir models and some are publicly or privately bettingon their way ''for our continued good health", none ofthe teams have attempted to weave before, they arenot twits in the older sense at least_ which me.ant acreating of weak or thin places in an uneven spinningof the yarn. They do not appear to be trying to -spin the-whole fabric by themselves which would inevitabWresult in thinness, i.e., fabric withon texture.

Second, they are not "weaving before" the ultiwatecharactgr of the doctrine itself-We have not witnessedirithese papers the workings of true believers, of fana-tics who, ,as Santayana has said, redouble their effortafter forgetting their aim.. Quite the contrary. Thexan-dor with which the field is spoken abput can be annoy-ing. There is nothing here of the child's confidence inthe infallibility of their parents. These tearn4ave theireyes wide open.-They see things as theyi.a re. Gone arethe days when we could (or would) claim more kr ourfield than we could demonstrate to be. true. I would notsayftha't we a,,re looking coldly.at the field, but we arelooking more carefully, We appear to be trying todiscover -for ourselves what is or is not the case withre.spect to ludic activity: Even if we intuitively under-stand that thc-e.is something rather special about thishuman indina ion to ploy, we are apparently, andfinally, patichtenough to find out_what it is precisely.Even if we think play might be an Amtrak to heaven,these approaches ascert.ain that we have not mounteda donkey. In this regard, these four approaches areshunning the pretext of being more than they areknown to be; they are creating forms in which the fieldwill be all it can be.

Simply put, what is alike in these proposals is that intheir collective refusal to "weave before", they haveplaced both their proposals and the nature and signift-cafice of the subject 'matter in front of us, not behind us.These lively disciplinary forms by which we may ob-

i-tain access to the subject matter depend upon what isawaiting us. For so long the tendency has been- toimply that the studying had already been cOmpletedand that all we reallyneeded were capable technicians,managers, or salespeople. No more. The real studyinghas yet to be done. In these approaches, what is takenfor granted is simply not taken: And wha t is granted is

90t)

that which is not takeR for granted. Pretext does notsatisfy. For those of you familiar with our history, thisis indeed a significant and powerful turn.

ContextIf pretext is a "weaving before", context is a weaving

together or a joining together of what is. The context isthe general climate or environment surrounding thetext itself. It is that which sheds light op or givesmeaning to. We are all familiar with the situation in,which what is said is "taken out of context". We meanthat standing by itself the word or phrase does-notmean the same thing as when it-appears-with its kin in.context. _We need to put the part into the whole to-catchits intended and full meaning. Thus, it is better tobe in, nOt out of, context.

In examining these papers with a slight squint (shut=ting out the direct light;looking laterally)1 think thereis, again, a likeness in their diversity with regard to thecontext into which theirprogram alternatives arethought to fit. You will not find that what follow-S is

Schooling Context (Skelch)

I. Schooling is obligatory.

2. Being obligatory, others are frequently telliVstudents what they muSt learn and when and howthey must learn IL Hence, it is easy for schools tobe coe:Tive, Manipulative, exploitive.

3. Schooling emphasizes havmg, e.g., getting adegree, haying an A.B., possessing skillsimdtechniques.

4. To have an education, one muskbe there to obtainiL Thus, attendance is the chief esvaluative criteria.

5. Schooling is a passive process, like beingpasteurized. lt is done to one; it1s external-.

6. Being a process, it produces prothwts.

7. Oftentimes, schoolmg is,a sf/stem, a technicallyeffident brganization with various units,departments, and divisions.

8. Inevitably, persons are made to learn.

9. Schooling is-bY Its very nature competitive.

10. Schools, again by design, routinize (bells,schedules, hours, credits, courses, curriculum,exarns, recitations, etc.).

I L. Schools often discourage, prevent, andeven punish la prodOct for thinking (productscOttout /wads or hearts).

sometimeS

explicitly laid out in any of the proposals. There,,aresome strong and frequent signs in all of these papersthat share a common idea of what education prop-erly ought to be about. Someone, it seems to me,

,should say sOmething about what that larger con--text appears to be.

The signs I am thinking of, by the.way, which en-courage me to look for a proper context for these pa-pers are such things as;,the learning centers; the semi-nars; the independent study projeds field work; in-ternships; Systemic influencing; self-paced learning;the variety .of modes of encouraged study; etc. So, Iask, on the one hand, given these signs, what kind ofclimate would make these approaches 'utterly sens`é-less? On the other hand, into what context might these.programs nicely weave?

I suvest that each of these proposals-largely rejectsthe characteristics of schooling and largely endorsesthe characteristicsbf edueating. Indeed, the fact that itis the educating context which is implicitly endorsedin these papers provides further reason for cele-brating th,e variety of suggested disciplinary forms.

,

Educating antext- (Sketch)

1. Educating is self-chosen.

2. Being self-c.,hosen, educating is at best, freedmn(freeing from ignqrance,. freeing for knowledge,wisdom).

(3

3. Educating emphasizes being.

4. Educating stresses 'knowing,' knowing how orknowing what orthat.

5._ -Educating is an active searching out, unhampereddiscoyery, something one participates in, interno).

6. Allows for growth arrd unfolding of persons.

7. Educating thrives in a community.

8. Educating is a shareCiN oject of helping, notmaking.

9. Educating is characterized by cooperation.

10. Ferrets out diversity, looks for the unexpected,encourages creative exploration, nurtives surpri:,e,wonder, astonishment.

11. Baseii upon hope'that each individual will trust noOne in matters of thought, will think for oneselfwill question, pro , disturb the peace, all of whichwould be guided y one's courage, logic, and loye.

9111 o

..4

in my pefuSal of these papers, I am convinced thatthere is a definite similarity among them regarding thepreferred cbritext into _which our programs ought- tofit..lt is genuine educating they advocate. It is educat-ing each paper will help provide. It is educating whichprovides the larger context into which they are woven.In this idea of educating, there is a truey liberatingspirit, for Us and our students.

I think E. Trueblood (1959) said it best.,, In his wordsthere is a wisdorn to which each and every t.n'oposal wehave examined these last few days is testimony.Trueblood says:

"Few contempOrary developments are-more dis-quieting than that represented by tlw cult of medioc-rity. The heart of this mediocrity is deliberate limita-tion of achievement. It is a terrible. -and, frightemiog:thing when it appears in industrial establishments,but it is far more frightening whim it appears ineducational establishments.

1makes little di'fference how advanced-our technol-ogy is if the ideal of excellence is lost in our civilka--Hon. When it is lost, men and' women habituallysettle for what is passing; thevput in the timerthehold the jOb. The sharne, thQn, is that theV havenothiviiii in their experience of which they mar bejustifiably. proud. Tho-e are mar% ways in vhichcivilizations decline, but this is one ot the most obvi--ous ways. If the colleges do not provide an.antidoteto mediocrity, it is hard to know where such ant-,antidote will be found." (pp. 183-184)

"There are many features whieh 1ri involved in theproduction-of a genuine college, but 'all of the otherfeatures are patently insuifient if there is not sometrue sense in which the entire college life is an intro-duction to the experience of greatness. A.college isan institution which, because it recognizes that Hi-E.--enemy is the trivial, makes a deliberate attempt, i-iOt

only to createithe visipn of greatness, nut to crea te it-habitually." (1). 182)

Furthermore,

'"Because ediTcation today is big business . . it iseasy to lose sight of fundamental goals. It is easy toconeentrate upon the construction of buildings andefficiency of administration without serious search-ing for the purpose, apart from which these arenothing.

And what is the purpose?

"IS it developin judgment in regard to literature,art or conduct?Is it producing creativity in science such that pew

.discoveries will be made?Is it encouraging new imagination concerning theways in which people can live together in Peace?

"Do people come out of this comn-tunity more com4passionate and more unified in their-lives. than thin/

, 'vere when they entered? .

Do they emerge with the desire to go on learningand reading as long as they live?" (p. 14)

Well, he says, these are embarrassing questions. Butthey are ques ions which we can afford to ask. Theright question may be more important than anythingelse. And I t ink our answers, that is, the fOur a15-proaches -outlined, clearly exhibit an attitude of mind

hich strives for the vision of greatness about whichTrueblood speaks. In this, they weave together.

The Text Itself ,I have thus far spoken of the idea of our field becom-

ing textured, that this is a quite necessary and desir-able feature of the field, that this texture develops in[he weaving of various alternative forms (disciplines)through which our content (doctrine) comes to h?e, thatall of these, approaches appear to stiare a. commonsubject matter, that they are alike in their refusal to"weav;2 before" the s u bject is studied- (pretext), andithat they may also be in their idea of whateducational features proviL.e the.proper context .intowhich our particular.subject/imatter May properly fit.Now it remains for me to say a few words about whatisbeing written: th-e.text itself.

The text is the doctrine. The doctrine has been takenin these various proposals to be what is called motorplay activity, or in general, ludic activity. I am suggest-ing that this doctrine (what we know of it) is beingwritten precisely through the variety of disciplinaryforms by which it is.manifested. And what isexciting 'about the writing itself is that we' are witnessing thediscursive and dramatic, the intrinsic, and instrumen-tal. We are beginning to see that our subject matteradmitspf both, being known and being understood.'_1.1.3y being _known I mean that the subject can bestudied in more or less tidy ways. The results'o- kthisexaminatiOn, whether of the element itself or orti e g"\prácess of helping others learn the element, en berepOrted in the form of propositions or statements. Bybi.Cing understood I Mean that Ithe subject can be'studied in perhaps less fidy Ways,' but nonethelessreally ;meaningful ways. Understanding the ludic ele-ment -can be captured, in such forms as painting,music, poetry, and literature, or in the doing of playfulbodily activity' itself. In the knowing we 'have truthsabst(act, in the understanding, truths incatthte. In the%flowing we have tru:th progyessive, in ,the tinder- .

sta 'ling, truths respbnsive. In the knowing w'6 havetruths ve repeat, in the understanding, truths -yeexperience. In the knowing we have truths about, inthe understanding true ways ihto. Both knowing and ,understanding weave together, clearly announcing tothe world that we are a field genuinely in the service oftruth no matter in which -form it is given us.

I speculate that/Ne are writing a novel txt..,If theludic element (in/cluding such play forms aSA cise,sptirt, game, 'dance, movement, and so my) is the

..

heart of the text; our protagonist so to speak, thell we

9 2 4

are about to take seriously what until this time has onlyoccupied out attention and the attention of others:intermittently. Chiefly because the play element isConsidered by many to be frivolous, unproductive,and the proper doliain of ehildren, the .seriou studyof this element and,.its. motor forms has often been .thought to be frivolous, unproductive, and childish.

As many of you knoW, there have been people froma wide variety of backgrounds and fields of study whohave remained unperturbed about "what is thought",and have seriously searched after the ludic element.Whether they started out looking for play or cameupon play while searching for something else, thesethinkers have rioticed the ludfr to be a rich, exacting,a nd excitingsubject for study. Knowing the nuancesof play is a significant contribution to the ongoingstruggle to uhdFrstand ourselves.

Maybe we need Some examples? As is well known, a'variety of schi)lars have caugla glimpses of this elusivean'd'broad s.ubjct. Bronowski (1973, p. 432) surprisesus all when he ds his study on the ascent of manwith the obsemation that scientific thought, indeed allhurnan thought,. is a. form of play. es,rthur.-Koestler(1964). fin4,the 'nature of the creative act to Lig stintthiough !ith playful techniques. Kant, (1951/1970), vonSchiller,(1975/1934), and Santayana (1961/1896) tie theaes,thetiC act and aesthetic enjoyment to play_ EdmundHusserl (196711913, pp. 280-281/57) o fterwe fqrred tothe method of phenomenology as the free /play offancy; Eric Hoffer (1971, Chapte ) suggests that play,being largely useless,,may be oiir most useful occupa-ti n. Carl Jung -(1933, p. 66) tefls us that without the

'ldlike playing with fantasy, no creative activity hasever come to birth. Lewis Mumford (1934) observedthat the spirit of play enfranchised mechanical imagi-nation . . ."engines are buckets and shovels 'ilresseduP for adults" (p. 101). Joseph Campbell (1959, pp.21-29) points to play as the meaning-function of myth:Peter Bergr (1970,pp. 57-60) has'argued thatplay is asignal of transcendence.r:Herrnan /Hesse (1969/1929),Ficlionalized the existence of a community Of scholarsheld together by the notion of sc'holars as players, -

-seriving in play to achieve perfection, pure being, thefullness of truth and reality. Hu& Rahner (1972/1949)has described people at play as reaching out for asuperlative .ease in which the body, freed from itsearthly burden, moves toward the effe4fess mea-'sures of a heavehly danc-e. -Martin Heidegger (1971,pp. 165-186) eVen speaks of play as the mode of Being..Freeman Dyson (1979, p. 106) says we.could solve our'nuclear power problems if the-accouritaRts and Mana-gers woilld move out of the way and assemble a bunchof enthusiasts to tinker and pla-y. Iris MGdoch (1978,p.-266) and Joyn Updike (197511966, p. 39) both taketheir craft of writing to be close dangerous play with,:tinknowi?-forceg, an act of wiJlful,,play. There are those,as most of you know, who even suggest that the teach-ing act itself is play, or rwst at least be given play toachieve its-purpose.

s,

These few instances of scholarseibougfils concern-ing- play serve to suggest that ..al least those whotrouble themselves to uncover the secrets of play ap-pear to' hOld p'lay in the highest regard. Moreover,there isno surprise that play is manifested in variousfields of study. Because play appears in differentmodes, epoch's, and regions Of humanexperience, itnecessarily transcends the-often crudely-.cut bourftharies of typical scholarship. To this extent, descrip-tions of the natureand significance of play often sound .--- -,rather pretentious, e.g., play as the gate to the root ofthe ,world, play as a glimpse of paradise, play as theclarifYIng and speculative metaphor of the world, andso on. Then again, play may be beckoning thesethinkerS'. Praetendere, after all, does mean "to stretchforward".

.

If we are permitted this stretch forward, we can alSocatch' a glimpse of the ultimate significance of,the textof our subject. These suggestions put forth by thinVersrefer to play as a meaningful.efribOdied action as w4.--!--,---as to our tinkering' with ideas'w,hich play before us.These rpay be little more than illustrative examples ofwliaaluizinga (1955/1934 pressed upon 4injiamoimdens. The veryeicistence of culture is to be viewedassub-specie ludi; vithout the play elementMtirit,'cul--,ture wanes.V.you will recall, 1,-Itltizirl-ga makhed oi; tosupport his ffiesis by-analyzing-Vie Various regions of 777.'Th.

human experience which arise from and as playJn-cluding such experienees s language. laws khow11-edge, poetry, philosoph , art, Music, rifual, and SQ on.

f>His view a "culture appeqrs to be simllar.to Edward'Sapir's (1924, pp. 401-429) notion thiat the highestlevels of -cultu:re have, frequently ,been reached in thelowest level's 6f sophistication; ;the lOwest points,01-,C

2 culture haVe peen plumbed in .'soine-of the'Thighest.,. Civilization as a whole he says, :_rnoves on; culture

comes and gOes: _-- i. - .Both authors stress the limitation andmastery ofself

,ds,eisential to the, preservatiOrr and perpetuation of -7 .

I

4

culture; that is, the selr must recOncile its ownsearches andstrivings With thegeneral spiritual tife ofthe commu-nity (limitation). Sapiyalso reveals that itsom'ehOtw must kriWwithin,the/resttistion of.our ac-tivity.to ltiCat& satisfying of one'cspirit (astery). ForHvizinga an 'd ottiei-,so* thinkarspit is thtlplay spirit

rywhich is necess5 fart' adtie'ving, a_ delicate balance'between limitation and mastery of.,..self. ,

think pray, in this senge, isnur,-creator. Itencit'ontyserves to'create those selves in 'whonAhe play elementis introduced or in whwn it lives, Filtit" also serves tocreate the texture of the field M which it_ istudied. Thecreatittns which result from thig play atie tiatural ex-pressions of what we liVe byorhatliveur-text is about. pia), but iswrittdn nnly. to the extent, to

- which we arc willing to play oh.Were .,e to becor-iie the custodianzpf5the Play ele-

ment of culture, were we to care g-nd fe6d for theknowing and understanding of this ludic' tnpulse,

. were we to help eaeh other, ourselves, our students,

93

and those our students rouch, learn more of thenuances of play, were we to -explore, discover', andelaborate these and other approaches to under-graduate study In physical Cducation, were we torealize that these forms of study are necessary in orderfor the text (the doctrine) to be written at all, were 1\4e

to learn, that in our very diversity there islikenesswhich makes us all a part3 and weie 'we to celebrate, -not lament; the progress through diVersity, I think wewoUld in 'the truest alnd.most original sense be a pro-fqsion, a community of people who'cleclare and placeourselves at the 'disposal of that very pl'ay 'elementwhich 'creates, strengthens, and embodies the field,that is, which gives it texture. "For Christ's sa'ke," saysWilliam Carlos Williams, 'pull yotir bloomers clown,.everybody's-glooking at you. 'You're not ,ten years oldany more." (1974, p. 34)

-References.F

i .

. .

..,7Berger, P. 1Rumor Of angels: moderh society and the rediscovery of

', A the superralural. Nq%,v York: Anchor Books, 1970.k gronowskiN. The aseent of man. Boston: Little, Brown and

Co., 1973. ;.

Campbell, J. The masks of god: primitive mythology. New York:The Viking Press, 1959.

Dyson,- F. Disturbing the 'universe. New 'York: Harper andRow, 1979. . .

Heidegget, M. Poetey,, !lip ye, thought. MSC,/ York: HarperColophon, 1971: ', s. .

Henry, F. "The cit&plineibiptlysical education." JCIFIPER

.. -.37:7. i

. i f

. , .i.. i

;-.... I'

-t

To:

.A43 r

;14:.1

t.

Hesse, 11. Magister ludi. New York: Bantam Books, 1969.(Originally published, 1929.)

-I Hoffer, E. Firt thil;gs, and last. New York: Harper aTI.d Row,1971.

Huizinga, J. Homo ludens: a study of the play element M cultuie.

Boston: The Beacon Press, 1955. (Originilly published,'1938.)

Husserl, E. 'Ideas. New York: Humanities Press, 1967. (Orig-inally published, 1913.)

Jung, C. G Molfirn mat in-search of a soul. New York: Har-court Brace and World, 1933.

Kant, I. Critique of judgment. New York: Hafner Press, 1951.(Originally publighed, 1790.)

Koestler, A. The act of creation, New York: Macmillan, 1964.Mumford, L. Technics and civilization. New \York: Harcourt,

Brace and World, Inc., 1934.Murdoch, I. "Dialogue with iris mui\och." In Men of ideas.

New York: Viking Press, 1978.Rahner, H. Man at phrg. New York.,.. Herder and Herder,

1972. (Originally published, 1949.)Santayana, G. The sense of beauty: bethg the oulline of aesthetic

` Itory. New York: Collier Books, 1961. (Originally pub-Ished, 1896 )

NSapir, E.."Culture: genuine add spuriou." American joul.nal

of sociology 29, 401-429. .Trueblopa, E. Tbridea qf a college. New York: Harper and

Bros 1959drpdike, J. Picked-up pieces. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Crest,

1975. (Originally published,1966.)vonSchiller, F. On the aesthetic educatim; of nian. New Haven:

Yale UniTrsity Press, 1975, (Originally published, 1934.)Williams, W. Tip, enjbodiment of knozvlecige. New york: New

Direction, 1974.

94

(1.

TVg

Responseswith a Viewto the Future

Issues,las Reflections

Marian E. KneerUniver.sity of Illinois at Chicago Circle

Asone of the participants at the Professional Prepa-ration Conference held in November, 1980 in Chicago,entitled "Progress through Diversity I was intro-duced in advance to the theme of the conference bycasually examining four professional preparationmodels and finding the reading ponderous. When theconference opened, all that changed. I was filled withdeep thoughts about' what these models could andcould not do. A stage was appropriately set fordynamic interaction between the presentors and thepresentees. At the final wrap-up so elegantly done byProfessors Bain and Harper, my mind could not restbecause the real issnes of professional preparation inphysical education somehow kept bobbing up. Nomodel held potential for solving .these issues. I re-viewed- them all, studied them intently, and tried toplacate myself that issues were not the theme; yet, itwas many of these issues that contaminated the ac-ceptability of most of the models.

One persuaSive issue is the quality of our inductees.What professional stand can be taken to upgrade theproduct of professional preparation? Should we be asselective as coaches are for athletes. Can we be?Should NASPE recommend inductee qualifications toprofessional preparailon institutions? What shouldthese qualifications be? Scholarship? Skill? Personal-ity?

Related -to the inductee is the development of theability to solve problems. No professional preparationprogram can possibly continue with the multi-variantsettings that will fall heir to each young professional. Itis of concern to me that the same problems that negatethe quality we dream of in physical education stillperSist. Why no progress? Are we turning out inflexi-ble, non-creative professionals?

Most teacher education-related prOgrams are stillpreparing the teachencoach. Can we go on? Must wego on? Evidence indicatesthat 3 out of 4 inductees arenot really interested in teaching physical education:(Donald, 1980) Physical education is what .you do sothat you can coach. Given what we know about teach-ing styles, learning styles, goals setting, and so forth,can the myth persist that physical ecincaRon andcoaching are similar? Should it? If so how do we solvethe problems of teacher burn-out from overwork re-sulting from coaching? Can and should the professioninvestigate this problem which is now also attackingthe elementary specia4t as secondary schools searchfor coaches?

A 97

Research has clearly pointed to the positive learningoutcomes resulting from teaching behavior that is car-ing, helping, sensitive to student needs and conimit-ted. (Beane, Lipka, and Ludewig, 1980) Other than theLocke-Siedentop model, no professional preparationplan had a protocol or strategy to develop, focus, orpromote these behaviors. Should we try? How? Theneed for such a caring and committed physical educa-tor was never more apparent than in the four reportsfrOm students in the recent Fall, 1980 issue of UP-DATE. (Mark, Glakas, Mitchell, and Brown, 1980)

A seriesostAssues arise from the entire process ofhelping a professional physical educator to deliver,facilitate, transmit, or teach, if you will, the array ofknowledge carefully packaged in any one of the fourpresented models. Again, given the evidence of stu-dent uniqueness and the positive relationship of teach-ing styles to student learning styles, can wego onpromoting a "onebest way" or provide practice withina narrow range of teaching approaches, to what ex-tent is practice provided in teaching small groupsand/or indiViduals? Even if we are enlightened andprovide pre-clinical experiences to help the neophyteand be a virtuoso of diverse teaching approaches, howdo we create or provide a supportive clinical experi-ence? Is the reality of a non-university practicei schoolworth the lack of on-site technical assistance? Clearlyevidence has pointed to the impact of pre-service andin-service role modeling. Can we continue to tinkerwith clever "Turf Divigioris", and "Course Arrange-ment Plans" in our professional preparation programswithout facing the reality of the all too rapid eradica-tion of the sum of professional preparation cdursework by the real world role models? Are we creditably?Are our programs creditable? If they are, why the gapbetween our theory and practice? Should we talkabout it? Study it? Resolve it?

Even if we sigh and decide that "good wine needsaging" and with experience our intentions as profes-sional preparators will indeed be reflected in our stu-dents as practicing professionals, we should reflect onthe low percentage of students who seek graduatework and who are often not even in the physical edu-cation discipline. Do you knoW why? Is it related toworking all day'ds teachers and all night as coaches?What about the low percentage of physical educatorswho are members of a physical education association?Illinois has one of the largest State Associations in thecountry, to which belong less than 75% of the practic-

ing physical educators Why? Should we be con-cernedT Whardo we do about it?

And finally one last issue concerns the student whograduates with an "LAS in Physical Education".Should no ultimate profession for that person be as-sumed? What will they do? Can we go on employingthem as graduate teaching assistants without prepara-tion to teach? To whpt extent-do we do this? is it aproblem? Should we be concerned?

Obviously I came away from the NASPE Profes-sional Preparation Conference stimulated, and yetbewildered. Thank you CUPEC, thank you TomLoughrey, Hal Lawson, and Linda Bain. When will wehave another that addresses these issues?

98

References

Beane, J.; Lipka, R.; and Ludewig J. "Synthesis of Researchoh Self &-nc-ept." Educational Leadership October,1980, p.4.

.Donald, Chu."A Sociological Analysis of the Career Lines ofAmerican Physical Education Teacher/Coaches." Proceed-

ings Women in Sport Conference, Rome, Italy, 1980, p. 45.Mark, J.; Glakas, B.; Mitchell, L.; and Brown, G. "Grasg

Roots Controversy over Physical Education." UPDATESeptember/October, 1980, p. 4.

r.1

,A72.

Undergraduate Preparation:Marchind to DifferentDrummers

Anthony A. AnnarinoPurdue University

A Musical Fable

Dissonance, in a musical sense, may be defined in twoways: a simulateous combination of tones conventionallyaccepted as being in a state of unrest; a mingling ofdiscordant soundsso out of harmonic relation as to givebeats. These definitions will provide a basis for this reflectivemonologue about stimulating dialogues engaged in atprofessional preparation conferences.

In attending professional preparation conferences andsessions for the past two decades, I've heard the same oldtunes but being led by different drummers. This sameobservation was experienced in attending the most recentNational Professional Preparation musical held in Chicago,Illinois.

- As in previous Conferences, the professional educator'sglee club gathered and-vocalized the familiar Melodiesasking the musical questions: Who are we?; What are we allabout?; What should our product be?; What is the bestprocess or approach?; Can a degree of consonance be

'established Izetween student, educator, and real worldexpectations relative to undergraduate preparation?

In response, opposing melodies were played by a numberof duos and trios. Since each was driven by a differentdrummer there were variations in syncopations rangingfrom the traditional four-beat to avant-garde accents.

At the conclusion of the concert, a new form of dissonanceWas heard when the assemblage sang out in harmony an oldRoman marching song, "Quo VadisWhither do we go?"

'In retrospect, the responses to the earlier questions

posed at the conference did not greatly differ fromprevious conferences I attended. (JOPER, October1979, p. 18) My initial reaction was characterized by aquote, in one of the presentations, of a recent Timearticle. The quote indicated that the response of educa-tors to the present educational crisis is analogous to"shifting deck chairs on the Titanic".

Whether this analogy was applicable by the presen-tation of alternative, substitute, and modified under-graduate preparation models or whether these pro-gramatic thrusts were being proposed as attempts to"raise the Titanic" was difficult to determine. Onlytime, the extent of model implementation, and anassessment of their impact, will be valid determinants.

A capsule review of the various conference presen-tations yielded high relationships between the modelsand the conference theme, "Progress through Diver-

99

sity". The models either advocated a shifting of focusand-direcs.ion in .undergraduate preparation from a"Teacher" orientation to a "discipline" orientation oralternative approaches to teacher preparation and cer-tification. They reflected varying emphases in andfrom the professional,' studies component, perfor-mance component, behavioral studies component,scientific- studies component, humanistic studie;component, and the general or liberal studies compo-nent. They were classified and described as a cross-disciplinary model, an inter-disciplinary model, acompetency-based model, and a subject-matter-centered model. Their designs werebased on differentcore requirements, such as, human movementphenomena, sport and play activities, kinesiologicalsciences, and disciplinary. They were designated asprofessional and non,-professional .preparation pro-grams dependent uponlie program objectives. Theydifferentiated in program outcomes from a specificcareer preparation to a liberal arts preparation. Theywere permeated with philosophies ranging from aform of generic Realism to naivete Existentialism. Ba-sically, they were examples of functional models de-signed for specific institutions or as prototypes thatcould be modified for other institutions including"Fantasy Island U".

At the conclusion of the presentations, my percep-lions and reactions could have been described byanother Titanic analogy. It is an apocryphal story attrib-uted to John Jacob Astor, a passenger on the ill-fatedvoyage, who, after ordering from rooM service,exclaimed in dismay, "I ordered icebut this isridiculous!" However, at the risk of creating a semi-frivolous bullfight with soine sacred cows, I shall at-tempt to be more specific as to my personal observa-tions and professional conclusions relative to the cur-rent stattts-of undergraduate preparations as reflectedby this conference.

In introspect, is there professional unity throughdiversity? Have we made progress through diversity?It is evident that the term, "phyS'cal education" is notwidely accepted as a global name r describing whowe are and what VVQ do. This is reflec d by the varietyof specific subdiscipline role designa rs, such as,kinesiollists, exercise physiologists, dagogists,

etc. It seems to me thal we are making "progressthrough diversity" from "unity through diversity" to"proliferation through diversity". We are not a corpo-rate power group for effecting Change.

There are still philosophical and theoretical differ-ences in defining what we are all about. We agree thatthere i a body of knowledge; we cannot agree as to itscontent, focus, emphasis, and name.

Therefore in prospect I propose, that it is time toeliminate personal and professional ego biases andwith unanimity'resolve that we are physical educatorspreparing physical educators. Our concern should notbe in changing a name, but we need to.invest our timein changing the physical eduCator's image and singu-lar role perceived by-the general publiCand academiccolleagues. This can be accomplished by student selec-tivity and quality control programs that infuse or dif-fuse an inter-disciplinary core of studies with cross-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary, pan-disciplinary,track, option, ad hoc, integrated, subject matter- andcompetency-based approaches that would be the"best fit" for the resources of an accredi d institution.Tile student would belkntified as a "p sical educa-

- don major" with areas of specialization nd compe-tency determined by the uniqueness; emphasis, andintegration of subject-content and applied experiencesthat are added to the inter-disciplinary core.

Furthermore, we must initiate, with the support Ofour professional organizations, a public relationscampaign that creates a positive image that describesthe "New Physical Educator", a physical educatorwho is educated and trained to be a fitness clinician,stress testor, exercise physiologist, kinesiologist, pre-ventive cardiology technician, sport writer and broad-caster, sport sales person, resort director, agency andsport club director, health club manager, industrial

fitness director, sport sociologist, sport psychologist,sport historian, researcher, teacher, or coach.

These recommendations are predicated on a defini-tive group commitment to identify the basic conceptsand principles that would constitute an interdisci-plinary core. We have the expertise to investigate,identify, refine, and synthesize .subject matter fromthe sciences in our domain Imotor learning, motordevelopment, spoil and play, kinesiology, biome-chanics, and exercise physiology). We can add to thiscore, parastically and synergiStically, those applicableconcepts and principles from allied sciences and otherdisciplines. This same process can be used to identifyand match competencies with Subject content andtraining for specialization areas.

In conclusion, this panacea that I am prescribing forthe ills that pervade our profession is not a new pre-scription. It will not be totally accepted and it may (inall probability) compound the problem of diversity.However, we can no longer afford to disregard thevisible critical signs and symptoms. Our academicdialogues and consultations need to result in profes-sional concurrenCe as to diagnosis, prognosis, andremedy, or we may be marching to one drummerplaying . . . a funeral march.

A Professional Allegory"A pervasive solipsisrn may account for the need to go

around periodically rediscovering the wheel.The business of forgetfulness and rediscovery may be

part of a vast dialectic sifting and refinement by which his-tory discovers, and interminably rediscovers, whatever isworth keeping."

Lance Morrow, "The Endless Discovery of the Wheel."Time. December 15, 1980.

I 0 01 00

For information/questions concerning material inthis publication, please write:

William AndersonDepartment of Physical EducationTeacher's CollegeColumbia University116th and Broad WayNew York, NY 10027

Anthony A. AnnarinoDepartment of Physical Education

,Health and Recreation StudiesWest Lafayette, IN 47907

Linda Bain, ChairPhysical Education DepartmentUniversity of Houston

'Houston, TX.77004

Stan Brassie, ChairPhysical Education DepartmentUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30613

Lillian CadyDivision of Professional PreparationState Department of Public InstructionOlympia, WA 98504

David Clarke, ChairDepartment of Physical EducationIndiana UniversityBloomington, IN 47405

Michael EllisPhySical Education DepartmentUniversity of OregonEugene, OR 97403

Mary Lou EnbergDepartment of Physical Educationfor Wome,nWashington State UniversityPullman, WA 99164

William HarperPhysical Education DepartmentPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, IN 47907

Wilma HarringtonDepartment of Physical EducationUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30613

'Burris HusmanDepartment of Physical EducationUniversity of MarylandCollege, Park, MD 20742

Robert HuttonDepartment of Physical EducationUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, WA 98105

D'aVid-KaleyDepartment of Physical EducationUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742

Marian KneerDepartment of Physical EducationUniversity of Illinoisat Chicago CircleChicago, IL 60680

Hal LawsonDepartment of Physical Educationand RecreationUniversity of British Columbia2075 Westbrook MallVancouver, British-ColumbiaCanada V6T 1W5

Lawrence Locke-Department of Professional Preparationin Physical EducationUniversity of MassachysettsAmherst, MA 01003

Charles MandSchool of HPER337 West 17th AvenueThe Ohio State Universitycolumbus, OH 43210

W. R. MorfordDepartment of Physical Educationand Recreation,University of British Columbia2075 Westbrook MallVancouver, British ColumbiaCanada V6T 1W5

Daryl SiedentopSChool of HPERThe Ohio State University337 West 17th AvenueColumbus, OH 43210

Mary Lou ThornburgPhysical Education DepartmentBridgewater State CollegeBridgewater, MA 02324

Do your students, needanswers about professionalpreparation in HPER?

THEN . . . LOOK NO FURTHER!

Directory of Undergraduate Physical Education Programs$7.75

Directory of °Graduate Physical Education Programs$6.75

Now physical educators, librarians, coun-selors and career placement officers can bring-it alltogether for their students.

Two up-to-date, informative directories of American colleges and universities with programs inphysical education and related fields. One is devoted!to institutions offering undergraduate de-grees; the other to institutions offering graduate degrees.

Information about each institution includes degrees offered, course requirements, programemphasis, special program options, faculty, financial assistance and accreditation. Comprehensiveinformation on each institution also includes tuition, enrollment data, student housing, admission .requirements and wholo contact for further information. Additional information on research facilitiesis provided for each institution listed in ihe graduate directory. ,

Order your copies of the Directories today. ... and provide your students with the v-aluableinformation they need to chart their futures.

For prices and order information please write:AAHPERD Promotion Unit

1900 Association DriveReston, VA 22091

document resume ed 220 457 author lawson, hal a., ed ... · document resume. ed 220 457 sp 020 844....

Documents