| World Summit follow-up | No.37 February 2003 |

Physical Education: The Importance and The Intention Harry Stegeman W.J.H. Muller Institute, The Netherlands |

Abstract Through the years, youngsters consider physical education one of the most favourite school subjects. Yet exactly this subject is almost continuous coping with image and justification problems. What good will physical education do? Is school able to do without it? The why and wherefores of school physical education have been answered quite differently through the past decades, in The Netherlands as well in other countries in the Western world. The subject has for instance been justified because of the (supposed) contribution to personality building of children and youngsters. It was considered as compensating the disadvantages and flaws of other school subjects too. Last but not least health-improving effect have been emphasised. In this paper the argumentation is simply as follows. Participation in movement culture (including sports) is undeniably important, for the individual as well as for society as a whole. The participation figures and a lot of research results give no rise to misunderstanding. School physical education plays a key role in the preparation for this participation, also because it reaches all young people, offers an adequate pedagogical climate and can provide expert supervision. School physical education is aimed at making students competent for independent, responsible, perspective-rich and continued participation in the movement culture. Introduction School physical education is coping with image and justification problems almost world-wide. In many countries the professional workers in this field themselves do not seem to have a clear picture of the unique importance and objectives, or they do not sufficiently succeed in communicating this importance and these objectives convincingly. The result is not uncommon: decrease in teaching periods, financial, material and personnel means and a decreasing status and self-appreciation (Hardman & Marshall, 1999). The Netherlands does not seem to share this depression. In the future all schools for primary education will see specialist PE-teachers. Recently the subject scored relatively well in an evaluation of the basic secondary school curriculum conducted by the Schools Inspectorate and students in the secondary stage of secondary education can choose the subject as an optional examination subject (besides the regular lessons). At the same time, however, physical education in technical and vocational training for 16 to 20 year olds has come under much pressure lately. Experience has shown that the subject will face problems, if the government does not take protective measures. Apparently, not everyone seems to be convinced of the value of physical education. Against this background in The Netherlands as well, there is every reason for a reflection on the past and the future of physical education. An extensive study of the Dutch and international literature on justification of physical education was conducted. Based on that, answers to the questions of the importance and the objectives of the subject at the start of the 21st century were given (Stegeman, 2000; 2001). This paper represnts a brief summary of the findings. Research questions In the first part of the study two questions were tackled: (1) in what way was school physical education justified in the Netherlands during the past fifty years?; (2) what general objectives were assigned following these justifications? In the first three-quarters of the period studied, physical education in the Netherlands was mainly based on theories of the discipline firstly, from Austria and later, West Germany. In the past decade developments in Germany were not paid much attention to, nor were they focused in the literature in the English-speaking world. This was the reason for two more research questions, which were focused on in the second part of my study: (3) in what way was physical education at schools justified in Germany during the past decade and what general objectives were assigned following these justifications?; (4) in what way was physical education in the English-speaking world (particularly the US) justified the past decades, and what general objectives were assigned following these justifications? In answering these four research questions theoretical treatises and 'official' sources (curriculum documents etc.) were studied and analysed. The last part of the study dealt with the conclusion and a personal view on the importance and objectives of physical education. Classification models In analysing the literature on the justification of physical education, a classification model developed by Scherler (1994) was utalised. After ordering and valuing a multitude of arguments for physical education, he distinguishes - what he called - 'innerschulische' and 'ausserschulische' justifications of the discipline on the one hand, and 'innersportliche' and 'übersportliche' on the other. 'Innerschulische' justifications indicate the compensation function of physical education: the discipline has to offset the undesirable side effects (for example: imbalance, lack of movement, boredom and the like) of other subjects or of school as such. The 'ausserschulische' justifications are put forward more often: the subject is being accounted for, due to its revenues for extramural life. The idea is that the school has to fit its students out for (future) life situations. The 'ausserschulische' approach has two versions: the 'innersportliche' and the 'übersportliche'. The 'innersportliche' way of justification is the following: physical education serves as a means to make students capable of participating in the extramural movement culture. 'Übersportliche' justifications go further: physical education contributes to the realisation of general objectives beyond functioning in the movement culture. In analysing the literature on the general objectives of the subject, Crum's classification of characteristic subject concepts (curriculum orientations) and objectives was used: (1) the biological training-of-the-physical concept; in the programmes based on this approach, the following objectives are assumed: muscular reinforcement, improvement of the cardiovascular capacity, improving agility and the like; (2) the pedagologistic education-through-movement concept; the objectives have been formulated at a rather abstract level: besides forming of posture and movement, it concerns effects such as will power, stamina, concentration, self-confidence, sense of self-respect, community spirit and cognitive development; (3) the personalistic movement education concept; the educational objectives are formulated in terms of personal movement competences; (4) the conformist sport socialisation concept; the objective of the subject is to familiarise the students with, and make them competent at, the techniques, tactics and rules of the traditional, common branches of sport; (5) the critical-constructive movement socialisation concept; objective is realisation of a multiple movement competence: the students should be made competent for a responsible participation in the movement culture, now and in the future, in changing environments and roles and from various participation motives (Crum, 1994; 1998). PE in The Netherlands during the past half century Until World War II Dutch physical education was primarily influenced by opinions in Scandinavia, Germany and Austria. Orientation on developments in (West) Germany remained later on, however to a decreasing degree. The initial influence from the Scandinavian and German 'systems', although different, corresponded where it concerned the interpretation of the human body: this was considered an object, which could be understood and controlled from mechanical and biological laws. This led to an ideology in which the school subject physical education was accounted for, because of the physical-forming and physical-normalisational effects that were or could be realised by those physical exercises or movements. In terms of Scherler's classification of subject justifications and Crum's distinction of objectives: there are 'innerschulische' and 'übersportliche' justifications and objectives that fit the biologically training-of-the-physical concept. The so-called 'Austrian School' tried to find a connection with the 'Reformpädagogik', but also kept adhering to the old ideas from the Scandinavian and German systems: the biological orientation could be recognised in many publications. The subject justification was mainly 'übersportlich', the general objectives were mainly biologically-oriented. From the fifties, physical education in the Netherlands for some decades relied heavily upon the work by the Dutch scholars Gordijn and Rijsdorp. For their view on corporality and movement, they base themselves on the philosophical anthropology and chose for a relational movement concept: one person moves on the basis of relevant imports that he or she recognises in that situation; moving is interpretation-based acting. They were oriented towards the mainly humanistic-oriented pedagogy and the 'bildung-theoretical' didactics common at the time. Rijsdorp considered physical education 'pedagogical acting in the field of movement and the body experience'. The pedagogical intentions to be realised through teaching the physical activities are in line with the ways in which man approach the outside world. Physical education concerns movement instruction, formation of performance, social education and physical development. Gordijn has laid the foundation for the 'theory of movement education'. He does not search for a justification of the subject in values outside movement, but has built upon the idea that moving and being able to move are important matters in themselves for individual development and existence: movement education concerns systematic, pedagogical influence of human movement, regarding 'opening and broadening the locomotive area of life'. Rijsdorp's justification for the subject is 'innersportlich' as well as 'übersportlich'; Gordijn's opinion is strict 'innersportlich'. Rijsdorp's objectives are the result of a pedagologistic education-through-movement concept, while Gordijn's view is pure personalistic. The education-through-movement approaches lost their dominant position in the early 1970s. In the period of 1975-1990 there were roughly five different opinions: (1) physical education as fitness training, or 'physical exercise', (2) 'movement education', (3) sport education, (4) communicative movement education and (5) critical-constructive movement education. The importance of 'physical exercise' lies in warding off various social threats for the (development of the) physical condition and health. Objectives of the subject are muscular reinforcement, improving the cardiovascular capacity, improving agility and the like. The subject justification is 'innersportlich' if improving the condition to be able to do sports better is the drive, while in all other cases it is 'übersportlich'. The objectives fit in with the 'biological' approach. 'Movement education' refers to the interpretation of Gordijn's movement education theory. The personalistic one-sidedness has been abandoned; the fact that physical exercise as an individual way of behaviour has been embedded in the socio-cultural relationships is explicitly accounted for. The task of physical education is to teach students to participate in the activities of the movement culture. They should be able to recognise and realise what is most important within these areas of activities. The justification for 'physical education' is 'innersportlich'; the objectives result from a critical-constructive view. Supporters of the 'sport education' theory are oriented towards the performance in competitive sports, organised and regulated per sport. The objective of the subject is that students obtain the conditional basis and learn the techniques, tactics and conventions that are needed to play such a sport. In 'sport education' the subject justification 'innersportlich' applies; the objectives come from the conformist sport socialisation concept. In the latter half of the 1970s, 'communicative movement education' came into being, a view opposite to 'sport education' and popular in circles that were critical of the social structure. It aimed at changing the (sports) society. Communicative physical education aims at contributing to independence of the students. They should show a critical involvement in the area of sports, make their own choices in a responsible way, take part in decisions as to goals and processes of physical education, participate in social interaction relationships and show an orientation towards the recreation-aimed sport. The subject is justified 'innersportlich' as well as 'übersportlich'; the objectives fit in with the critical-constructive movement socialisation concept. 'Critical-constructive movement education' builds on communicative movement education, provided that the political undertones and the central place of (verbal) communication are abandoned. The 'practical value' is important. The subject should contribute to the students' competence for a critical and constructive participation in the movement culture, now and in the future, in changing environments and roles and from different participation motives. The justification is 'innersportlich'; the objectives come from the critical-constructive movement socialisation concept. In the course of the 1980s, the discipline has eventually been directing itself to the critical-constructive movement education concept, proof of which are the legal requirements (attainment targets and standards) developed for all educational levels. The essence of this approach is that physical education should make youngsters multi-competent for an independent and critical participation in the extramural movement culture, already being considerably differentiated. Some recent developments in Germany In Germany during the past decade there has been much discussion about the fact that physical education should do more than making students competent for participation in the extramural movement culture only. In the first half of the 1990s prominent theoreticians held a heated 'instrumentational debate'. The issue was to what extent physical education could (or should) be used as a means to satisfy non-disciplinary objectives. Scherler (1997) (tentatively) weighed the pros and cons. He considered the 'innersportliche' and 'übersportliche' line of argumentation both permissible and necessary. The renaissance of the 'pedagogical task' seems to continue by this debate, the current discussion on values and moral standards and the (threatening) reduction in lessons as catalysts. After the 'Realististic Turn' around 1970 (when the education-through-movement approaches lost their dominant position) the German specialists - or at least an important part - prepared themselves for a 'Pedagogical Turn' in the course of the 1990s. The new guidelines and curricula for 'Sport' in several German federal states, where North Rhine-Westphalia is the trendsetter, require that the subject should be taught as 'erziehender Sportunterricht' (pedagogical PE) from various pedagogical perspectives (e.g. Kurz, 1998). This means that in Germany there is an increasing tendency to consider the subject in a broader sense than just a preparation for participation in the movement culture. The subject is also justified, due to its special significance for children's and youngster's development in general and, moreover, to its special possibilities for approaching a number of the 'characteristic key problems in the modern world': aiming only at subject-specific goals ignores the educational task the school has and weakens the position of physical education among the other subjects. The general educational goals should be the standard for formulating the goals of the individual subjects. So physical education does not only concern education of the physical, but also education through the physical. The contemporary approaches of physical education in Germany are too diverse to justify general statements as to justification and objectives. It can be concluded, however, that after the subject having been justified 'innersportlich' for several years, it is now also being justified 'übersportlich'. The objectives increasingly fit in with the critical-constructive movement socialisation concept. A rough sketch of developments in the English-speaking world In American PE-theory over the past century, five main concepts can be distinguished. According to Siedentop (1983) these are: education of the physical, education through the physical, movement education, humanistic physical education and sport education. The first two concepts are quite similar to the biologically training-of-the-physical concept and the pedagologistic education-through-movement concept respectively, as known in the Netherlands and Germany. The sport education concept has characteristics of the moderate sport socialization opinion. In the US, the education-through-the-physical approach was prominent until the late 20th century. Physical education was considered a pedagogical activity that contributed to the entire personal development. From the 1980s primarily, the sport education concept applied. The objective was that students were prepared for participation in socially relevant sport, game and dance activities. In the early 1990s physical education faced problems, due to questions from the society, being confronted with government budget cuts, and the students, lacking motivation and asking what exactly the benefits and practical value of the school subjects were. Curricula and guidelines for physical education that were developed in the English-speaking world over the past decade, indicated into which direction physical education was going at the end of the 20th century (e.g. NASPE, 1995; DFE, 1999; AEC, 1994). The objectives are considerably concerned with the development of health and fitness. At the moment in Canada, Australia and New Zealand the subject is being called 'health and physical education'. In most programmes (also) the developments of motor skills or motion skills for participating in a movement culture have a prominent place. It is frequently pointed out that the person's self-image is important as a motivational factor. Finally, the development of social skills is considered increasingly important, also regarding the social problems in today's society. The english-speaking world is too large and the opinions of the subject too differentiated to get a univocal answer to the question about opinions on the importance and the objectives of the subject. If it concerns the justification of physical education, the conclusion seems correct that the 'übersportliche' approaches (particularly health and social skills) gain power. The objectives are from the conformist sport socialization perspective for the greater part; the critical-constructive movement socialisation approach seems to be increasingly supported, however. A personal view on the justification of physical education There is every reason to opt for the 'innersportliche' justification of the subject: movement education is simply important because participation in the movement culture is important. Movement culture includes those leisure activities, where movement activities or physical movements are dominant; the motives for participation can be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Why decide in favour of this way of legitimizing physical education? In conflict with the 'innerschulische' way of justification is, that it is only a derivative: physical education as compensation can merely exist by the grace of the characteristics and, particularly, the flaws of other school subjects, or the way in which 'education in general' is organised. This way of justification, therefore, is only acceptable as an additional argument. The problem of the 'übersportliche' justifications is either that the objectives cannot be satisfied, or it cannot be proved that it is physical education that plays a role in the realisation. It seems that in situations in which 'übersportlich' is justified, the (possible) social interests of sports and movement in general are translated into objectives of physical education (that in fact exceed the boundaries of the subject) much too easily. Thus, actually the most logical, 'innersportliche' way of justification of physical education applies: physical education (or movement education) is important, since participation in the movement culture is important. At school, students participate in movement activities in order to improve their competence for it. The subject does not share this pretension with any other school subject, and can realise it without any doubt. This stand raises the following two questions: (1) why is participation in the movement culture important?; (2) why is this preparation a task for the school? If it concerns the importance or necessity to participate in the movement culture, a distinction should be made between the (possible) importance for the individual and that for the society. In practice they are often linked. The individual considers the movement culture important, as is evident from the participation figures: in The Netherlands for instance over 60% of the people practise some kind of sport. In the literature different functions have been indicated: the exploratory function, the productive function, the communicative function, the comparison function, the impressive function, the expressive function and the biological adaptive function of movement in the development and existence of people, with differing emphases depending on age (e.g. Crum & Stegeman, 1994). The participation figures also demonstrate the social importance. The literature (e.g. Van Bottenburg & Schuyt, 1996; De Knop & Hoyng, 1998) points to, for example, the contribution of participation in the movement culture to the forming of identity, socialisation, integration and emancipation. Moreover, exercising can contribute to the prevention of various diseases and to influence the disease processes favourably. Also economically speaking, sport and movement are beneficial. Obviously, physical education is not the only way of realising participation in the movement culture. But it is beyond doubt that school should play a key role in the introduction in, and the preparation for, this participation, also because it (a) reaches all young people, so also the movement-poor and socially-poor, will find the way to sport more easily, (b) can offer tailor-made multiple and transferable learning experiences and (c) can provide expert supervision and an adequate pedagogical climate. A personal view on the general objective of physical education Physical education is justified from the conclusion that participating in the movement culture is important. With this, also the general objective of the subject has been determined: to prepare students for that participation. Along with that, school has to stimulate positive attitudes towards sports and physical activity and to encourage (life time) sporting activities. Following the critical-constructive movement socialization concept and taking the significance of participation in the movement culture (as both clarified above) into account, the general objective can be accentuated as follows: physical education is aimed at making students competent for independent, responsible, perspective-rich and continued participation in the movement culture. What does that mean? Competency for participation in movement culture When you are participating in movement situations, you have to deal with three kinds of problems (Crum & Stegeman, 1994). First of all there are the movement-problems such as: you have to throw the ball, to jump over the vaulting horse or swim across the river. Participation in movement situations requires, that you are able to master the movement skills, necessary for that activity. The second type of problems has to do with the circumstance that in most of the movement situations you are together with other people. That means that you have to consider other people's expectations and capabilities. Participating in movement situations asks for specific social skills. There is a third type of problems. You have to know how to adjust rules of games, how human movement and fitness and healthiness are linked, how learning processes go, etc. You have to know, furthermore, about the 'manoeuvrability' or the transferability of learning results: the chance that a child can apply or practise things he/she learnt in similar or corresponding movement situations, is influenced by the understanding he/she has of the nature of these similarities (Loopstra, 1999). So participating in movement situations requires knowledge and an understanding of them too. In brief: children who want to participate in movement situations have (1) to learn to move, (2) to learn to move together with others and (3) to learn about movement and movement situations. Independent participation Students will participate (later on) in movement culture with a high amount of independence, especially since in many movement situations outside the school there is no companion. This means that in school they have to learn to act and be self-reliant; educational learning situations should be such that students have the opportunity to increasingly develop independently. This is essential. It is known that that successful experiences, required for continuing participation, are more likely when students define the tasks and performances themselves. The experience that achievements are the result of ones own, self-chosen behaviour strengthens the motivation and the experience of being competent (Harter, 1978). There is not only moving behaviour in movement situations. The activity has to be started, deliberations may be required and often a kind of guidance and judgement is necessary. Therefore self-reliant and independent participation is only possible when students show a multiple participation competence: they should not only realise the role of mover, but they should also learn to 'organise' movement activities. Responsible participation Participation should be in a responsible way. That means for instance that dangerous situations and risks of getting injured have to be avoided as far as possible. It means, moreover, that prevailing moral standards and values have to be considered. Regarding these, one should think of taking responsibility for the self and others, taking principles of fair play into account, tuning your behaviour to the qualities and capabilities of others and so on and so forth. This all requires, for example knowledge, insight and skills as to the prevention of physical complaints now and in the future, the capability to associate with others in a respectful manner and an orientation of a clear and manageable value system, which enables a critical inclusion of traditions and customs within an existing movement culture. Perspective-rich participation Participation has to be perspective-rich. Everybody must have the possibility to gain experiences of success and to enjoy participation. Success-experiences do influence motivation in a positive way. They invite continuation and the feeling of being up to doing (somewhat) more difficult tasks. Experiences of being successful, and especially the consciousness of that, gives the notion of getting a grip on the situation. The additional feelings of competence ends in more frequent participation in sports and less drop out. Positive experiences during school time lead to a higher level of activity afterwards (Biddle & Chatzisarantis, 1999). Self-perceived competence does influence motor behaviour, but the opposite is not always true. Therefore it is not enough for the teacher to improve motor skills and movement competence, it is important too that students are aware of being successful. Exactly that creates the conditions for further development. Perspective-rich participation in the movement culture requires varied movement situations, tailored to the needs, possibilities, capabilities and interests of the individual students and a close connection to their topical movement environment. Continuing participation Society is continuously changing. So physical education is always facing the problem of preparing students for participating in a movement culture of which we hardly know what it will look like in the future. How do we cope with that problem? How do we teach them to go along with the rapidly changing knowledge, skills and value-systems? How do we make young people ready for managing changes? Physical education has to offer the students a broad and versatile repertoire of transferable motor skills, movement competencies and knowledge as to movement situations. They have to learn basic principles, applicable to corresponding movement situations. Physical education has to prepare students for a mature and critical participation too; they have to be taught competence in a certain kind of independent thinking and expression of their own opinions. Finally students should learn to learn. Enjoying movement is a prerequisite for continuing participation. The motivation for people to do sports is particularly influenced by the intrinsic value of sport; they simple like doing sport. But for enjoying it in the longer term, it is necessary to experience that one can really do it (Bräutigam, 1994). For continuing participation, the experience should not be superficial; instead real competency and participation in movement situations is required. References Australian Educational Council (AEC). (1994). Health and physical education - a curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation. Balz, E., & Neumann, P. (1997). Wie pädagogisch soll der Schulsport sein? [How pedagogical should school physical education be?] Schorndorf; Hofmann Verlag. Biddle, S.J.H., & Chatzisarantis, N. (1999). Motivation for a physical active lifestyle through physical education. In Y. Vanden Auweele, F. Bakker, S. Biddle, M. Durand, & R. Seiler (Eds.). Psychology for physical educators (pp. 5-26). Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics. Bottenburg, M. van, & Schuyt, C. (1996). De maatschappelijke betekenis van sport. [The social meaning of sport.] Arnhem: NOC*NSF. Bräutigam, M. (1994). Spass als Leitidee jugendlichen Sportengagements. Konzequenzen für die Sportdidaktik? [Enjoyment as a principle idea of sport engagement of youngsters.] Sportunterricht, 43, p. 236-244. Crum, B.J. (1991). Over de versporting van de samenleving. Reflecties over bewegingsculturele ontwikkelingen met het oog op sportbeleid. [About sportification of society. Reflections on developments of movement culture with respect to sport policy.] Rijswijk: WVC. Crum, B.J. (1994): A critical review of competing physical education concepts. In J. Mester (Ed.), Sport sciences in Europe 1993 - Current and future perspectives. (pp. 516-533) Achen: Meyer & Meyer Verlag. Crum, B.J. (1998). Vakconcepten: belang en kritische bespreking. [Concepts of school physical education: relevance and critical review.] In H. Stegeman, & K. Faber (Eds.), Onderwijs in bewegen; basisthema's in de lichamelijke opvoeding (pp. 47-79). Houten/Diegem: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum. Crum, B.J., & Stegeman, H. (1994). Nadenken over bewegingsonderwijs - een vakdidactisch referentiekader. [Considering school physical education - a didactical frame of reference.] In H.C.G. Kemper (Ed.). Stilstaan bij bewegingsonderwijs; theoretische achtergronden voor het werken in de basisschool (pp. 125-145). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. De Knop, P., & Hoyng, J. (1998). De functies en betekenissen van sport. [The functions and meanings of sport.] Tilburg: University Press. Department for Education (DFE) (1999). Physical education. The National Curriculum for England. London: DFE. Gallahue, D.L., & Ozmun, J.C. (1999). Understanding motor development. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Hardman, K., & Marshall, J. (1999). World-wide survey of the state and status of school physical education. Manchester: Campus Print Ptd. Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: toward a developmental model. Human Development, 21, p.34-64. Kurz, D. (1998). Schulsport in Nordrhein-Westfalen - das pädagogische Konzept der Richtlinien- und Lehrplanrevision. [School physical education in North Rhine-Westfalia - Pedagogical assumptions of curriculum renewal.] Sportunterricht, 47, p. 141-147. Loopstra, O. (1999). Het vakconcept bewegingsonderwijs in de basisschool. [The concept of physical education in primary education.] In C. Mooij, M. van Berkel, C. Hazelebach. G. Houdijk, O. Loopstra., & L. Steerneman. Basisdocument Bewegingsonderwijs (pp. 11-13). Zeist: Jan Luiting Fonds. National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) (1995). Moving into the future: National standards for physical education. Reston, VA: AHPERD. Scherler, K. (1994). Legitimationsprobleme des Schulsports. (Justifications problems of school physical education.]Sportpädagogik, 18, p. 5-9. Scherler, K. (1997). Die Instrumentalisieringsdebatte in der Sportpädagogik. [The instrumentational debate in sportpedagogy.] Sportpädagogik, 21, p. 5-11. Siedentop, D. (1996). Physical Education; introductory analysis. Dubuque, IA: Brown. Stegeman, H. (2000). Belang van bewegingsonderwijs. Over legitimatie en algemene doelstellingen van het schoolvak lichamelijke opvoeding. [Relevance of Movement Education. About justification and general objectives of school physical education.] Zeist: Jan Luiting Fonds. Stegeman, H. (2001). Bewegingsonderwijs: belang en bedoeling. [Physical education: the importance and the intention.] Zeist: Jan Luiting Fonds. Dr. Harry Stegeman W.J.H. Mulier Instituut Postbus 188 NL-5201 AD 's-Hertogenbosch Tel: (0031) 73 612 64 01 Fax: (0031) 73 612 64 13 h.stegeman@mulierinstituut.nl http://www.icsspe.org/portal/texte/area/bulletin/ Physical Education: The Importance and The Intention Harry Stegeman W.J.H. Muller Institute, The Netherlands