contribution physical education can make to students' motor and ... In recent years, references to health in rationales for physical education have become ..... like endurance levels could hardly be expected, at least according to exercise ..... reform. In Germany, at first sight the debates seem less controversial than in Australia.
Review Articles International Approaches to Health-oriented Physical Education - Local Health Debates and Differing Conceptions of Health U. Pühse1, D. Barker1, W.-D. Brettschneider2, A. K. Feldmeth1, E. Gerlach1, L. McCuaig3, T. L. McKenzie4, M. Gerber1 (1Basel, Switzerland, 2Paderborn,Germany, 3 Brisbane, Australia, 4San Diego, USA) Introduction 1 Thinking about health 2 Procedures 3 Approaches towards health-oriented physical education in three western countries 3.1 United States (Thomas L. McKenzie) 3.2 Germany (Wolf-Dietrich Brettschneider and Erin Gerlach) 3.3 Australia (Louise McCuaig) 4 Discussion References Abstract Physical education’s place in school curricula has been justified in different ways over the last 150 years. Health in a general sense has always been part of this rationalisation, and within current cultural contexts, health has gained increasing 2.1 Hierarchical significance. However, a global look at health reveals that it has been approached in different ways - both as justification and in practice. The broad aims of this paper are to map out some of the ways that health is conceptualized and practiced and to identify underlying assumptions that frame these approaches. We begin by briefly examining the existing literature that links health with physical education. We then introduce the voices of four advocates of health from three different countries. These scholars respond to a set of questions concerning public health debates; current theories of health; research and evidence; practical approaches in physical education; problems, and ‘best practice’. These commentaries are treated as empirical material and are considered in the final section of the paper. The specific aim here is to consider and locate the commentaries within their cultural environments. We conclude with some reflective questions for thinking about approaches to health in physical education. Introduction Although concerns about the state and status of school physical education have emerged frequently (Hardman & Marshall, 2005; Kirk, 2010), physical education is today an integral part of most educational systems (Pühse & Gerber, 2005). Physical educators have justified their subject's place within curricula by emphasizing the contribution physical education can make to students’ motor and psychosocial competencies as well as their health and well-being (Kirk, 1992). Many curricula claim that the subject furnishes young people with the knowledge, skills and International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
4
understandings necessary to perform various physical activities and maintain healthy lifestyles (e.g. see EDBS, 2009; QSCC, 1999). In recent years, references to health in rationales for physical education have become increasingly pronounced. McCullick, Schempp, and Schuknecht (2000) argue that this emphasis is the result of an increasing public awareness of health problems such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases, and psychological ill-health. They maintain that in the current context, it is little wonder many physical educators have turned their attention to health. How physical education might contribute to pupils’ health and well-being has been a topic for debate, though. Some advocate that increasing the time pupils spend on physical activity should take precedence. In the United States for example, the American Academy of Physical Education (Malina, 1987) and the American College of Sports Medicine (American College of Sports Medicine, 1988) have alleged that physical education should adopt more health-related physical activity goals. Scholars, too, have supported a stronger prioritization of physical activity in physical education (e.g. Fairclough & Stratton, 2005; Fardy, Azzolini, & Herman, 2004; Fox, Cooper, & McKenna, 2004; McKenzie, 2007; McKenzie & Lounsbery, 2009; Sallis & McKenzie, 1991). Sallis and McKenzie (1991) argue that physical activity claims can be attained and substantiated, and thus propose that such goals should constitute the primary focus of physical education programs. Other commentators contend that an overemphasis on achieving public health goals through physical activity is potentially problematic. While there is agreement that the health and well-being of pupils is important, these individuals suggest that concentrating on physical activity reflects a narrow view of health and that such a focus could have serious drawbacks (Evans, Rich, & Davies, 2004; Gard, 2004; Gard & Wright, 2001; Johns, 2005; Kirk, 2006; O'Sullivan, 2004). Gard and Wright (2001), for instance, maintain that physical education should be extremely wary of taking what they see as an instrumental approach to health. They argue that other educational facets suffer as a consequence and that physical education is ill-equipped to ‘combat’ public health problems, which they suggest are the result of a number of factors, not only a lack of physical activity. They argue that by staking such claims, physical educators are setting themselves up for failure. This discussion raises critical questions for physical educators. What do we mean when we speak of health? What statements should physical education make regarding health? Is physical education in a position to promote public health? These questions have significant political dimensions and as Quennerstedt (2008) notes, have the potential to shape what is done in the name of physical education. For this reason, the ways that physical education and health have been and might be linked require further examination. In the next section, we carry out a cursory examination of how different countries have incorporated health in physical education. We then complete a more detailed exploration of three specific countries in the following section. 1 Thinking about health A general aim of this paper is to understand what health means in the context of physical education and how it has been approached in different parts of the world. To begin this task, we worked with Pühse and Gerber’s (2005) ‘International Comparison of Physical Education’. We examined experts’ comments regarding health vis-à-vis physical education from 35 countries. We were interested in how health is practiced and the significance it is granted. Contributors’ comments showed that health is almost universally used as a key argument to legitimize physical education. At the International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
5
same time, a number of health aspects were cited ranging from nutrition to hygiene to physical activity (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Sample themes and general topics reported by physical education experts from 35 countries When examined together, the convergence and divergence of health dimensions gave an impression of disorder and confusion. A generally accepted understanding and/or definition of health, let alone a catalogue of strategies to improve it in physical education, is absent. This lack of consensus may not necessarily be problematic for individuals working within countries (although the contributions in the ‘International Comparison’ suggested that multiple themes are relevant within most countries) but it does make discussion across national and cultural borders difficult. In an attempt to help facilitate discussion, this paper raises some critical questions about the role of physical education in contributing to pupils’ health. These questions emerged from discussions with four experts from three countries and are introduced in the second part of the paper. 2 Procedures To describe how health objectives are addressed, we invited ‘health advocates’ from three countries to provide interpretative accounts. Thom McKenzie agreed to provide commentary from the United States, while Wolf-Dietrich Brettschneider and Erin Gerlach did the same for Germany. Louise McCuaig provided an account of the situation in Australia. We recognize that trying to gain an authoritative understanding of national approaches through individuals’ accounts is risky. At the same time, we would suggest that the accounts do give a sense of the different environments that shape the position of health and physical education within different countries. International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
6
The countries were chosen due to the difference in the way that curricula are administered. While Germany and Australia have curricula organized at state level (every state has the possibility to create its own physical education curriculum), the USA has some national standards, but neither state nor national curricula exist. To generate accounts, the advocates were asked to respond to the following questions: (1) Which topics/issues are being discussed in the current public health debate? Is physical education connected to the current debate? Which contributions are physical educators expected to make? (2) How are health theories used in this area? Can you provide examples of predominant theories? (3) Is there empirical evidence to support the impact of physical education? What about the short-term and long-term outcomes? Is there a transfer from inside to outside physical education in terms of physical activity or learning? (4) How are health-related topics approached in physical education in terms of content and methods? (5) What kinds of problems are encountered in the dissemination and implementation of health-related topics (e.g. physical education teacher education, structural factors, resources). (6) Can you describe a best practice model to approach health-related topics in physical education that seems to have a high ecological validity? 3
Approaches towards health-oriented physical education in three Western countries The advocates were allocated 1200 words to answer these questions. Consequently, the contributors were not in a position to provide detailed descriptions but were instead required to focus on salient points. This procedure allowed for an examination of similarities and differences between countries. 3.1 United States (Thomas L. McKenzie) Sedentary living is a major public health problem in the United States (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009; WHO, 2010). The health benefits of physical activity during childhood and youth have been well documented, resulting in official US government guidelines for physical activity being published recently (USDHHS, 2009). The important role that PE can play in reducing sedentary behaviour and contributing to population health has been identified in numerous publications (e.g. CDC, 1997; Pate, Davis, Robinson, Stone, McKenzie, & Young, 2006; Sallis & McKenzie, 1991), including the Healthy People 2020 Objectives for the Nation (USDHHS, 2010). PE is recognized as an important component of comprehensive school health programs (Marx & Wooley, 1998) and is mandated as a curriculum area in nearly all 50 states. Nonetheless, relatively few children participate in PE daily and physical activity, physical fitness and health are often not the primary focus of lessons (McKenzie & Lounsbery, 2009). In fact, numerous curriculum models and approaches can be found in traditional PE. Further, PE claims to have various motor skill, cognitive, social, and emotional outcomes resulting in some suggesting that PE has a ‘muddled mission’ (Pate & Hohn, 1994). Because of the current crises in sedentary living and the limited time allocated to PE classes, the concept of ‘health-related physical education’ (HRPE), now relabelled as ‘HOPE’ (Health-Optimizing Physical Education), is being promoted as a way to forge a productive relationship between PE and public health. This concept has been described in the widely-cited paper ‘Physical Education’s Role in Public Health’ (Sallis & McKenzie, 1991) and is the topic of a follow-up 20 years later ‘Physical Education’s Role in Public Health: Steps Forward and Backward Over 20 Years and HOPE for the Future’ (Sallis, McKenzie, Beets, Beighle, Erwin, & Lee, 2011). The International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
7
two main goals of HOPE are to provide students with a substantial amount of physical activity during class time and to prepare them for a lifetime of physical activity. This approach promotes PE as a physically active, enjoyable experience during which students become physically fit and learn generalizable movement skills that will transfer into diverse activities beyond the school. Opponents of HOPE are concerned that the ‘educative’ value of PE will be lost and that PE lessons will not be distinguishable from other physical activity programs. HOPE is based more on empirical evidence than on any one theory. Nonetheless, major randomized clinical trials of HOPE concepts have been funded with different studies emphasizing social cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and social ecological models (Elder et al., 1997), and dissemination theory and practices (Owen, Glanz, Sallis, & Kelder, 2006). Large-scale intervention studies have compared concepts within the HOPE model to usual practice and have shown that moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in PE classes can be increased by up to 18%, even without increasing the frequency or duration of lessons (e.g., McKenzie, Li, Derby, Webber, Luepker, & Cribbet 2003; McKenzie, Sallis Prochaska, Conway, Marshall, & Rosengard 2004). Studies have also shown that physical fitness (Sallis, McKenzie, Alcaraz, Kolody, Faucette, & Hovell 1997) and motor skills (McKenzie, Alcaraz, Sallis, & Faucette 1998) can be improved, and these factors have potential for increasing out-of-school physical activity. Similar to other models of PE (Trudeau & Shephard, 2005), quality studies (e.g. those involving clinical trials) to assess the generalizability of program effects on students’ long-term maintenance of physical activity and its transfer to other settings have not been conducted. Meanwhile studies have shown that the durability (i.e. maintenance) of program implementation in targeted elementary schools is associated with the availability of equipment and support for PE by the school principal and other teachers in the school (see McKenzie, Sallis, & Rosengard, 2009). HOPE is primarily about the provision and promotion of physical activity, not about health education topics per se. PE lessons themselves are designed to be physically active so that students can improve their motor skills and become physically fit. Important concepts related to physical activity and fitness and their outcomes, however, are identified and practiced. Students learn behaviour change skills believed to be important in the generalization and maintenance of regular physical activity such as self-monitoring, goal setting, and decision making/problem solving. Numerous barriers, including limited curriculum time, low subject status, and inadequate resources hinder PE from playing a major role in providing and promoting physical activity (McKenzie & Lounsbery, 2009). Additionally, a lack of a national PE curriculum and national teacher certification standards in the US perpetuates a cycle of disparate curriculum focus and teacher preparedness. A recent study also found that high current satisfaction of programs by teachers and principles, coupled with a lack of external evaluation and accountability, posed barriers to the dissemination and adoption of evidence-based PE programs (Lounsbery et al., 2011). Further, physical educators are rarely taught how to teach behaviour change skills, promote physical activity beyond the gymnasium, or do social marketing (McKenzie, 2007). ‘Sports, Physical Activity, and Recreation in Kids’ (SPARK) serves as a best practice model of HOPE (McKenzie, Sallis, & Rosengard, 2009). Detailed information is available on the SPARK website (www.SPARKPE.com). The initial SPARK program consisted of a PE curriculum designed to provide ample amounts of physical activity in class, a behavioural self-management curriculum to promote physical activity outside of school, and extensive teacher training and support. The original selfInternational Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
8
management program is no longer being disseminated, but its concepts and methods are integrated into other existing SPARK programs. The SPARK programs have been studied extensively, including the following variables: physical activity during PE; physical fitness; motor skill development; academic achievement; adiposity; student enjoyment of PE; lesson context, and teacher behaviour. Process measures such as self-management and parent perceptions and program maintenance and institutionalization have also been studied. Efforts to disseminate SPARK nationally initially involved only universities, but now include substantial collaborations among university, public school, and private sector personnel (McKenzie et al., 2009). 3.2 Germany (Wolf-Dietrich Brettschneider and Erin Gerlach) The German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS; Bös et al., 2002; Kurth & Schaffrath Rosario, 2007) identified mental health problems, eating disorders and allergies, overweight and obesity associated with blood pressure, cholesterol, type II diabetes as well as psychological and social dysfunctions as major public health problems in Germany. There is general agreement that high prevalence rates of overweight can be related to lifestyle factors such as nutrition and physical inactivity. Nevertheless, a closer analysis shows that other factors such as gender and ethnicity, and most importantly, socioeconomic background play critical roles in the emergence of overweight and obesity among young people. In Germany, Sportunterricht entails an affirmative but critical approach to the established sport culture as well as to informal physical activity. Advocates of PE can be split into two groups. One group advocates more PE hours to combat physical health problems, though their expectations to significantly enhance physical health during PE hours are modest. The other group (mainly PE teachers and people involved in PE teacher education) stress that health is one among a number of equally relevant educational outcomes such as performance and social competence. They maintain that, even if physical stimuli were increased, significant effects on variables like endurance levels could hardly be expected, at least according to exercise adaptation theories. Almost all those responsible for the education and development of young people agree, however, that a broad understanding of health is an important part of adopting an active lifestyle and should therefore be considered in PE. Following the WHO definition, health cannot only be regarded as the absence of illness and physical disease and the functioning of the human organism but comprises mental and social well-being as well. Theoretical considerations have recently moved away from pathogenetic to salutogenetic approaches with an emphasis on active prevention of the individual (Antonovsky, 1987). Models of ‘health sport’ (Brehm, 2006) based on this approach define six core aims: Strengthening of physical resources; prevention of cardiovascular risk factors; strengthening of psychosocial resources; coping with complaints and ill-being; commitment to exercise, physical activity and sport; and provision of health-enhancing settings. On the basis of the cross-sectional KiGGS-MoMo-dataset within a subpopulation of inactive students, Tittlbach, Sygusch, Seidl, and Bös (2010) were not able to show any significant differences regarding physical and psychosocial health resources or physical and psychosocial stress when students with more than two hours of PE a week were compared to students with less than two hours of PE. Results based on longitudinal studies are absent. While there is empirical evidence for effects of fitness interventions and daily PE lessons on physical resources and attitudes towards health (e.g. Graf et al., 2008; Steinmann, 2004), there is hardly any significant evidence that suggests that daily PE lessons reduce overweight (i.e. Obst & Bös, 1997). International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
9
Views on health problems are often limited by a narrow focus on single aspects of motor fitness, and theory-guided programs which are empirically controlled are rare. Further, when broad understandings of health are adopted, almost any program offering physical activity can be interpreted as PE’s contribution to an active and healthy lifestyle. This way it is safe to say that physical activity and health-oriented physical fitness belong to the core elements of school PE. Physical education programs with a narrow concept of physical health focusing on physical capacities only are rare and do not represent today’s PE mainstream in Germany. A number of problems are encountered in the dissemination and implementation of health-related topics. Many primary schools are certified as ‘active schools’, which means that they emphasize physical activity during lessons, between lessons and after school. Some innovative pilot schemes in middle and high schools focus on health aspects although their influence is limited. PE teachers used to focus on young people’s sporting abilities have difficulties implementing health-oriented interventions and this task has been met with limited success in Germany. There are some innovative projects focusing on health promotion, but these initiatives are conducted at local or regional levels. Active schools, implemented in primary schools can be found all over Germany in various forms. In middle and high schools, so called Sport-Arbeitsgemeinschaften (voluntary school-based sports), are very popular among young people from families of lower socio-economic status (Mutz & Burrmann, 2009). In short, PE programs generally do not focus on health in any systematic or specialized way. Consequently, empirical evidence for health-related effects of PE in Germany is almost non-existent. 3.3 Australia (Louise McCuaig) According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] (2010), ‘all in all, Australia is a healthy nation’ (p. 6). Nonetheless, concerns regarding the growing prevalence of type II diabetes, overweight and obesity, and the associated low levels of exercise are driving current debates in the Australian context. Indeed, as the AIHW (2010) notes, the steady rise in bodyweight over the past decades is one of the strongest and best-known trends in Australia’s health (Abbott, Macdonald, McKinnon, Stubbs, Lee & Davies, 2008; AIHW, 2010; National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission [NHHRC], 2009). However, in relation to young people there has been an increasing recognition that mental health disorders ‘weigh very heavily on the young’ (AIHW, 2010, p. 24). Although there have been considerable improvements in relation to fatal injuries, traffic deaths, tobacco and marijuana use amongst young people, alcohol use and sexually transmitted diseases continue to drive the efforts of Australia’s public health sector. Importantly, the AIHW notes that ‘some Australian groups tend to do worse than others – in some cases much worse’ (p. 27). In fact, across all health indicators, Australia’s indigenous people demonstrate a ‘general and large gap between their health and that of other Australians’ (p. 29). Within this context, it is not surprising that national health and sporting bodies have advocated strongly for Health and Physical Education (HPE) to be a core component of Australia’s school curriculum (Australian Government, 2009;; National Preventative Health Taskforce, 2009; NHHRC, 2009). Despite support, HPE has struggled to gain purchase within current endeavours to devise a national curriculum. Even though the latest iteration of Australia’s goals for compulsory schooling identify confident and creative individuals as those who ‘have the knowledge, skills, understanding and values to establish and maintain healthy, satisfying lives’ (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA], 2008, p. 9), HPE only gained a guaranteed position within the third and final phase of curriculum International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
10
development (Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2011). In presenting their case for HPE, health and education stakeholders alike argued that the ‘well-being of our young people is under threat from a wide range of health problems’ (Daube, Quelch, Roberts, Moodie, Pesce, Oliver & Stanley, 2010, p. 1). Such advocacy is not new. For well over a century, school-based health interventions have been a prominent feature of Australia’s public health strategies (McCuaig, 2008). Australian health organisations have endorsed this position with the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] (1996) arguing that schools provide ‘unique opportunities for health promotion which can be sustained and reinforced over time’ (p. 1). A strengthening health focus for Australian schooling emerged during an ambitious Australian curriculum project in the early nineties. This initiative established eight key learning areas (KLA). Efforts by educators to name and define an HPE related KLA stimulated considerable debate, with some commentators even claiming a crisis of identity for PE (Kirk, 1996; Thorpe, 2003). Despite the fact that health and education experts initially treated sport advocacy with suspicion, the KLA was eventually entitled Health and Physical Education. Nationally, the HPE KLA reflected Australia’s commitment to WHO initiatives. Consequently, the Queensland HPE KLA establishes a socio-cultural approach to health as one of four key messages of the syllabus, physical activity engagement, social justice principles and learner-centred approaches being the other three (QSCC, 1999). According to syllabus support materials (QSCC, 1999), the broad approach purposefully reflects the tenets of ecological health promotion and education models (Sallis, Owen, & Fisher, 2008). A diversity of health topics, including safety, sexuality, fitness, sport and drug education were to be delivered by HPE KLA teachers (Macdonald, Hunter, Carlson, & Penney, 2002). Given Australia’s interest in addressing health inequities, the Queensland HPE KLA not unexpectedly advocated an explicit commitment to the teaching and modelling of social justice principles (Tinning, 2004). However, despite the efforts of health and education advocates, the HPE KLA has become yet another example of a thoroughly researched ‘best practice’ program of HPE that has failed to gain traction within the everyday practices of Australian schools (McCuaig, 2008). As there is currently no ‘reliable information about how much and how well HPE is implemented in schools around the country’ (Daube et al., 2010), assessing the impact of current HPE programs on young people’s health and well-being has been a difficult objective for Australian researchers. Without question the issue of HPE’s role in promoting healthy weight has attracted attention from popular and health-related researchers alike. Although researchers have found that ‘school-based sports and physical education were consistently ranked in the top two’ forms of physical activity for young people (Abbott, et al, 2008, p. 3), others have questioned whether two hours (at most) of PE per week can ‘make a difference to students’ fitness/health’ (Gard & Wright, 2001, p. 544). In fact, Australian and New Zealand researchers have rigorously criticised PE’s claims to produce ‘healthy citizens’ and questioned the moral and unintended outcomes that result when PE is wedded to narrowly staked health definitions (Burrows, 2010; Gard & Wright, 2001; Tinning, 1985). Australian PE teachers themselves have resisted efforts to engage in health and PE curriculum initiatives (Tinning, 2002). Research suggests that the socially critical perspective and dramatic shifts in content knowledge requirements have posed significant barriers for PE teachers, who considered the HPE KLA implementation a negative experience that challenged self-identity and sense of competence (Glover & Macdonald, 1997; Tinning, 2001, 2004). Historically the relationship between HE and International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
11
PE has been considered a problematic one in Australia (McCuaig, 2008; Tinning, 2001). More recently the problematic nature of this relationship has been challenged through studies that have revealed resilient relationships between health agendas and programs of PE (Kirk, 1998; McCuaig & Tinning, 2010). In short, it appears erroneous, at least within the Australian setting, to suggest that PE has ever been free of health-related agendas and imperatives. The inclusion of health promotion principles and an expanded catalogue of health issues have led Australian commentators to argue that HPE teachers are delivering the most morally contested subject matter within Australian school curricula (McCuaig & Tinning, 2010). This situation reflects an ongoing concern that schools have fallen short of meeting their health-related responsibilities due to competing agendas; low priority and low status; few trained health education teachers; lack of resources; ad hoc support from health services and significant gaps between policy and practice (Ridge, Northfield, St Leger, Marshall, Sheehan, & Maher, 2002; St Ledger & Nutbeam, 2000). Given the current unwillingness of Australian education authorities to embrace health sector recommendations, Australian HPE runs the risk of being replaced by external agencies or one-off presentations that are topic specific and involve professionals who have no knowledge of the school program, students or community (Macdonald, Hay, & Williams, 2008). Unfortunately, the failure to mobilize the pedagogical and philosophical richness of the most recent Australian HPE syllabus documents has ensured that what stands for best practice in Australian PE spends more time on teachers’ bookshelves than in the vibrancy of their classrooms. As Australia prepares to embark on yet another HPE curriculum reform journey, the extent to which the lessons of the past will shape the Australian HPE of tomorrow is a story yet to be told. 4 Discussion Ever since the introduction of PE as a (mandatory) school subject, its mission has been controversial at national and international levels. The fact that many PE professionals describe the state and status of PE as ‘critical’ explains why PE advocates traditionally made great efforts to legitimize their subject (Pühse & Gerber, 2005). Although PE has changed its visions frequently enough to be referred to as the ‘chameleon of all curricula’ (McKenzie, 2001), it is evident that health-related aspects have gained in importance during the last two decades. From the contributions it is evident that similar lines of argumentation are used by PE advocates worldwide but the definitions of health in PE and its curricula has always depended on historical, cultural and social contexts. It appears that tensions revolve specifically around the following dimensions. (1) Pathogenetic versus salutogenetic perspectives: Is it the main goal of PE to reduce risk factors for chronic diseases or is the main goal to foster personal and social resources needed for a smooth transition from childhood into adolescence and from adolescence into adulthood? (2) Narrow versus wide focus: What are the health goals that need to be addressed in PE? Is the primary focus to make the pupils more physically fit in order to counteract the ‘obesity epidemic’ or should the main focus be to promote physical, psychological and social health? As identified in the introduction, health is an ‘umbrella term’. It has a broad spectrum of health goals ranging from being more physically active in PE, to promoting fitness, to fostering sport-specific skills for extracurricular sport participation, to enabling multiple experiences that cover the full spectrum of possible participation motives, to providing fun and enjoyable activities for immediate wellbeing, to promoting behavioural skills, to teaching knowledge about physical activity and health in general or to promoting life skills and socio-educational principles. (3) International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
12
Functional versus reflective approach: Can PE contribute to the accomplishment of recommended levels of health-enhancing physical activity or is this endeavour destined to fail because the allotted time does not suffice? Is it possible for students to become more physically fit during PE lessons or should students learn skills enabling them to make reflected and healthy choices to participate in extracurricular physical activities? (4) Prioritization of public health goals versus educational aspects: Are current public health problems sufficiently urgent that they deserve prioritization in PE or does an overemphasis of health objectives mask that PE has a much wider mission? Is it possible to provide meaningful learning experience in classrooms where students have to engage in vigorous physical activity for at least 50 percent of the time? Is it possible to appeal to all students by emphasizing health motives or should other motives have equally high status? (5) Empirical evidence versus normative reflections: Can we provide a PE model that is (entirely) evidence based or does any didactical model contain a number of basic assumptions that are impossible to test? Should physical educators focus on what is measurable or should meaningfulness be weighed against accountability? In summary, the present study has shown that these aspects are relevant to the discussions in all of the three examined countries. While there seems to be some agreement regarding the mission of Health-Optimizing PE in the USA (focus on promotion of physical activity and physically active lifestyles), the debates about health in PE will gain momentum in Australia due to the forthcoming HPE curriculum reform. In Germany, at first sight the debates seem less controversial than in Australia and in the USA. Although public health advocates have increasingly identified youth as a potential group for prevention due to massive health-related inequities. The focus on sport-specific skill learning is still prominent among most PE professionals and society in general, perhaps due to the fact that sport clubs constitute an important part of German society. Bearing in mind that health is an important value in contemporary societies, we presume that the question of how to promote health in PE will continue to be central in the future. As Quennerstedt (2008) underlined, the question is not whether healthrelated goals should or should not be integrated in PE. The questions rather pivot on ‘What is health?’, ‘Which health outcomes shall we focus on?’, ‘What can realistically be expected from PE?’, and ‘What is acceptable for both public health professionals, PE teachers and students?’ In our opinion, a general framework showing the ways in which physical educators can influence students’ health is missing. At the same time, we argue that more orientation would help to facilitate worldwide discussion. To move our discipline forward, scholars need to find a common language, be aware of the underlying assumptions inherent in each model of health-related PE, and critically reflect on the advantages and shortcomings associated with each model. The present study pointed out that there currently is no, and probably will not be a worldwide accepted best practice model of health-related PE. Any model is nested in a larger historically rooted educational context which depends on local public health debates as well as local conceptions of health. Therefore, different approaches towards health-related PE are legitimate. The crux will be to develop models that operate effectively in given societies, to establish standardized programs and to design strategies that guarantee dissemination beyond local contexts. References Abbott, R. A., Macdonald, D., McKinnon, L., Stubbs, C., Lee, A., & Davies, P. S. W. (2008). Healthy Kids Queensland 2006 – Full Report. Queensland Health: Brisbane. International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
13
Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority. (2011). Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/curriculum.html Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2010). Australia’s health 2010. Australia’s health series no. 12. Cat. no. AUS 122. Canberra: AIHW. Australian Government. (2009). The Future of Sport in Australia – The Crawford Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. American College of Sports Medicine (1988). Physical fitness in children and youth, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 20, 422–423. Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unravelling the mystery of health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bös, K., Heel, J., Romahn, N., Tittlbach, S., Woll, A., Worth, A., & Hölling, H. (2002). Untersuchungen zur Motorik im Rahmen des Kinder- und Jugendgesundheitssurveys, Das Gesundheitswesen, 64, 80–87. Brehm, W. (2006). Gesundheitssport. In H. Haag & B. Strauß (Eds.), Themenfelder der Sportwissenschaft (pp. 91–111). Schorndorf: Hofmann. Burrows, L. (2010). Kiwi kids are Weet-Bix kids – body matters in childhood. Sport, Education & Society, 15, 235–251. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1997). Guidelines for school and community programs to promote lifelong physical activity among young people, MMWR, 46, 1–36. Daube, Q., Roberts, M., Pesce, O., & Stanley, F. (2010). 100413 HPEletter Gillard. Retrieved from http://www.achper.org.au/files/f/27376/100413 HPEletter Gillard.pdf Elder, J. P, Lytle, L., Sallis, J. F., Young, D. R., Steckler, A., Simons-Morton, D., Stone, E., Jobe, J. B., Stevens, J., Lohman, T., Webber, L., Pate, R., & Ribisl, K. (2007). A description of the social-ecological framework used in the Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls (TAAG), Health Education Research, 22, 155–165. EDBS. (2009). Erziehungsdepartement Basel-Stadt Lehrplan Weiterbildungsschule. Retrieved from http://www.ed-bs.ch/bildung/zlp/sdu/lehrplaene/lehrplan-weiterbildungsschule. Evans, J., Rich, E., & Davies, B. (2004). The emperor's new clothes: fat, thin, and overweight. The social fabrication of risk and ill health, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 372–391. Fairclough, S., & Stratton, G. (2005). 'Physical education makes you fit and healthy'. Physical education's contribution to young people's physical activity levels, Health Education Research, 20, 14–23. Fardy, P. S., Azzolini, A., & Herman, A. (2004). Developing public health-based physical education in urban schools, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 359–371. Fox, K., Cooper, A., & McKenna, J. (2004). The school and the promotion of children's health-enhancing physical activity: Perspectives from the United Kingdom, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 338–357. Gard, M. (2004). An elephant in the room and a bridge too far, or physical education and the 'obesity epidemic'. In J. Evans, B. Davies, & J. Wright (Eds.), Body knowledge and control: Studies in the sociology of physical education and health (pp. 545–549). London: Routledge. Gard, M., & Wright, J. (2001). 'Managing uncertainty': Obesity discourses and physical education in a risk society, Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20, 535–549. Glover, S, & Macdonald, D. (1997). Working with the H-PE Statement and profile in Physical Education Teacher Education: Case Studies and Implication. The ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 44, 21–25. Graf, C., Koch, B., Falkowski, G., Jouck, S., Christ, H., Staudenmaier, K., Tokarski, W., Gerber, A., Predel, H.-G., & Dordel, S. (2008). School-based prevention: Effects on obesity and physical performance after 4 years. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 987–994. Hardman, K., & Marshall, J. (2005). Update on the state and status of physical education world-wide. Berlin: International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education. Johns, D. P. (2005). Recontextualizing and delivering the biomedical model as a physical education curriculum, Sport, Education and Society, 10, 69–84. Kirk, D. (1992). Defining physical education: The social construction of a school subject in Postwar Britain. London: Falmer Press. International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
14
Kirk, D. (1996). The crisis in school physical education: An argument against the tide. The ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 43, 25–27. Kirk, D. (1998). Schooling bodies: School practice and public discourse, 1880–1950. London: Leicester University Press. Kirk, D. (2006). The 'obesity crisis' and school physical education, Sport, Education and Society, 11, 121–133. Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London: Routledge. Kurth, B.-M., & Schaffrath Rosario, A. (2007). The prevalence of overweight and obese children and adolescents living in Germany. Results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS), Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz, 50, 736–743. Lounsbery, M. A. F., McKenzie, T. L., Trost. S. G., & Smith, N. J. (2011). Facilitators and barriers to adopting evidence-based physical education in elementary schools, Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 8, 17-25. Macdonald, D., Hunter, L., Carlson, T., & Penney, D. (2002). Teacher Knowledge and the Disjunction between School Curricula and Teacher Education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 259–275. Macdonald D., Hay P., & Williams, B. (2008). Should you buy? Neo-liberalism, neo-HPE and your neo-job. Journal Physical Education New Zealand, 41, 6–13. Malina, R. N. (1987). President's message, The AAPE News, 8, 1–2. Marx, E., & Wooley, S. (Eds). (1998). Health is academic: A guide to coordinated school health programs. New York: Teachers College Press. McCuaig, L. (2008). Teaching the art of health living: A genealogical study of HPE and the moral governance of apprentice citizens. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. McCuaig, L., & Tinning, R. (2010). HPE and the moral governance of p/leisurable bodies. Sport, Education & Society, 15, 39–62. McCullick, B. A., Schempp, P. G., & Schuknecht, G. (2000) The status of physical education in the United States, Informationen der Deutschen Vereinigung für Sportwissenschaft, 15, 16–18. McKenzie, T. L. (2007). The preparation of physical educators: A public health perspective, Quest, 59, 346–357. McKenzie, T. L., & Lounsbery, M. A. F. (2009). School physical education: The pill not taken, American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 3, 219–225. McKenzie, T. L., Alcaraz, J. E., Sallis, J. F., & Faucette, F. N. (1998). Effects of a physical education program on children's manipulative skills, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 327–341. McKenzie, T. L., Li, D., Derby, C., Webber, L., Luepker, R. V., & Cribb, P. (2003). Maintenance of effects of the CATCH physical education program: Results from the CATCH-ON study, Health Education & Behavior, 30, 447–462. McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., & Rosengard, P. (2009). Beyond the stucco tower: Design, development, and dissemination of the SPARK physical education programs, Quest, 61, 1–15. McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Prochaska, J. J., Conway, T. L., Marshall, S. J., & Rosengard, P. (2004). Evaluation of a 2-year middle school physical education intervention: M-SPAN, Medicine & Science in Sport and Exercise, 36, 1382–1388. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia Mutz, M., & Burrmann, U. (2009). Schulische Arbeitsgemeinschaften als Kontexte für Freizeitaktivitäten. Beteiligungschancen für sozial benachteiligte Jugendliche?, Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 29, 174–196. National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. (2009). A healthier future for all Australians. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
15
National Health and Medical Research Council. (1996). Effective School Health promotion: Towards Health Promoting Schools. Canberra: Author. Rescinded 31/12/2005. Retrieved from www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications National Preventative Health Taskforce. (2009). Australia: The healthiest country by 2020. National Preventative health Strategy – a roadmap for action. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. O'Sullivan, M. (2004). Possibilities and pitfalls of a public health agenda for physical education, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 392–404. Obst, F., & Bös, K. (1997). Akzeptanz und Wirkung zusätzlicher Sportstunden in der Grundschule, Sport-Praxis, 28, 44–47, 54. Owen, N., Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., & Kelder, S. H. (2006). Evidence-based approaches to dissemination and diffusion of physical activity interventions, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31, 35–44. Pate, R. R., & Hohn, R. C. (1994). Health and fitness through physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Pate, R. R., Davis, M. G., Robinson, T. N., Stone, E. J., McKenzie, T. L., & Young, J. C. (2006). Promoting physical activity in children and youth: a leadership role for schools: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Physical Activity Committee) in collaboration with the Councils on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young and Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation, 114, 1214–1224. Pühse, U., & Gerber, M. (2005). International comparison of physical education. Concepts, problems, prospects. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer. Queensland Schools Curriculum Council. (1999). Health and Physical Education Years 1 to 10 Syllabus. Brisbane: Queensland School Curriculum Council. Quennerstedt, M. (2008). Exploring the relation between physical activity and health – a salutogenic approach to physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 13, 267–283. Ridge, D., Northfield, J., St Leger, L., Marshall, B., Sheehan, M., & Maher, S. (2002). Finding a place for health in the schooling process: a challenge for education. Australian Journal of Education. 46, 19–33. Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. B. (2008). Ecological Models of Health Behaviour. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath. (Eds), Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 465–485). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sallis, J. F., & McKenzie, T. L. (1991). Physical education’s role in public health, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 124–137. Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L. Beets, M. W., Beighle, A., Erwin, H., & Lee, S. (2011). Physical education’s role in public health: Steps forward and backward over 20 years and HOPE for the future. Manuscript submitted for publication. Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Alcaraz, J. E., Kolody, B., Faucette, N., & Hovell, M. F. (1997). The effects of a 2-year physical education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students, American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1328– 1334. Steinmann, W. (2004). Fitness, Gesundheit und Leistung. Hamburg: Kovac. St Leger, L., & Nutbeam, D. (2000). A model for mapping linkages between health and education agencies to improve school health. Journal of School Health, 70, 45–50. Thorpe, S. (2003). Crisis discourse in physical education and the laugh of Michel Foucault. Sport, Education & Society. 8, 131–153. Tittlbach, S., Sygusch, R., Seidel, I., & Bös, K. (2010). Sportunterricht. Gesundheitschance für inaktive Kinder und Jugendliche?, Sportwissenschaft, 40, 120–126. Tinning, R. (1985). Physical education and the cult of slenderness: a critique. The ACHPER National Journal, 108, 10–13. Tinning, R. (2002). Identity, politics and the challenges of preparing H-PE teachers to teach a socially critical curriculum: A tentative beginning. Paper presented at AIESEP. La Coruna: Spain. Tinning, R. (2004). Rethinking the preparation of H-PE teachers: ruminations on knowledge, identity, and ways of thinking, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 241–253. International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
16
Trudeau, F., & Shephard, R. J. (2005). Contribution of school programmes to activity levels and attitudes in children and adults, Sports Medicine, 35, 89–105. USDHHS. (2010). Healthy People 2020. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives 2020/pdfs/HP2020objectives.pdf USDHHS. (2008). 2008 Physical activity guidelines for Americans. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov/ PAGuidelines WHO. (2010). Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva: World Health Organization Press.
Recent International Initiatives and Developments in Physical Education and Related Areas of Youth Sport, Physical Activity, Health and Fitness K. Hardman (Worcester, United Kingdom) Introduction 1 International Olympic Committee (IOC) 2009 Study on Youth and the Practice of Sport 1.1 Age patterns in sport participation 1.2 Gender patterns in sport participation 1.3 Ethnicity and cultural background 1.4 Education 1.5 Social support from family and peers 1.6 Environment 1.7 Physical activity and inactivity 1.8 Physical fitness 1.9 Overweight/obesity 2 International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement on the Health and Fitness of Young People through Physical Activity and Sport 2.1 The scope of the problem 2.2 Defining the current state of fitness and activity of children 2.3 The health consequences of lack of physical activity/physical fitness and/or sport contributing to the decline); mental health 2.4 Physical Activity and Sedentariness Correlates and Determinants 2.5 Options for change: the evidence from intervention studies 2.6 Context for action 2.7 Summary and Recommendations 3 The EUPEA Physically Educated Person Project 4 The Situation of Physical Education in Schools 5 The EUPEA Questionnaire Survey on the European PE Curriculum 6 UNESCO/NWCPEA Research Project on the Situation of PE in Schools, Development of Quality PE/PETE Indicators and Basic Needs Model: A Summary Report 7 ICSSPE Quality Physical Education and Sport (QPES) Questionnaire Survey 8 Closing Comment International Journal of Physical Education 3/2011
17
