Physical Education: Liberate It Or Confine It To The Gymnasium?

Curriculum model and purpose

The philosophical and epistemological position underpinning the development of unit standards and the Draft Health and Physical Education Curriculum Statement (1996) was undoubtedly influenced by the work of Jewitt (1994), who argues that curriculum models are designed to provide a basis for decisions upon which the selection, structuring and sequencing of education experiences can be made.

In curriculum development, there are three important considerations to be taken into account: the subject matter content, the nature of individuals who will use the content and the goals of the society whose purposes schools are trying to serve (Jewitt, 1994; Ennis, 1992). The integration of these three considerations provides developers with a range of curriculum perspectives upon which developments can proceed in an educationally coherent manner. The perspective adopted was that of "socio-ecological integration" (Jewitt, 1994) which attempts to balance priorities between the extremes of individual and global (societal) concerns. This perspective is based on the assumption that the individual is unique and is in the process of continual change as a quest to achieve full personal integration in a changing environment. It argues that the curriculum can assist the individual to achieve this integration by balancing the priorities between individual and societal concerns. Jewitt and Ennis (1992) describe the socio-ecological approach as having four distinguishing characteristics:

• the emphasis is on the individual quest and search for personal meaning;
• personal meaning can only be achieved through the integration of the natural and social environments;
• the approach has a commitment to balance individual needs and societal needs and acknowledges the importance of subject content in achieving this integration; and
• the approach is conducive to social change and is therefore future orientated with an all encompassing world view.

Approaches to curriculum development reflect particular value orientations (Jewitt, 1994; Ennis, 1992) and the socio-ecological integration perspective values a conception of the individual learner operating within a social context. This recognition has been absent from earlier physical education curricula and it has been difficult for physical educators to learn to relate our practices to the power structures and social and economic forces underlying wider society (Sage, 1993).

Curriculum orientations of this nature provide physical educators within New Zealand with the opportunity to address curriculum relevancy issues and, at the same time, begin to move from a performance pedagogy orientation to one where all dimensions of physical education, placed within their wider context, are addressed in a socially critical manner. Sage argues that:

... by not employing a socially critical perspective to human movement practices, we are unable to see the extent to which these practices are socially constructed by particular interests: we have difficulties recognising how hegemonic political and economic interests shape and mould the values of our world and how human movement practices reinforce and reproduce these same values (1993, p. 153).

The perspective, therefore, provides a clear purpose for a physical education curriculum which promotes critical questioning about physical activity within society as well as informed actions regarding issues which effect individuals and the social communities in which they live. The development of critical thinking and reasoning skills assists the individual to question existing social practices and the social order, and will inevitably encourage students to examine the possible detrimental effects of the jobs slot view of education (Tinning et al., 1993).

In the development of the initial drafts of unit standards for the Qualifications Framework, the physical education writer and the NZQA Health and Physical Education Advisory Group have attempted, by implementing the socio-ecological curriculum perspective, to develop curricula that integrate subject content, individuals and the social context within which they exist. As a consequence, the initial drafts suggested that the domains of learning should include the traditional aspects of motor development, attitudes and values associated with physical activity, societal influences on physical activity and the parallel influences of physical activity on society. In brief, I believe that the development of the unit standards clearly attempts to rationalise physical education as a learning area that:

• promotes the learning of new skills associated with, through and about physical activity; and
• enhances, extends, informs and critiques the deliberate use of play, exercise or physical activity within an individual and societal context.

Furthermore, the writers of the unit standards and the Draft Health and Physical Education Curriculum Statement are working on the central assumption that the individual, in his/her search for personal meaning, will be able to make positive contributions to the enhancement of society. However, developing critical thinking skills in line with what Sage (1993) suggests, and using the socio-ecological integration curriculum approach (Jewitt, 1994) would seem to indicate that the direction is at variance with the market discourse and its embodiment in the New Zealand Curriculum Framework in particular. As I discussed earlier, the Framework clearly advocates the development of a market ethos and orientation in education (Ministry of Education, 1993 p. 1). Equally, however, this same document specifies the need to develop critical thinking skills by arguing that:

Students will have the opportunity to develop their ability to create, and respond critically (Ibid., p. 10).

As I have argued, physical educators have seized the opportunity to develop both the unit standards and the Draft Health and Physical Education Curriculum Statement within a socially critical perspective. This opportunity for development was assisted by the fact that I was both chair of the NZQA's Advisory Group for Health and Physical Education and one of two principal writers for the Draft Health and Physical Education Curriculum Statement (1996). Gillian Tasker was the other writer and she was also on the NZQA Advisory Group for Health and Physical Education. Furthermore, the writer for the physical education unit standards, Gilbert Enoka was later appointed to the Ministry of Education's Policy Advisory Group (PAG) to develop policy specifications for the Draft Health and Physical Education Curriculum Statement. This arrangement meant that key players in the development of the unit standards and the Draft Health and Physical Education Curriculum Statement had opportunities to develop a consistent and coherent philosophical base upon which to build. Indeed, the Policy Specifications for a National Curriculum Statement in Health and Physical Education make several references to the need for the curriculum to develop a critical dimension, as well as to the use of an integrated, future-orientated curriculum development model. For example, the document states that:

This essential learning area encompasses integrated learning processes which inform, extend and critique practices that promote health, development and well being of individuals and groups who live in a changing world ... The Health and Physical Education curriculum provides a basis for students to learn the essential skills, understandings, attitudes and values that enable them to make responsible, informed decisions about personal and community health, both now and in the future (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 1).

Further to this it maintains that:

The aims of the Health and Physical Education curriculum are to enable students to participate in creating healthy communities and environments by taking responsible and critical action (Ibid., p. 2).

In these specifications, the key phrases that provide insight into, and opportunity for developing the curriculum using a socio-ecological integration perspective, are: "critique practices that promote health", "individuals and groups who live in a changing world", "make responsible and informed decisions about personal and community health both now and in the future", and the phrase "critical action".

The unit standards for the Qualifications Authority are thus on this developmental pathway which, while consistent with the policy specifications for the curriculum, could be at variance with the state's agenda to marketise education. Indeed, this marketisation agenda is most evident in the structure of the Curriculum Framework which assumes that all subject areas can be reduced to, and defined in terms of, specific and identifiable outcomes. The pedagogical and epistemological problems with such an approach have now been well documented (Codd, 1996; Elley, 1996; Watson, 1996).

Likewise, the elaboration of outcomes within physical education, as in all subject areas, is fraught with difficulties. It might be beneficial for school accountability purposes to be able to state whether certain outcomes have been reported on (and therefore supposedly achieved). However, the implicit assumption that physical education in schools will be improved through the clear articulation of outcomes to work towards is highly problematic. For example, in the area of physical education there are few permanent products which serve as records of work completed. The record of an outstanding tennis serve or a mediocre dance sequence is evanescent (quickly fading) whereas in maths or English there is a permanent product of this work, about which subsequent judgements of quality can be made (even though the difficulties in doing this are extensive and well recorded, see Delta 48, 1). More specifically, certain concerns can be raised in relation to the articulation and assessment of particular outcomes. For example, in the domain of attitudes and values do we regard the tolerance of, or ability to cope with, difference as sufficient? Or, is it the respect for, and valuing of, such difference which is important? One then has to ask how such attributes and/or practices are readily assessable in observable behaviours. Of another facet of the problematic nature of this process Tinning has written:

One problem is the amount of time it will take teachers to document the learnings stated in the outcomes. To report on such outcomes in a systematic manner would require a complete reconception of teachers' work in physical education. That may be a good thing in some ways but, cast in the context of the rampant competency based qualifications framework which is being introduced in New Zealand at present, I have my doubts (Personal Communication, 1995).

Thus, as curriculum developers working within this structure we must comply with its requirements. However, the negotiation of these difficulties has been paramount in our minds as we have sought to operationalise the theoretical premises informing curriculum development.

previous /back to index /next