Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Archives

Bulletin 65 Pdf

Contacts

| Feature | No.65 October 2013 |

Physical Literacy and the Australian Health and Physical Education Curriculum

Doune Macdonald & Eimear Enright

Abstract

In 2014 the first Australia-wide curriculum for the learning area Health and Physical Education (HPE) is due for release to Australia’s state and territories and their respective education systems. The HPE curriculum does not make explicit reference to the concept of physical literacy for reasons that shall be outlined in this paper. There are, however, strong alignments between particular interpretations of physical literacy and the HPE curriculum. In future iterations of HPE we see possibilities for physical literacy to be included as a “general capability” reflecting the interpretations of physical literacy that describe it as a human or embodied capability.

Key Words

Physical literacy, Health and physical education, Australia

Introduction

In 2014 the first Australia-wide curriculum for the learning area Health and Physical Education (HPE) is due for release to Australia’s state and territories and their respective education systems. Despite some advocacy during the two year consultation process for the concept of physical literacy to have a framing role in the HPE curriculum, the HPE documents do not make explicit reference to physical literacy for reasons that shall be introduced in this paper. There are, however, strong alignments between particular interpretations of physical literacy and aspects of HPE curriculum. In future iterations of the HPE curriculum we see possibilities for physical literacy to be included as a “capability” reflecting interpretations of physical literacy by scholars such as Mandigo and colleagues (2009) as well as Margaret Whitehead herself (e.g. 2010).

Shaping Australian Health and Physical Education

Across 2011 to 2013 Australia has created a new, national curriculum for HPE in the compulsory years of schooling. HPE is one of several other curricula that have been written at the national level with the goal of “improving the quality, equity and transparency of Australia’s education system” (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA, 2012a, p. 5). Under the auspices of ACARA, HPE has been written in a cycle of initial Shape Paper phases (draft, national consultation, finalisation in 2012) and a subsequent, more detailed curriculum document (draft, national consultation, finalisation in late 2013). The Shape Paper outlines the broad direction for the learning area, including big ideas that should frame the learning area for the 21st century. As with all the Shape Papers, HPE had a commissioned Lead Writer (first author of this paper) and significant input from advisory panels and key stakeholders across the drafting process.

The Shape Paper was informed by a broad literature base that included a review of international practices/curricula in HPE (or equivalent), significant national and international reports (primarily health and sport-related), contemporary reading across the biophysical, sociocultural and behavioural sub-disciplines informing the learning area, and a synthesis of “futures” literature. This literature, together with the aspirations and priorities outlined by ACARA for all curricula, was synthesised into five “propositions”, as outlined below around which the HPE curriculum was to be shaped.

Focus on educative Purposes

This overarching proposition suggests that the intent of the curriculum is to focus on educative purposes; the knowledge, understanding and skills required by students to make informed, decisions that enrich their own and others’ health and well-being. It is acknowledged that the curriculum may contribute to a range of other outcomes, such as increasing Australia’s rates of physical activity participation or decreasing mental illness (ostensibly instrumental outcomes). However, it is the education of students in personal, social and community health, movement and physical activity and the assessment of this learning that is core to the HPE curriculum.

Take a strengths-based approach

A strengths-based approach to health is of growing international interest. In health promotion its genesis often refers to Antonovsky’s (1996) salutogenic model of health but it is also consistent with broader interests in, for example, positive psychology, positive education and Indigenous health strategies. Salutogenesis is defined as the process of movement towards the health end of a health-ease/dis-ease continuum; prioritising “what keeps people healthy?” rather than taking a pathogenic-curative approach (Bengel, Strittmatter, & Willmann, 1999). It focuses on the learner embedded within a communities’ structural facilitators, constraints, assets and resources (Lindstrom & Erikson, 2010; Quennerstedt, 2008; Thorburn & Horrell, 2012).

Value Movement

At one level, to have included a proposition that reminds educators of the centrality of movement to a HPE curriculum seems redundant. However, by drawing attention to the significance of movement to human physical, social, emotional, cultural and intellectual identities and endeavours, it emphasises the physical and experiential core of HPE and the importance of engaging in movement across the lifespan. Early thinking in relation to this proposition was informed by Arnold’s (1988) rubric for Physical Education (PE) of learning in, about and through movement, with learning in and about movement providing educationally sound justifications for PE.

Develop Health Literacy

Australian and international research into the future of health is unequivocal about the importance of health literacy as an investment through schooling in health promotion and thereby public health. Operationalising the concept with an educative intent, Nutbeam (2008) outlined three inter-related dimensions:

- Functional – acquisition of information relating to knowledge and services

- Interactive – acquisition of more advanced knowledge, understanding and skills to actively and independently engage with a health issue and to apply new information to changing circumstances, and

- Critical – access to and critical analysis of health information in order to take action to promote personal health and wellbeing or that of others (ACARA, 2013).

As an aside, ACARA was reluctant to introduce another “literacy” into the Australian curriculum but was persuaded of the national, multi-sectoral support for health literacy’s inclusion, support that was not forthcoming for physical literacy.

Include a critical Inquiry Approach

As explained elsewhere (Macdonald, 2013) there were several drivers for referring to “critical” related to both content and pedagogy. One driver was the large body of literature that suggests HPE has a history of exclusion of those with less motor skill confidence, many girls, the overweight, cultural minorities (e.g., Enright & O’Sullivan, 2010; Sykes, 2011; Wright & Macdonald, 2010). A curriculum that can positively engage all students, through an inclusion orientation, is consistent with Australia’s aspirations for healthy, active communities. A critical approach can also complement what some scholars of strength-based approaches (e.g., McCuaig, Quennerstedt & Macdonald, 2013) see as their potentially individualistic focus. Further, the futures literature, reinforces that students will need to be equipped with the skills and dispositions as lifelong problem-solvers, critically appraising information (see “health literacy” above) and making informed decisions from an ever-changing knowledge base (e.g. Broadbear & Keyser, 2000; Cliff, 2012; White & Wyn, 2008).

HPE structure

The curriculum is structured in two inter-related strands: Personal, social and community health and Movement and physical activity with each strand having a number of focus areas. In the Movement and physical activity strand, the focus areas are:

- Active play and minor games

- Challenge and adventure activities

- Fundamental movement skills

- Games and sports

- Lifelong physical activities

- Rhythmic and expressive activities.

The intention is that these focus areas are all addressed across the curriculum to give the students a breadth of skills and experience as they become competent and confident participants in movement and physical activity experiences.

Connecting Physical Literacy to the HPE Curriculum

Internationally, the concept of physical literacy has been defined and operationalised in sports policy and curriculum documents in a variety of ways. With respect to sports policy, physical literacy has been endorsed as the cornerstone of lifelong participation in physical activity and excellence in sport. Coaching Ireland’s LISPA (Longterm Involvement in Sport and Physical Activity) framework and the Canadian Sport Centre’s LTAD (Long Term Athlete Development) model both draw on Higgs and colleagues’ (2008, p. 5) definition of physical literacy:

… the development of fundamental movement skills and fundamental sport skills that permit a child to move confidently and with control, in a wide range of physical activity, rhythmic (dance) and sports situations. Physical Literacy also includes the ability to read what is going on around them in an activity setting and react appropriately.

Similarly, UK Sport (2002) has defined physical literacy as the development of agility, balance, coordination, and skill across a wide range of activities. As identified by Almond (in press) in a critique of perceptions of physical literacy, these definitions taken together, prioritise the development of physical skills and abilities, and specifically the development of fundamental motor skills.

While this version of physical literacy may serve the interests of the sporting sector, it arguably de-emphasises the cognitive and affective learning domains and thereby a broader educative intent. Unsurprisingly perhaps, a broader conception of physical literacy has been employed in a range of ways in curricular documents. In Canada the concept of physical literacy appears in many provincial PE curricula (i.e. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador) but is employed in a more holistic fashion. Ontario’s Revised Health and Physical Education Elementary Curriculum (2010, p .3), for example, uses Mandigo and colleagues’ (2009, p. 28) definition in an effort to bridge the gap between the needs and philosophies of sport and those of education:

Individuals who are physically literate move with competence in a wide variety of physical activities that benefit the development of the whole person.

Physically literate individuals consistently develop the motivation and ability to understand, communicate, apply, and analyze different forms of movement. They are able to demonstrate a variety of movements confidently, competently, creatively, and strategically across a wide range of health-related physical activities. These skills enable individuals to make healthy, active choices throughout their life span that are both beneficial to and respectful of themselves, others, and their environment.

In the US, the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) (2013) has stretched the definition still further by substituting ‘physically educated’ with ‘physically literate’ in their updated K-12 Standards. That is, physical literacy is taken to be the sum total of the skills, knowledge and attitudes inculcated in PE and, in fact, the very goal of the subject area.

In another variation, Tremblay and Lloyd (2010) have described physical literacy as a “fresh springboard” for PE but suggest that in order to legitimate and unlock its potential “appropriate metrics must be in place to evaluate the key domains of physical literacy” (p. 26). Significantly however, one of the key proponents of physical literacy, Margaret Whitehead (2013), cautions that any assessment of developing physical literacy should be seen as the charting of an individual’s progress on their personal physical literacy journey. Norm referenced assessment and comparison with others is not appropriate. Judgements should be ipsative, that is, made against previous attainment. She has described physical literacy as “a disposition acquired by individuals encompassing the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding that establishes purposeful physical pursuits as an integral element of their lifestyle” (p. 41). Manifested in a curriculum, Whitehead and her colleagues (see, for example, Murdoch & Whitehead, 2013; Whitehead, 2013; Whitehead & Almond, 2013) suggest that physical literacy includes the valuing of:

- poise, confidence, competence and efficiency in purposeful and culturally relevant movement;

- basic movement patterns that lay a foundation for experiencing a repertoire of purposeful physical activity or movement forms across environments;

- knowledge and understanding of movement across the lifecourse and as it relates to health; and

- including all, building self-esteem and empowering students to take responsibility for their own learning.

The picture that emerges is one of physical literacy being a contested concept that is not consistently applied. It was not a concept with sufficient national and international “settlement” to be highlighted in the Shape Paper or HPE curriculum even if ACARA had an appetite for another “literacy” dimension. However, Whitehead’s vision for physical literacy resonates with the Australian curriculum in many respects in that the HPE curriculum also:

- values movement education and assessment of/for learning;

- emphases movement confidence and competence;

- presents a taxonomy of movement experiences that give depth and breadth for learners to engage in purposeful physical pursuits;

- has a lifelong focus; and

- is concerned with the inclusion, positive self-esteem and empowerment of all.

However, it is Whitehead’s (2011, p. 1) conceptualisation of physical literacy that introduces the notion of “capability” (ie. "Physical literacy is a fundamental and valued human capability…”) that may be particularly powerful in the Australian curriculum in the future. Introducing physical literacy as a “capability” in a curriculum (see Nussbaum, 2011), emphasises its breadth, pervasiveness and relevance across the lifecourse. Already in the Australian Curriculum, “the general capabilities encompass the knowledge, skills, behaviours and dispositions that will assist students to live and work successfully in the twenty-first century” (ACARA, 2013). Currently, there are seven general capabilities across all learning areas:

- Literacy

- Numeracy

- Information and communication technology capability

- Critical and creative thinking

- Personal and social capability

- Ethical understanding

- Intercultural understanding

and physical literacy, we argue, would enhance this set.

Physical literacy as a general capability would add an important dimension to all teachers’ understanding of the significance of physicality and speak back to mind-body dualism that permeates schooling. However, at the time of writing HPE, there was no appetite in ACARA to consider changes to their general capabilities.

Conclusion

Internationally and within Australia, the debate about what is physical literacy and how it might be most usefully recruited in shaping or promoting H/PE curricula requires ongoing conversation. In saying this, the Australian HPE curriculum, consistent with Whitehead (2010, 2013) and others (e.g. Almond, in press; Keegan et al., 2013), does not sit comfortably with interpretations of physical literacy that claim its power is its connection to the concept of literacy (e.g., Higgs, 2010), that twin it with health literacy (e.g., Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010), that align it to fundamental movement skills or sporting pathways (e.g., Manitoba in Motion, n.d.), or that are seeking to refine a physical literacy assessment matrix (e.g., Tremblay & Lloyd, 2010). While not explicit, the Australian HPE curriculum resonates with conceptualisations of physical literacy that emphasise a lifelong journey of physical embodiment, awareness, engagement and pleasure. With subsequent revisions of the Australian HPE curriculum, it may be that advocates of physical literacy can successfully argue the concept is most powerful if added to the general capabilities to enhance their capture of what it means to be human in the 21st century.

References

1. Almond, L. (in press). Physical literacy and fundamental motor skills: an introductory critique.

2. Antonovsky, A. (1996). “The salutogenic model as a theory to guide heath promotion.” Health Promotion International, 11(1), 11-18. doi: 10.1093/heapro/11.1.11

3. Arnold, P. (1988). Education, movement and the curriculum. London: Falmer Press.

4. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). The shape of the Australian curriculum: Health and Physical Education. Sydney: ACARA.

5. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). The Australian curriculum: Health and Physical Education. Sydney: ACARA.

6. Bengel, J., Strittmatter, R., & Willman, H. (1999). What keeps people healthy? The current state of discussion and the relevance of Antonovsky’s salutogenic model of health. Cologne: Federal Centre for Health Education.

7. Broadbear, J., & Keyser. B. (2000). “An approach to teaching for critical thinking in health education.” Journal of School Health, 70(8), 322-326. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2000.tb07266.x

8. Cliff, K. (2012). A sociocultural perspective as a curriculum change in Health and Physical Education. Sport, Education and Society, 17(3), 293-311. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2011.608935

9. Coaching Ireland. (2011). Fundamental skills and physical literacy. Retrieved September 1, 2013, from: www.coachingireland.com

10. Enright, E., & O'Sullivan, M. (2010). 'Can I do it in my pyjamas?’: Negotiating a physical education curriculum with teenage girls. European Physical Education Review, 16(3) 203-222. doi: 10.1177/1356336X10382967

11. Higgs, C. (2010). Physical literacy-Two approaches, one concept. Physical & Health Education Canada Journal, Spring, 6-7.

12. Higgs, C., Balyi, I., Way, R, Cardinal, C., Noris, S., & Bluechardt, M. (2008). Developing physical literacy: A guide for parents of children ages 0 to 12. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Sport Centre.

13. Keegan, R., Keegan, S., Daley, S., Ordway, C., & Edwards, A. (2013) Getting Australia moving: Establishing a physical literate and active nation. Canberra: University of Canberra. Retrived September 10, 2013, from http://www.canberra.edu.au

14. Lindstrom, B., & Eriksson, M. (2010). The hitchhiker’s guide to salutogenesis: Salutogenic pathways to health promotion. Helsinki: Folkhälsan Research Centre.

15. Macdonald, D. (2013). The new Australian Health and Physical Education Curriculum: a case of/for gradualism in curriculum reform? Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 4(2), 95-108. doi: 10.1080/18377122.2013.801104

16. Mandigo, J., Francis, N., Lodewyk, K., & Lopez, R. (2009). Physical literacy for educators. Physical and Health Education, 75(3), 27-30. Retrieved September 1, 2013, from www.albertaenaction.ca

17. Manitoba in Motion (n.d.). Physical literacy toolkit. Winnipeg, Canada. Retrieved September 10, 2013, from http://www.manitobainmotion.ca

18. McCuaig, L. Quennerstedt, M., & Macdonald, D. (2013). A salutogenic, strengths-based approach as a theory to guide HPE curriculum change. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport, and Physical Education, 4(2), 109-125. doi: 10.1080/18377122.2013.801105

19. Murdoch, E., & Whitehead, M. (2010). Physical literacy, fostering the attributes and curriculum planning. In M. Whitehead (ed.), Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse (pp.175-189). London: Routledge.

20. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2013). Moving into the Future: National Standards for Physical Education, 3rd Edition. Reston, VA: NASPE.

21. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

22. Nutbeam, D. (2008). The evolving concept of health literacy. Social Science and Medicine, 67(12), 272-278. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.050.

23. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Health and physical education curriculum (Grades 1-8) (interim edition). Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Education.

24. Quennerstedt, M. (2008). Exploring the relation between physical activity and health-a salutogenic approach to physical education. Sport Education and Society, 13(3), 267-283. doi: 10.1080/13573320802200594

25. Sykes, H. (2011). Queer Bodies: Sexualities, Genders and Fatness in Physical Education. New York, Peter Lang.

26. Thorburn, M., & Horrell, A. (2012). Grand designs! Analysing the conceptual tensions associated with new physical education and health and well-being curriculum. Sport, Education and Society, iFirst,1-16. doi:10.1080/13573322.2012.692670

27. Tremblay, M., & Lloyd, M. (2010). Physical literacy measurement – the missing piece. Physical and Health Education Journal, 76(1), 26-30. Retrieved September 1, 2013, from: http://www.albertaenaction.ca

28. UK Sport (2002). Game Plan: a strategy for delivering Government sport and physical activity objectives. London: Cabinet Office. Retrieved September 1, 2013, from: http://www.sportdevelopment.info

29. White, R., & Wyn, J. (2008). Youth and society: Exploring the social dynamics of youth experience. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

30. Whitehead, M. (2013). What is physical literacy and how does it impact on physical education? In S. Capel and M. Whitehead (eds), Debates in Physical Education (pp. 37-52). London: Routledge.

31. Whitehead, M. (2011). Questions answered on physical literacy. Retrieved September, 2013 from: http://www.physical-literacy.org.uk/

32. Whitehead, M. (2010). Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse. London: Routledge.

33. Whitehead, M., & Almond, L. (2013). Creating learning experiences to foster physical literacy. Physical Education Matters, Spring, 24-27.

34. Wright, J., & Macdonald, D. (2010). Young people, physical activity and the everyday. London: Routledge.

Contact

Doune Macdonald
Australian Centre of Sport,
Physical and Health Education Research
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD
Australia
Email doune@hms.uq.edu.au

http://www.icsspe.org/