Current Issues
No.47
May 2006
 
  print view 

New International Developments – A Qualitative Approach
Uwe Pühse
Markus Gerber

 

Keynote presentation at the 2nd World Summit on Physical Education
Magglingen (Switzerland), 2-3 December 2005

Since the 1970’s there have been serious concerns about the situation of physical education across the world. There has been a perceived decline in the position and presence of physical education in schools since this time. Internationally, physical education has lost ground seriously over recent years. Quantified, this loss amounts to 15-20% of weekly time allocation, due to cost-reduction or space-making for more theoretical or new school subjects (cp. Doll-Tepper, 2005; Fisher, 2003). However, the problem is not only one of diminishing time allotment. Previous investigations have demonstrated that physical education also faces a string of other challenges. In many countries, there is a marked discrepancy between curricular demands and actual practice. Unsatisfactory infrastructure, lack of equipment, poor financial resources, poor attainment of the goals, low qualification of primary teachers or teachers in general, a gap between policy and practice, curricular demands that exceed teacher competence, over-sized classes and other problems abound (cp. Hardman, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005; Hardman & Marshall, 2000; Wilcox, 1998). All these issues are critical, considering that the quality of physical education is the primary decider of outcomes and efficiency.
This critical situation explains the widespread efforts to draw the attention of politicians, policy-makers and curriculum planners to the difficulties of physical education, and to push the issue forward on the political agenda. Considering the large number of position statements that exist, we may assume that political decision-makers are now aware of the various values represented by and possible benefits achievable through sport and physical education. It seems common knowledge that sport and physical education teach probably the best lessons for life (cp. Matsuura, 2005; Ogi, 2005). However, this does not automatically lead to general improvement in the worldwide state and status of physical education. The reason for this contradictory situation may be that physical education is not a politically neutral activity, and that it depends on the interaction of multifold forces that influence its practical implementation (Talbot, 2005).

Promoting international cooperation
As described above, the critical state and status of physical education worldwide is most recently recognized through the quantitative survey of Ken Hardman and Joe Marshall (2000). However, as Kirk (2003) argues, physical educators collectively have an underdeveloped understanding of how change happens with their subject. Ideally, they should be able to anticipate future crises, in order to intervene proactively and minimize the negative impacts.
For that reason, instead of describing the situation by means of quantitative data, our primary intention was to create a corpus of information that warrants well founded insight into the situation of physical education in different countries all over the world. This intention particularly builds on our own experience that during international congresses there is an intensive exchange regarding ideas and experiences from other countries. Nevertheless, cross-cultural information has not yet been gathered in a systematic way. Therefore, the picture we get may remain fragmentary or is distorted by the subjectivity of our interlocutors’ perceptions. Furthermore, the discussion is left to those who have the opportunity to take part in international meetings. As a consequence, students, politicians and other important decision-makers are not provided with conceptions and facts from abroad.
Generally, each research paradigm has its benefits and limitations. Whereas quantitative studies are perfectly adequate to provide an overview of the global situation of physical education, many questions remain unanswered. Particularly, quantitative studies do only provide limited insight into cause-effect relationships. As Mayring (2003) indicates, every kind of scientific process starts (‘what do we want to investigate?’) and ends with a qualitative procedure (‘what is the meaning of the findings?’). Quantitative data never speak for themselves, but must always be interpreted.
This is why our intention was to launch a qualitative comparison. This alternative way of collecting data may be helpful to provide additional information and to fill gaps left open by quantitative studies. Apart from providing a rich documentation of experiences, this survey more specifically aims at promoting international cooperation and at solving problems together. To be confronted with alternatives may generate new ideas and enable physical educators to consider whether new elements suit their own system. Besides, advances are made to not only address problems. On the contrary, this survey also investigates whether there exists some universally accepted features and concepts. By looking at future measures to improve the current situation of physical education, the present study also includes many examples of good practice and provides directions for future developments.

Procedure
Experts from 40 nations and educationally autonomous states/provinces were invited to provide a detailed description about the situation of physical education in their country. Their task consisted of writing an article of 15 to 20 pages. In Autumn 2001, all partners received a semi-structured, open-ended questionnaire (Table 1). In order to facilitate comparability, the authors were asked to respect the order of the questions. All together, 22 countries from Europe (Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey), 5 from Asia (China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), 3 from Africa (Ghana, Nigeria, Tunisia), 2 from Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), 2 from North America (Canada, USA) and 1 from South America (Brazil) took part in this project (Figure 1). Five countries had to be excluded since the authors did not deliver an article within the set time frame. Authors were all academics, mainly full- or associate professors from internationally recognized institutes. In sum, 67 researchers (21 females, 46 males) were involved. A language editor inspected the revised articles for stylistic and grammatical correctness. The project was endorsed by the UNO, UNESCO, the IOC, AIESEP and EUPEA. The book, including all 35 articles (725 pages), was published at the end of the International Year of Sport and Physical Education (Pühse & Gerber, 2005).
Table 1. Open-ended, semi-structured questionnaire used in this survey
1 What is the current political situation of physical education at school in your country/region?
1.1 Which are the most urgent problems of physical education at present?
1.2 Is there pressure exerted on physical education to legitimate itself?
1.3 How many physical education lessons are taught r week in the different school grades?
1.4 Are there attempts to reduce the number of physical education lessons, or has this already happened over recent years?
2 Which are the most dominant ideals of physical education in your country/region?
2.1 What are the main goals of the physical education curricula?
2.2 Are these objectives concretely evaluated? If yes: how?
3 Which are the predominant contents of physical education in your country/region?
4 Is there in general a positive climate vis-à-vis physical education in your country/region? If yes: why? If no: why not?
4.1 What is the importance of physical education compared to other school subjects, and what is the status of the physical education teacher compared to other teachers?
5 Is there a prevalent didactical model of physical education in your country/region?
5.1 Is there coeducation in physical education?
5.2 How important is the physical education mark compared to other marks?
5.3 Is there supplementary physical education on offer at school?
6 Which are the most relevant arguments to legitimate physical education in your country/region?
6.1 What importance does health education have in physical education?
6.2 Are social learning and fair-play education considered as specific (on a par/subordinated/superior) education objectives?
7 How should future physical education look like in order that school and society accept it as an important school subject in your country/region?
7.1 Which concrete measures have to be taken for this?
8 Summary and personal remarks

The focus of this article will be on providing an overview over the global situation of physical education around the word. It is all but impossible to condense the richness of the articles into the format of 3000 words. As a consequence, the nature of the data presented here is predominantly descriptive, which we are familiar with from quantitative studies. Those readers who are interested in more detailed information and particularly in causal explanations are invited to look at the original documents.
To present some general trends, we conducted a content analysis. Using this method we first had to build categories that allowed transformation of words into numbers. Once these categories were established, we worked through the articles following this classification system (see Mayring, 2003). In this paper we will address the most common problems of physical education based on the content analysis. In addition, we will identify some determinants that generally improve or deteriorate the state and status of physical education. Finally, we provide an overview over the most popular measures to raise the situation of physical education.

Figure 1. Participating countries

Problems, determinants and future measures
It appears from the content analysis of the 35 articles, that there are several problems of a global nature. In sum, 14 problems are pointed to by more than half of all nations. The findings reveal that the most common problem is an unsatisfactory goal evaluation and quality control (88.6%). For instance, an intensive debate about the quantity of physical education lessons has led to the neglect of the discussion about quality aspects in Switzerland (Pühse, Gerber, Mengisen & Repond). Similarly, many other experts report that there is still disagreement concerning the definition of quality physical education in their country (Annerstedt). On the other hand, as the colleague from Denmark underlines, lacking quality control is not a specific problem of physical education, but concerns school in its entirety. However, this shortcoming finds its most obvious expression in physical education (Rønholt). By analogy, quality control is considered as one of the most important challenges in the United States. Particularly, it is criticized that quality control exclusively concentrates on fitness outcomes or motor ability. In contras,t with this limited view, it would be preferable to assess more general learning outcomes as well (Feingold & Holland-Fiorentino). As a consequence of this deficit in quality control, most efforts of academics and policy makers to reliably judge the situation of physical education remain on a speculative or at least subjective level (Balz & Neumann).
Another serious problem concerns the low degree of professionalization of primary school teachers. Eight out of ten countries indicate that primary school teachers are not adequately educated to teach physical education lessons. As a result, many primary school teachers (63%) report that it is expecting too much of them to provide quality physical education. In Finland, as in many other countries too, generalists teach physical education. Even though primary school teachers have the opportunity to become specialized in physical education, these courses normally do not last very long and remain on a rather superficial level. Hence, knowledge and skills of the teaching staff are for the most part not founded enough to achieve the national goals (Heikinaro-Johansson & Telama). Another problem exists in the fact that sometimes primary school teachers do not believe in the value of physical education or they consider it as a secondary subject (Halbert & MacPhail). Consequently, in some countries physical education only takes place in an irregular way and in a rather unplanned fashion. Consequently, the children’s developmental needs are often not met (Thomson & Emerson). However, it would be wrong to pin the blame exclusively on the primary school teachers. As the Portuguese colleague points out, those responsible for the primary teacher education partly do a poor job in emphasizing the importance of the subject (Carreiro Da Costa). In a country like Poland, where primary teachers decide how much time they want to spend on physical education, such an unawareness certainly would have a very negative impact (Dobosz & Wit).
Another important issue is the generally low status of physical education as a school subject (77.1%). Examples can be listed from all parts of the world. In China and Lithuania, physical education has a considerably lower status compared to all other school subjects (Puisene, Volbekiene, Kavaliauskas & Cikotiene; Yao & Jichun). In Polish schools, physical education is often considered as time kept in reserve for other (more important) purposes (Dobosz & Wit). Likewise, this trend is reported in Northern European countries. In Norway, lessons are often deleted in favor of school events, project weeks etc. without being compensated for (Moser, Jacobsen & Erdman). Alternatively, some experts argue that the low status is due to the low importance of the PE mark (Kang & You). The low status of the PE teachers may be another important reason. In Nigeria, the PE teacher education program is condescendingly called “Jumpology Studies” (Salokun). In Switzerland there have been regular attempts to undermine the academic status of sport sciences by relegating it from university to professional schools (Pühse, Gerber, Mengisen & Repond). Some experts even apprehend a vicious circle. Thus, the state and status of PE will continuously deteriorate due to further reductions in time allotment, missing financial support and lacking quality control (De Knop, Theeboom, De Martelaer & Cloes). In Spain, experts complain that particularly parents do not appreciate enough the value of PE. In addition, in spite of many students being sport enthusiasts, the importance of school PE is rated rather low (Gonzalez Valeiro, Toja Reboredo & Contreras Jordan). However, as the colleague from Japan notes, the status of a subject depends very much on the expertise and the commitment of the teachers (Okade). In fact, our findings constitute evidence that in every third country, the attitude of the PE teachers towards their subject could be better.
Two other problems are the low financial resources (74.3%) and the unsatisfactory goal attainment (71.4%). Experts from many countries warn that despite physical education being a compulsory subject, authorities are not willing to provide the necessary financial support (Tubino & Costa). In Ghana for instance, PE is tolerated as long as its financial demands remain low (Ammah & Kwaw). In some countries like Denmark, France or Switzerland, the provinces or the communities regulate the school finances by themselves. As a result, there is no national control over the distribution of the resources, which often entails negative consequences for PE (Pühse, Gerber, Mengisen & Repond; Rønholt; Wallian & Gréhaigne). Generally, unsatisfactory resources and poor goal attainment go hand in hand. Without adequate equipment many activities simply cannot be implemented. However, it becomes clear that missing equipment is not the only reason for poor goal attainment. In part, PE teachers just do not teach the contents foreseen in the curriculum. As Tinning indicates, many Australian PE teachers still concentrate on the development of motor and technical skills, whereas other concepts (e.g. fairness, health education) are neglected. Furthermore, poor goal attainment may also be in conjunction with low time allocation.
In 68.6% of all countries the current time allotment is perceived as unsatisfactory. The Spanish colleagues make clear that the prescribed program cannot be implemented within the scope of two weekly PE lessons. In Canada, there exists only a minimum prescription. Hence, many schools stick to this minimum in order to help other subjects or school projects (Rivard & Beaudoin). The results of this survey further signal that in 62.9% of all countries there is growing competition with other school subjects. In Austria, the pressure to legitimate the subject mainly results from the competition with new (e.g. computer science) or existing subjects (e.g. modern languages) (Grössing, Recla & Recla). Furthermore, in no less that 54.3% of all countries the prescribed minimum of time allocation falls short in practice. For instance, in Israel, PE classes are the first to be cancelled when there is a special project, performance, trip or other school event (Harari).
In many countries, missing facilities (65.7%) or the underprovision of adequate equipment (62.9%) cause another problem. In Hungary, there is a lack of indoor facilities and swimming pools, particularly in small and rural villages (Vass). Generally, this problem is very accentuated in Eastern European and African countries (Dobosz & Wit; Muzik, Stojanikova & Sedlackova). In Nigeria, many of the outdoor facilities are in a state of neglect or even overgrown (Salokun). In Central Europe, gyms are sometimes too small. In the Netherlands, the standard size of a gym is only 12 x 21 x 5.5 meters and the equipment does not always satisfy modern standards (Crum & Stegeman). In other countries, there exist strong regional differences. In Denmark, some schools have a swimming pool, several gyms and outdoor facilities, whereas other establishments have to be content with the absolute minimum (Rønholt).
At the same time, many of the current didactical models do not fit the needs of the society. The combined findings of our study show that 60% of all experts assume a considerable gap. In Australia or Germany, for instance, there is no general consensus about the meaning of the term “PE” (Tinning, Balz & Neumann). Another difficulty is in the fact that politicians and students may expect different things from PE. Whereas the health argument is of primary importance for political decision makers, students seem to have more intrinsic motives to engage in PE (Annerstedt; Zouabi). In other countries, experts criticize that the syllabuses on the different school levels are not well coordinated (Liu Yuk-Kwong).
In almost two thirds of all countries, PE teacher education programs are not satisfactory. According to the Turkish colleague, the low quality of PE teacher education is the main problem of the subject (Hasirci). In other countries, PE teacher education is very theoretical and does not prepare well for practice (Krjazh). In some countries, PE students are selected because they are good athletes and not because they are suited as PE teachers or as health promoters (Kellis & Mountakis; Tinning). This may be a plausible reason why many PE teachers have difficulties in coping with the practical demands and excessively concentrate on activities they master well, whereas other activities (e.g. dance, outdoor activities) are strongly neglected (Halbert & MacPhail; Moser, Jacobsen & Erdmann). As a result, girls are often fairly resistant to the subject (Fisher). In some countries, such as Korea or Taiwan, PE teachers have to fulfill a variety of additional tasks, which makes it nearly impossible to prepare PE lessons seriously (Keh).
What can be inferred from the content analysis is that there are still considerable problems to overcome during the next few years in order to stabilize or improve the situation of physical education. Generally, several correlates can be identified that affect the state of the subject. The following table gives a short impression of the most important determinants.
Table 2. Determinants affecting the state and status of PE
In order to improve the state and status of physical education, the experts in our survey propose the following measures: 91.4% think it would be helpful to introduce a daily physical activity lesson. 85.7% say that teaching and learning materials should be improved. Another important issue regards the establishment of equality between PE teachers and other teachers (85.7%). In many countries there seems to be a need to improve the status of PE teacher education (82.9%), to enhance cooperation with other school subjects (77.1%), to concentrate less on traditional contents and activities (71.4%) and to improve the capacities of physical educators to argue for their subject (71.4%). Further propositions are: improving the legislation that regulates PE (68.6%), intensifying cooperation with non-scholastic institutions (65.7%), offering more supplementary PE (65.7%), improving the financial situation (62.9%), ameliorating the environmental conditions (facilities, equipment) (62.9%), taking more account of research findings when legitimating the subject or planning the curriculum (54.3%), substantially redirecting the didactical model (54.3%), improving the quality control and in-service training (45.7%), considering more the students’ needs (45.7%) and developing a strong identity of the subject (42.9%).

Conclusions
The findings of our content analysis are generally congruent with Hardman and Marshall’s update on the state and status of physical education worldwide (2005). In sum, PE still suffers from a variety of urgent problems that could not have been overcome since the First World Summit on Physical Education in Berlin (1999). Our qualitative data confirm that PE has mostly a legal and compulsory status but that the actual implementation of PE lessons remains a critical issue. In many countries, PE is under strong pressure to legitimate itself and to repulse regular attempts to reduce the number of PE lessons. On the other hand, the importance of the subject is still not recognized in practice even though PE has, for the most part, the same official status as theoretical school subjects. In contrast to Hardman and Marshall, we only found few countries where the time allowance has been augmented during the last ten years. On the other hand, the findings correspond to the predominance of rather classic contents as games, athletics and gymnastics. In spite of many countries having abandoned a pure sport orientation and putting more emphasis on other concepts such as health education and teaching of life skills, the practical implementation of these concepts often remains unsatisfactory. The main reasons are a lack of acceptance by PE teachers and students themselves, inadequate education programs, poor in-service training and a questionable selection of the teacher candidates. Taken together, this study shows that there are several determinants that generally affect the situation of PE in a positive or negative fashion. Many of the measures taken or intended in the various countries are directed towards an improvement of these determinants. Concrete examples and more explanatory information are comprised in the original articles. In sum, we wish to argue that what we need is more concerted action. The state and status of PE will only be affected lastingly if there is a well-founded strategy that allows to set priorities about which measures to take first.
Finally, it is important to recall that the results presented here are only a very brief and general summary of the information provided by our partners. A more complete document of causal explanations would be beyond the scope of this paper. In our opinion, considerable differences regarding the historical, socio-economic, cultural and political background of the various countries, make it unavoidable to approach the problem with cultural relativism. However, this procedure seriously complicates the possibility to compare PE on an international level. Nevertheless, we believe that this qualitative survey using open-ended questions provides additional information. In this manner authors were free to address concepts, problems and prospects from their own perspective. Beside that, we could make sure by reviewing the articles that all questions were correctly understood and that all participants used the same linguistic equivalences.

References
Doll-Tepper, G. (2005). Foreword. In U. Pühse & M. Gerber (Eds.), International comparison of physical education: Concepts, problems, prospects (pp. 10-11). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Fisher, R. (2003). Physical education in Europe: Policy into practice. In ICSSPE (Ed.), Physical education: Deconstruction and reconstruction – Issues and directions (pp. 137-152). Schorndorf: Hofmann.
Hardman, K. (1998). The fall and rise of school physical education in international context. In R. Naul (Ed.), Physical activity and active lifestyle of children and youth (pp. 89-107). Schorndorf: Hofmann.
Hardman, K. (2002). European Physical Education/Sport Survey. Report submitted to Committee for the Development of Sport (CDDS). Council of Europe, Strasbourg, February.
Hardman, K. (2003). The state and status of physical education in schools: Foundation for Deconstruction and Reconstruction of physical education. In ICSSPE (Ed.), Physical education: Deconstruction and reconstruction – Issues and directions (pp. 15-34). Schorndorf: Hofmann.
Hardman, K. (2005). Foreword. In U. Pühse & M. Gerber (Eds.), International comparison of physical education: Concepts, problems, prospects (pp. 12-18). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Hardman, K., & Marshall, J. (2005). Update on the state and status of physical education world-wide. Keynote presentation at the 2nd World Summit on Physical Education. http://www.icsspe.org/portal/download/HardmanMarshall.pdf (last access: 15.5.2006).
Hardman, K., & Marshall, J. J. (2000). World-wide survey of the state and status of school physical education, Final report. Manchester: University of Manchester.
Kirk, D. (2003). The social construction of physical education, legitimation crises and strategic intervention in educational reform. In ICSSPE (Ed.), Physical education: Deconstruction and reconstruction – Issues and directions (pp. 171-183). Schorndorf: Hofmann.
Matsuura, K. (2005). Foreword. In U. Pühse & M. Gerber (Eds.), International comparison of physical education: Concepts, problems, prospects (pp. 9). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz.
Ogi, A. (2005). Foreword. In U. Pühse & M. Gerber (Eds.), International comparison of physical education: Concepts, problems, prospects (pp. 7-8). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Pühse, U., & Gerber, M. (2005). International comparison of physical education. Concepts, problems, prospects. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Talbot, M. (2005). Making the political case for physical education. Keynote Lecture at the 2nd World Summit on Physical Education, 2-3 December 2005, Magglingen (CH).
Wilcox, R. (1998). Shared scepticism and domestic doubts: Globalisation, localisation, and the challenges to physical education in the world today. In R. Naul, K. Hardman, M. Piéron & B. Skirstad (Eds.), Physical activity and active lifestyle of children and youth (pp. 108-114). Schorndorf: Hofmann.


Contact:
Prof. Dr. Uwe Pühse
Universität Basel
Brüglingen 33
43052 Basel
Switzerland
Uwe.Puehse@unibas.ch

or
Markus Gerber
Universität Basel
Brüglingen 33
43052 Basel
Switzerland
markus.gerber@unibas.ch





http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5