Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Archives

Bulletin 65 Pdf

Contacts

| Feature | No.65 October 2013 |

“Strike While the Iron is Hot”: the duty of physical education to capitalise on its' compulsory position with a holistic curriculum underpinned by physical literacy

Andy Sprake & Sue Walker

Andy writes ‘As a trainee teacher of Physical Education in England , I was frequently asked questions such as “So you’re teaching PE? What’s your sport?” I had always believed that teaching PE was far more complex than that and having been introduced to the concept of Physical Literacy, my personal philosophy for PE now has some structure and theoretical underpinning. However, the more I understand and value the concept, the more I appreciate how much work is still to be done if it is to inform future PE practice.’

Abstract

This paper explores the philosophical controversies surrounding Physical Education within a curriculum shackled to a dualist perspective on what is educationally valuable. Adopting a monist outlook on human embodiment, the authors encourage educationalists to reconsider the currently lopsided view of educational priorities and to broaden the vision on human intelligence. The recent political impetus surrounding Physical Education must be exploited. Those within the profession have a duty to capitalise on this and strike while the iron is hot. By offering a vision of school PE which recaptures a holistic focus, Physical Literacy might enable PE to reassert itself and be celebrated in its own right.

Introduction

The overarching purpose of education is to promote the holistic development of children and young people (McGettrick, 2005). A fleeting glance at the range of subjects on offer through the English National Curriculum (QCA, 2007) might suggest that the education system is doing just that, while the reality is somewhat different. In its current state, education is handcuffed to an ideology which has a narrow perspective on human intelligence (Robinson, 2013). That is, the entire curricular spectrum is informed by a dualist view of what is didactically valuable which, in turn, has created a hierarchy whereby intellectual development is the top priority. This can be evidenced by the current framework for school inspections in England, which measures the overall achievement of pupils based on their academic attainment (Ofsted, 2013). Furthermore, this dualist paradigm is now so deeply-embedded in education that physical education (PE) has been manipulated into a position where mind before body is accepted as ‘common-sense’. Consequently, by joining the ‘academic bandwagon’ (Whitehead, 2013a), PE is limiting its unique opportunity to contribute to a holistic education.

Dualism and the Manipulation of Physical Education

The role and contribution of PE has long been a contested area (Smith and Parr, 2007). This is perhaps unsurprising given the on-going struggles to establish a definitive purpose for the subject (Bailey and Kirk, 2009). Ironically, the debates concerning PE appeared to exacerbate the philosophical confusion surrounding the subject, rendering PE as a vulnerable target for the dualist take-over that followed. In effect, PE has been backed into a corner. The hegemonic-dualism which informs PE appears to disregard the subject’s true potential (Sprake and Palmer, 2012) and is suffocating the would-be holistic development of children and young people.

Dualism is based on the belief that humans not only comprise two ‘separate’ parts (the body and the mind) but that the body is subservient to the mind (Whitehead, 2010b). Therefore, if all the subjects are compelled to pledge allegiance to a dualist ideology, PE might seem the most controversial and unproductive. The increasing focus of PE to support academic achievement (Trudeau and Shephard, 2008) combined with the significant rise in examinable PE (Green, 2008) demonstrates a clear acceptance that intellectual development is an over-riding priority within the curriculum. It is argued that the ‘academicisation’ of PE (Green, 2005) has enabled the subject to assert its educational worth (Sprake and Palmer, 2012). Unfortunately, however, this approach seemingly overlooks the main strength of PE, which lies in its ability to develop the child holistically. Nevertheless, through ideological power-relations, PE has been persuaded into accepting that the transfer of academic knowledge is a common-sense priority, even though it might not be in the best interests of PE itself. From a sociological perspective, this process has been described as “curricular-hegemony” (Sprake and Palmer, 2012, p. 75).

Similarly, it is argued that PE is exploited as a “political football” (Johnrose and Maher, 2010, p. 15) which is kicked back and forth in order to serve in the best interests of political preferences. As it stands, PE is the only compulsory subject in England at KS1-4 in addition to the obligatory English, Maths and Science. This indicates a government commitment to PE which must be exploited. Advocates of PE have been presented with a window of opportunity to establish a clear and unified rationale for the subject which would enable PE to be celebrated in its own right (Whitehead, 2010a) and thus stand shoulder to shoulder with other curriculum areas.

Monism, Physical Literacy and the Re-Focusing of Physical Education

A recent proposal for the justification of PE has been the development of Physical Literacy (Whitehead, 2010a) in which the focus should be on movement rather than the activities themselves (Burgess, 2013). Physical Literacy as an outcome of PE can provide children and young people of all abilities and dispositions with the foundations on which to build a lifelong commitment to, and enjoyment of, physical activity.

The concept of Physical Literacy stems from a “monist approach to human nature” (Whitehead, 2013b, p. 37). Unlike dualism, monism is a philosophical perspective which views human embodiment as one indivisible entity, in which neither the mind nor the body can claim superiority (Whitehead, 2010b). This viewpoint allows for a holistic understanding of human existence and captures the full essence of human experience. Gill (2000, p. 100) astutely remarks that “only against the backdrop of embodied experience” can propositional knowledge become useful. Thus, by allowing a dualist philosophy to inform the nature of the subject, PE might be criticised for selling itself short. By the same token, until PE can indeed be justified in its own right, then it may be difficult to envisage a PE-existence which is not exploited for any and all academic potential. This is not to say that the academic components of PE should be abolished, rather, that it need not eclipse the subject’s fundamentally physical nature. Indeed, a monist approach towards educational relevance would allow for a ‘broad and balanced’ appreciation of human embodiment.

Kirk (2010, p. 121) anticipates three possible futures for PE: “more of the same, radical reform or extinction”. If the subject merely produces more of the same, it is likely to arouse the same timeworn debates, which may guide PE to its own eventual extinction. The principle aim of Physical Literacy, on the other hand, is to equip individuals of all ages and dispositions with the “motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to maintain physical activity throughout the lifecourse” (Whitehead, 2010a, p. 18). Considering that the central aim of PE is to promote lifelong physical activity, Physical Literacy might be the “light at the end of the tunnel” (Sprake and Palmer, 2012, p. 75). Herein might be the radical reform that has eluded PE throughout its contested history.

There are, of course, various challenges to this paradigm shift. This new approach would demand a move away from the ‘tick every box’ culture inspired by the increasing demand for instant accountability. This climate, in which pupils have been labelled a ‘Level 3b’ in football, is counter-productive to the Physical Literacy journey. Indeed, enabling a child to develop their physical literacy requires a focus on the process rather than the product (Fox, 2010).

Philosophy to Pedagogy: barriers to Physical Literacy

Physical Literacy can be characterised as the “development of a disposition” as opposed to the realisation of an end product (Whitehead, 2010b, p. 163). The process of becoming physically literate, therefore, against the backdrop of a product-driven education system, is fundamentally challenging, not least because measuring the degree to which a disposition has been developed is a challenge in itself. In an educational climate fixated on pupil-data, progress reports and accountability, it is foreseeable that promoting Physical Literacy as ‘the new underpinning concept for PE’ will be met with concerns about its practical application. The dearth of pedagogical guidance renders it difficult for a teacher at the ‘chalk-face’ to demonstrate where a pupil currently sits on their Physical Literacy journey. It should be emphasised that Physical Literacy is neither an alternative to PE nor a pedagogical model in itself (Whitehead, 2011) but the pedagogical challenges that have stifled attempts to embed Physical Literacy into PE (Bassett, Sammon and Casey, 2013) must not be overlooked. In order to maximise the impact and secure the future of Physical Literacy in education, it might seem prudent to develop a framework for its practical application in schools. Unless a tangible model is developed, one which promotes a holistic PE experience while at the same time providing means of accountability, then it seems unlikely that schools will redefine their day-to-day PE practices.

Whitehead with Almond (2013, p. 27) have attempted to bridge the gap between theory and practice for the application of Physical Literacy by setting out guidelines through which teachers can facilitate a “…pedagogy of engagement”. They do this by advising teachers to consider several learner experiences on their Physical Literacy journey. These experiences are to be rewarding and enjoyable; ones which promote self-worth and self-confidence; that enable pupils to progress and succeed; empower pupils to make choices about physical activity; that enable pupils to understand the value of physical activity for lifelong health benefits; and experiences which encourage pupils to engage in physical activity for themselves (Whitehead with Almond, 2013, p. 27). Despite their efforts, however, there remains an air of confusion about how to embed physical literacy within the PE classroom.

Needless to say, schools are dynamic and complex environments caught up in a whirlwind of various pressures (Park, 2003). Such pressures are likely to overshadow any efforts to promote the concept of Physical Literacy, particularly when guidelines for its application in PE seem to come in the form of abstract signposts rather than practical advice for teachers. In order to make the concept of Physical Literacy more immediately appealing to schools and their practitioners, it seems important to establish a framework for implementation which is user-friendly. In doing so, the future of Physical Literacy in PE would hinge on something more than a philosophical selling point.

Attempts have been made, however, to make Physical Literacy more accessible for practitioners. The basic movement skills programme ‘Developing Practical ABCs’ is a toolkit which enables teachers to facilitate a fun, active and progressive learning environment, in which learners of all abilities can develop an enthusiasm and passion to be physically active (Walker, 2013). Such toolkits might provide an ideal starting point from which to generate a growing advocacy for the practical element of Physical Literacy, but it is imperative that they are placed in context and strategically promoted as only one aspect of physical literacy and not as the sole driver of PE. This is not to say that the essence of Physical Literacy can simply be put in a box or packed up and sold, but the issue certainly warrants further discussion.

In addition to the problems of embedding Physical Literacy into PE, many PE departments are pressured to ‘pick-the-teams’ in time for extra-curricular sports or activities. The specific demands of these ‘trials’ requires an immediate focus on the product, that is, how well the pupils can already perform. This approach is indifferent towards the process. Invariably, children’s early experiences of sport and physical activity have severe implications for their subsequent involvement (Trimble, et al., 2010) and, incidentally, research suggests that only a minority of adults continue to participate in activities they experienced in PE (Kirk, 2005). This implies that PE in schools is currently failing to achieve one of its central aims. From a phenomenological perspective, it could be suggested that, for such adults, the prospect of engaging in physical activity might provoke unpleasant recollections of their experiences of PE. Therefore, the manner in which PE is facilitated can impact heavily on pupils’ enthusiasm to engage in lifelong physical activity (Fairclough, Stratton and Baldwin, 2002). PE appears to be the intersection at which young people opt-in or opt-out of physical activity, which magnifies the responsibility of the PE teacher and highlights the social and health implications of the subject. It is therefore the duty of physical educators to generate, harness and nurture pupils’ physical competence in order to build positive experiences and predispositions towards lifelong physical activity, during both curricular and extra-curricular activities. This adds indirect support for Whitehead (2010), who insists that it is essential for young people to leave compulsory schooling with a positive attitude towards physical activity, in other words are making clear progress on their individual physical literacy journey.

The future of Physical Literacy, in the PE setting, might currently lie in the hands of those who advocate the philosophical roots from which it originates. Perhaps the promotion of Physical Literacy should become an integral part of Initial Teacher Training, equipping future educators with a sound understanding of how to articulate and justify the educational validity of physical education.

Conclusion

The opportunities for children and young people to experience a holistic education are being supressed by an ideology which has a narrow view on human intelligence (Robinson, 2013). The entire curricular spectrum is seemingly informed by a dualist perspective on what is educationally valuable, whereby academic attainment is the top priority. The main strength of PE lies in its ability to develop the child holistically. However, through a process of hegemonic-dualism, PE has repositioned itself in a manner which seems to support the notion of mind before body. This approach restricts the true potential of PE to contribute to a holistic education which, incidentally, is the overarching purpose of education itself (McGettrick, 2005).

It would seem, therefore, that there is a pressing need for educationalists to reconsider the currently lopsided view of educational priorities and to broaden the vision on human intelligence. Adopting a monist understanding of human embodiment might see both the physical and the academic components of PE being valued equally. More importantly, doing so might enable PE to be PE and allow teachers to facilitate an environment whereby the holistic development of children and young people could truly flourish. From this perspective, Physical Literacy would be viewed as a legitimate learning journey, one which has the potential to define the role and nature of PE.

The future of Physical Literacy within PE relies on more than a philosophical selling point. In order to take-the-reigns of PE, a unified model for the application of Physical Literacy must be established. The pedagogical implications of a curriculum underpinned by Physical Literacy must be debated and a consolidated approach agreed. What’s more, all within the PE profession have a responsibility to “address and debate” the future of the subject (Penney and Chandler, 2000, p. 85). Therefore, trainee and newly qualified teachers might serve as the ideal target for a growing advocacy of the Physical Literacy movement because, ultimately, they will be responsible for reproducing or revolutionising the culture of PE practices.

In conclusion, the political impetus surrounding PE must be exploited. Those within the PE profession have a duty to identify a clear purpose and unified rationale for the subject. By offering a vision of school PE which recaptures a holistic focus, Physical Literacy might present an invaluable opportunity for PE to reassert itself and be celebrated in its own right. A holistic vision of PE is within our grasp - we must capitalise on this and strike while the iron is hot.

References

1. Bailey, R. and Kirk, D. (2009). (eds) The Routledge Physical Education Reader. Oxon: Routledge.
   Bassett, S., Sammon, P. and Casey, A. (2013). ‘Learning to teach pre-service teachers through physical literacy’. Physical Education Matters, (8)1, pp. 57-60.

2. Burgess, R. (2013). ‘Achieving High Quality Physical Education though Physical Literacy’. Physical Education Matters, (8)1, pp. 12-13.

3. Fairclough, S., Stratton, G. and Baldwin, G. (2002). ‘The Contribution of Secondary School Physical Education to Lifetime Physical Activity’. European Physical Education Review (8)1, pp. 69-84.

4. Fox, K. (2010). ‘The physical self and physical literacy’. In: M, Whitehead (Ed.) Physical Literacy: Throughout the Lifecourse, pp. 71-82. Oxon: Routledge.

5. Gill, J.H. (2000) The Tacit Mode. State University of New York, New York.

6. Green, K. (2005). ‘Examinations: A ‘New Orthodoxy’ in Physical Education?’ In: K, Green and K,

7. Hardman (eds) Physical Education: Essential Issues, pp. 143-160. London: Sage Publications.

8. Green, K. (2008). Understanding Physical Education. London: Sage Publications.

9. Johnrose, W. and Maher, A. (2010). ‘National Curriculum Physical Education: health lifestyles and lifelong participation in physical activity’. Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies, (4)1, pp. 15-22.

10. Kirk, D. (2005). ‘Physical Education, Youth Sport and Lifelong Participation: The Importance of Early Learning Experiences’. European Physical Education Review, (11)3, pp. 239–255.

11. Kirk, D. (2010). Physical Education Futures. London: Routledge.

12. McGettrick, B. (2005). ‘What is Education for?’ In: A, Titus and J, Potter (eds) Education for a change: transforming the way we teach our children, pp. 33-37. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer.
    Ofsted. (2013). The framework for school inspection. Retrieved April 5, 2013 from www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/12010.

13. Park, J. (2003). ‘Emotional Literacy Basics’. In: Antidote. The Emotional Literacy Handbook: Promoting Whole-School Strategies, pp. 1-31. London: David Fulton Publishers.

14. Penney, D. and Chandler, T. (2000). ‘Physical education: what future(s)?’ Sport, Education and Society, 5, pp. 71–87.

15. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2007). Programme of Study for Key Stage 3 and Attainment Target.

16. Robinson, K. (2013). ‘How to Change Education - from the ground up’. Retrieved July 20, 2013 from http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2013/how-to-change-education-from-the-ground-up.

17. Smith, A. and Parr, M. (2007). ‘Young people’s views on the nature and purposes of physical education: a sociological analysis’. Sport, Education and Society, (12)1, pp. 37-58.

18. Sprake, A. and Palmer, C. (2012). A brief walk through the changing role of Physical Education in the National Curriculum. Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies, (6)1, 71-82.

19. Trimble, L., Buraimo, B., Godfrey, C., Grecic, D. and Minten, S. (2010). Sport in the UK. Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd.

20. Trudeau, F. and Shephard, R. J. (2008). ‘Physical education, school physical activity, school sports and academic performance’. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, (5)10, pp. 1-12.

21. Walker, S. (2010) ‘Developing Practical ABCs’ Liverpool, LJMU.

22. Whitehead, M. (2010a). ‘Aims of PE’. In: S, Capel and M, Whitehead (eds) Learning to Teach Physical Education in the Secondary School (3rd Ed), pp. 13-23. Routledge, London.

23. Whitehead, M. (2010b). Physical Literacy: Throughout the Lifecourse. Oxon: Routledge.

24. Whitehead, M. (2011). ‘What is Physical Literacy? Frequently Asked Questions’. Retrieved 5 April 2013 from http://www.physical-literacy.org.uk/what-is-physical-literacy-FAQ.php.

25. Whitehead, M. (2013a). NWCPEA/afPE North West Region Conference 2013.

26. Whitehead, M. (2013b). ‘What is physical literacy and how does it impact on physical education?’ In: S, Capel and M, Whitehead (eds) Debates in Physical Education, pp. 37-54. Routledge, Oxon.
    Whitehead, M. with Almond, L. (2013). ‘Creating learning experiences to foster physical literacy’. Physical Education Matters, (8)1, pp. 24-27.

Contact

Andrew Sprake
Harper Green School Bolton
Harper Green Road
Bolton
Lancashire
BL4 0DH
UK
Email AJSprake@gmail.com

Sue Walker
Liverpool John Moores University
I.M. Marsh Campus
Barkhill Road
Liverpool
L176BD
UK
Email s.walker1@ljmu.ac.uk

http://www.icsspe.org/