Bonnie Tjeerdsma Blankenship

The Role of PETE in Developing Joy-Oriented Physical Educators

The current focus on utilitarian outcomes (e.g., fitness, health, skill development) in physical education has not been effective in producing life-long movers and makes physical activity a duty to be performed. An alternative to a utilitarian focus is to have a joy-oriented focus in which physical activity is promoted because it is joyful, pleasurable, and personally meaningful. In this paper, we present factors that inhibit a joy-oriented focus in physical education and reasons physical education teacher education (PETE) programs have thus far failed to produce joy-oriented physical education teachers. We then present a new approach to PETE—the foundational approach—in which the joy of movement forms the foundation of and is threaded throughout the program. Ten specific changes to PETE programs are proposed to produce joy-oriented physical education teachers.

The Stress Process in Physical Education

JOPERD • Volume 78 No. 6 • August 2007 T erry and Deborah, two girls highly skilled in basketball, are enrolled in Mrs. Rothman’s seventh-grade physical education class. Mrs. Rothman has her students practice basic basketball skills for two class periods, then they spend the remaining eight class periods of the unit playing a basketball tournament. The team that wins the tournament gets an A for that sport. Even though the two girls are equally skilled, they perform very differently during the tournament games; Deborah performs well, while Terry cannot catch a ball, dribbles the ball off her feet, and never gets close to making a basket. Why do the girls perform so differently during the tournament? One reason might be the stress they each experience. Deborah gets a little nervous before the games, but she enjoys the challenge and believes she is good enough to help her team. She also knows that her grade is not determined only by this tournament, so she does not worry about whether or not her team will win. Deborah views the stress she experiences as positive, and it actually helps her learning and performance. All day long, however, Terry worries about physical education class. “What if I make too many mistakes? Everyone on my team is depending on me to score points. They’ll be mad at me if I don’t. Then everyone will get a bad grade in PE because of me! I have to do well!” By the time the game starts, Terry has an upset stomach, sweaty hands, rapid heartbeat, tense muscles, and an inability to concentrate. Professional physical education teachers would like to think that they run a stress-free class that students enjoy, but for some students, that is not the case. Unlike the organization of other subjects in school, physical education often involves the public display of students’ motor performance. For example, others might see someone performing poorly on a fi tness test, and that situation can be distressing. Sometimes the conditions that physical education teachers set up in class create a negatively stressful situation for students. And then there are some students, like Terry, who are more prone than others to experience stress or anxiety in evaluative situations like physical education and to view that stress as something negative. This article explores the concept of negative stress in physical education. First, stress will be defi ned. Then a model describing the stress process for students in physical education will be described. Finally, strategies that physical education teachers can use to reduce negative stress for students, related to stages in the stress process, will be presented.

Accreditation in Kinesiology: The Process, Criticism and Controversy, and the Future

The question of accreditation has been quite controversial in higher education. Some consider accreditation as a necessary “evil” while others reject it outright. It is a process designed to promote quality assurance and improvement in institutions and programs, yet one mired in various issues. While accreditation is controversial in a number of respects, the major focus of accrediting bodies should be the review of applied professional programs at both undergraduate and graduate levels that are grounded in professional standards and licensure. Basic science programs such as movement, exercise, and sport science should be excluded from accreditation review and subject only to external review by experts within the field of kinesiology. Furthermore, amongst other factors, the association of kinesiology programs with agencies that promote the accreditation of programs that lack professional standards, certifi cation, or licensure should be rejected. Accreditation is here to stay, but how well it serves the academy remains debatable.

Knowledge/Skills and Physical Activity: Two Different Coins, or Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Some believe that physical education should teach children the knowledge about and motor skills needed to be physically active and to do various physical activities. Others believe that the main purpose of physical education is to enhance childrens physical activity levels. Are these views two different coins, or are they actually two sides of the same coin?

The Decline and Elimination of PETE: Implications for Doctoral Education

ABSTRACT In this article, we will explore the current landscape of teacher education programs in general, and specifically, physical education teacher education (PETE) from the national level down to the local level. Furthermore, we will explore the impact that the elimination of undergraduate PETE programs can have on PETE doctoral programs, including the teaching, research, and engagement of their faculty. We present ideas for preparing doctoral students for their future higher education roles that may or may not include the preparation of future physical educators.

Making PALS Through Partnerships

JOPERD • Volume 83 No. 9 • November/December 2012 I ncreasing physical activity among youths is increasingly becoming a priority for public schools. Gordon-Larson, Nelson, and Popkin (2004) indicated that most adolescents are not physically active and that physical activity levels decline from childhood into adolescence. According to 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, youths “can achieve substantial health benefits by doing moderateand vigorous-intensity physical activity for periods of time that add up to 60 minutes or more each day” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008, p. 15). Since children spend a significant portion of their waking lives in schools, scholars and government agencies have identified instructional physical education and in-school physical activity programs as sites for addressing issues related to inactivity and sedentary behavior (Pate et al., 2006). Similarly, Shephard and Trudeau (2005) noted that, without physical education, the likelihood of achieving even a fraction of the recommended amount of physical activity is significantly reduced for close to half of the nation’s youths. One way to promote physical activity in schools is to improve the quality of physical education being offered. A viable option for working toward this mission is through school-university partnerships aimed at providing continuing professional development (CPD) to physical education teachers (Anderson & Olsen, 2006). In such a relationship, schools partner with local university teacher education programs to develop an ongoing project in which university faculty assist with CPD and inservice teachers assist with the training of preservice teachers (Johnston, Wetherill, & Greenebaum, 2002). Such arrangements have the potential to provide teachers with ongoing support for CPD over a protracted period of time, which has proved vital to teacher learning (Armour & Yelling, 2004). In theory, as teachers engage in CPD their pedagogical practices are more likely to improve, which translates to student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2008). In physical education, this should lead to increases in physical activity levels that, when combined with proper dietary habits and decreased sedentary behavior, should lead to decreases in childhood and adolescent obesity. With this in mind, the purpose of this article is to describe a school-university partnership aimed at increasing children’s physical activity levels through in-school physical education programs.

We Have Met the Enemy—And It Is Us

ABSTRACT The field of physical education has accomplished much in the past 30 years. And while there are many ways we have progressed, there are also ways in which we have not. Most alarming is the fact that we continue to be a marginalized profession. We still are not viewed as an important part of education in most schools and higher education. Why does that persist? It is too easy to simply blame others—government officials, principals, university administrators. We must also look to ourselves—we have all had a part in creating our marginalization, and we should all do our share to help clean it up. In this article, I present ideas about how we have served as our own enemy, as well as ideas for action steps we could take to stop being our own enemy and perhaps enhance the status of physical education and PETE.

Concluding Comments and Recommendations.

JOPERD • Volume 81 No. 8 • October 2010 U sing the expertise from the academy interest areas of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), the 2010 All-Academy Symposium and this feature set out to discern the promises and pitfalls of youth sport specialization. We offer a few conclusions and recommendations based on the multidisciplinary perspectives and research shared by our distinguished authors. Conclusion #1. There seems to be more research across NASPE disciplines highlighting the potential benefits of early multisport participation—which some feature authors termed as sport diversification (Kaleth & Mikesky; Mattson & Richards) or sport sampling (Gould)—than the potential benefits of early sport specialization. This does not necessarily mean that early sport specialization lacks advantages, or that multiple sport participation is without pitfalls (see Gould; Mattson & Richards), simply that the majority of the research and viewpoints presented in this feature favored youth participation in a variety of sports and physical activities rather than specialization in one sport or one position in one sport. By and large, this conclusion was proffered by representatives from the following academies: sport history, philosophy, and sociology (Coakley), motor development and learning (Branta), exercise physiology (Kaleth & Mikesky), and sport and exercise psychology (Gould). Consequently, these perspectives further substantiate the multifaceted benefits (physical, psychological, social) and supportive stand of multisport participation documented in NASPE’s (2010) position statement. Conclusion #2. Some evidence does exist to support early sport specialization. Much of this evidence, however, seems to depend on the performance requirements of the sport, and more specifically on whether peak performance in the sport is reached before or after maturation. For instance, Mattson and Richards presented distinct biomechanical advantages of early sport specialization in sports such as figure skating, in which elite performance is often achieved by the unique combination of a lean, but strong, prepubescent body physique. Similar body-characteristic advantages for prepubescent gymnasts were raised from the perspectives of motor development (Branta) and exercise physiology (Kaleth & Mikesky). Interestingly, these same scholars also recognized that young (physically immature), highly specialized athletes are prone to two major health concerns: (1) the manifestation of poor nutritional habits in order to maintain an advantageous body size and shape as they mature (Mattson After reviewing the evidence, it’s up to you to decide what is best. The Promises and Pitfalls of Sport Specialization in Youth Sport