See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327645699

Physical Education or Physical Entertainment: where's the education in PE?

Article · December 2016

CITATIONS READS

4 2,021

2 authors, including:

Andrew Sprake
University of Central Lancashire
95 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Sprake on 14 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sprake, A. and Temple, C. (2016) Physical Education or Physical Entertainment: where’s
the education in PE? Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies, 10, 1, 157-176

Physical Education or Physical Entertainment:

where’s the education in PE?

Andrew Sprake1 and Claire Temple2

(University of Central Lancashire)
(Durham University: PGCE in Physical Education)

Keywords: PE, National Curriculum, entertainment, pedagogy, holistic education

Abstract
This paper discusses the educational value and supposed purpose of Physical
Education within the National Curriculum. It is suggested from the outset that
there is a significant lack of evidence to support the claims made for Physical
Education being educational. The paper discusses some of the barriers to, and
opportunities for, Physical Education achieving its recognised educational aims.
In doing so, the National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE), the
influence of the teacher and the health agenda for Physical Education are all
explored in relation to their potential impact upon Physical Education achieving
its educational capabilities. Teachers’ experiences of Physical Education, both
as pupils and also of their Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE)
programmes are considered, as well as current pupils’ perceptions of Physical
Education experiences. Changes to the NCPE and PETE are suggested and it is
recommended that more research be conducted involving pupils’ perceptions of
the subject. The paper concludes that, in its current state, Physical Education is
frequently reduced to physical entertainment, of which the claimed educational
outcomes are seldom explored or evidenced. The holistic educational value of
Physical Education has yet to be fully realised and it would seem that, in order
to achieve its true educative potential, Physical Education is in need of a
philosophical and pedagogical overhaul.
‘…there is an urgent need for Physical Educationalists to articulate a rationale for an
educational contribution which is worthy of investment and which avoids the pitfalls
of conceptual ambiguity and/or reliance on narrowly drawn health evidence’
(Thorburn and Horrell, 2012:621).
Introduction
Debates about the educational value of Physical Education are nothing new
(Thorburn, 2016) but they are still extremely pertinent to its stakeholders. The value
thrust upon Physical Education is often justified on the basis of its supposed capacity
to support other areas of learning. For instance, Stead and Nevill (2010) bolstered the
potential impact of Physical Education and sport on wider educational outcomes such

157
ISSN: 1754-2375 [print]
ISBN: 978-0-9955744-0-3
JQRSS Article No: 6/11-10-1-2016-PG[55]-098 © Sport and Wellbeing Press, UK.
Web: https://uclan.academia.edu/ClivePalmer/Journal-of-Qualitative-Research-in-Sports-Studies
Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 10, 1

as cognitive function, academic attainment, social outcomes, classroom behaviour and

also school attendance. Crucially, however, these suggested benefits of Physical
Education and sport are mostly expressed in a language of uncertainty, perhaps
hopeful desperation, in that the subject has potential to support other areas. That
Physical Education itself can be a site for learning in its own right, and not just used
as a site to promote learning elsewhere, is neither championed nor evidenced.
Therefore, instead of seeking proof that Physical Education supports learning in other
curriculum areas, it would seem more beneficial to provide evidence of learning from
within Physical Education itself. This paper aims to examine the educational value
and supposed purpose of Physical Education within the National Curriculum,
signalling potential areas for future developments. In doing so, the barriers to, and
opportunities for Physical Education to achieve its holistic capabilities will be
considered.

Ofsted (2013) recently argued that, whilst the subject is generally in good health,
there is not enough ‘physical’ in Physical Education and that teaching does not
improve pupils’ physical fitness in one quarter of schools. Whilst improvements in
pupils’ physical fitness, health and wellbeing would be a happy concomitant to
Physical Education, the argument here does not suggest a lack of a ‘physical’ in
Physical Education, but rather a lack of ‘education’, and a perilous one at that. In view
of prevailing cultural practices, the educational aims of Physical Education have been
described, at best, as unverifiable dreams (Sellers and Palmer, 2008). Furthermore,
many of the positive developments and policy rhetoric in Physical Education are
‘juxtaposed with adverse practice shortcomings’ (Hardman, 2008:1). As for the health
of Physical Education, therefore, it would appear somewhat bleak and that the
profession is in desperate need of a wakeup call. The social milieu of Physical
Education is bursting with educational opportunities, and the pupils are ready and
waiting to learn (Sprake, 2014).

The process of becoming physically educated can take many forms, but the
narrow, educationally-limiting views on what Physical Education should involve is
evidently causing many pupils to sleepwalk their way through their Physical
Education (Sprake, 2014). Put another way, the holistic educational outcomes that a
high-quality Physical Education purports to serve (AfPE, 2016) are squandered from
the outset by a dearth of intellectual engagement. This lack of intellectual stimulation,
however, is by no means a new concern. Fisher and Laws (1999:27) conducted a study
which explored the reality of Physical Education from the pupils’ perspectives; one
pupil stated ‘it’s quite good in a way because you don’t have to write anything’, and
another pupil argued that Physical Education, in fact, ‘saves the brain for other
subjects’. Furthermore, it was suggested by a third pupil that ‘you can get away with
being thick or not knowing what to do in PE… you can’t in math or science…it’s a

158
 Andrew Sprake and Claire Temple

doss really’. These statements clearly illustrate how Physical Education, in

comparison to other subjects, has little or no educational value from the perspectives
of the very pupils it serves to educate. Similar concerns have been echoed by pupils
more recently. For instance, none were voiced more clearly than one pupils’ comment,
‘for the first three years, it [PE] didn’t do me a scrap of good’ (Sprake, 2014:340).
Such unforgiving comments might give reason to the ‘shadowy, marginal existence’
that Physical Education has endured in schools (Ozoliņš and Stolz, 2013:888) and
claims about the subject being in good health (Ofsted, 2013) are seemingly
presumptuous and ill-informed when held against the backdrop of pupils’ perceptions.

Background
Physical Education has long been the centrepiece of an ideological struggle in
education. Successive governments have exploited Physical Education as a ‘political
football’ (Johnrose and Maher, 2010:15) in an effort to further their respective
agendas and efforts to convince key stakeholders about its educational worth have
resulted in Physical Education being squeezed for every accountable and reportable
benefit it can achieve (Houlihan, 1991). Unfortunately, the shifting priorities and the
ongoing efforts to promote and preserve the reputation of Physical Education have
seemingly done little to enhance the educational status and perceived value of the
subject. For instance, a recent study by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)
concluded that Physical Education has been the ‘Cinderella subject’ in schools for too
long and that it needs a radical shakeup (APPG, 2016). However, in their study, the
APPG clearly advocate the use of Physical Education to support ‘other’ areas, such as
promoting health and wellbeing, fostering a love of sport, combatting the scourge of
obesity, supporting wider academic attainment and finally, improving school
behaviour. Ironically, however, the range of external outcomes that Physical
Education is used to achieve, all of which seemingly precede the intrinsic educational
capacity of the subject itself, might actually weaken the capability of Physical
Education to stand on its own two feet. The APPG report clearly aims to bolster the
place of Physical Education in the curriculum, but promoting Physical Education
based on its capacity to support other areas of education is unlikely to end the
‘Cinderella’ status of the subject. In fact, this is perhaps more likely to aggravate and
intensify the uncertainty about the intrinsic educational value of the subject. It is
perhaps unsurprising that the role and purpose of Physical Education continues to lack
professional consensus (Van Deventer, 2007; Sprake and Walker, 2015) and, whilst
Physical Education can undoubtedly have a positive impact on the development of
children and young people (Bailey, 2009), there remains a need for the profession to
identify and articulate a clear vision and educational purpose for the subject
(Whitehead, 2000; Sprake and Walker, 2015). It would seem that this is now more
urgent than ever, as Physical Education in some schools has been deemed surplus to
requirements (Griffiths and Gillespie, 2016).

159
Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 10, 1

As Physical Education continues in its struggle for status, rarely is it discussed

that Physical Education could in fact be its own worst enemy. The state and status of
Physical Education might be enriched and strengthened if the supposed holistic
learning outcomes were, firstly, evidenced at all, and, secondly, presented in a more
educationally viable format. For instance, it is suggested that a high quality Physical
Education contributes to pupils’ ‘spiritual, moral, social and cultural development’
(AfPE, 2016). Few would contend such noble intentions and, if converted into
educational outcomes, this would clearly support the justification of Physical
Education in the curriculum. Unfortunately, however, when asked to implement and
‘evidence’ these areas of learning, at least in a recognized educational currency such
as the written word, Physical Education seemingly falls short. Instead, practical
performance is the predominant measure of learning in Physical Education
(Piotrowski and Capel, 2000). Clearly, physical competence is an element of learning
which can be nurtured and evidenced, but the myriad potential for learning in Physical
Education cannot, or should not, be reduced to the assessment of physical competence
alone. Holistic learning in Physical Education can, and should, be manifest in a variety
of ways and, as a result, the evidence of learning should correspondently reflect this.
If Physical Education is held to account on its promise to contribute to the ‘spiritual,
moral, social and cultural development’ (AfPE, 2016) of its pupils, then judging pupils
primarily on their physical competence is not only insufficient educationally, but it
sells the pupils short of the holistic education they were promised. If Physical
Education were to look at itself in the mirror and question whether or not the
‘contents’ and pedagogical practice matches that of the educational claims made ‘on
the tin’, then the subject would be well positioned to solve its problems from within.

In order to determine acceptable evidence of learning in Physical Education, there

must be a continuum of evidence which provides multiple perspectives, not just one
measure of pupil learning (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005; Cothran, 2017).
Accordingly, pupils must be provided with the opportunity to engage in and
communicate about the spiritual, moral, social, cultural, and ethical issues relating,
perhaps, to human movement, physical activity and sport. Conceivably, this might be
achieved by encouraging pupils of Physical Education to articulate their learning in
the written word or through artistic expression with evidenced interpretation.
Unfortunately, however, there is ongoing concern that pupils are under-challenged,
uninspired and uneducated in Physical Education (Lake 2001; Smith and Parr 2007;
Trout and Graber 2009). In some cases, Physical Education is viewed merely as an
opportunity for children to expend some energy (Morgan and Hansen, 2008) and the
notion of learning has been characterized as irrelevant to the current agenda in
Physical Education (Siedentop, 2002). Unsurprisingly, perhaps, many pupils have
reported dissatisfaction with the subject. For instance, in a recent study of pupils’
perceptions in Physical Education (Sprake, 2014:342), one pupil insisted ‘I have had

160
 Andrew Sprake and Claire Temple

no good experiences in PE… because the teachers only pay attention to the talented
pupils, the ones that have a future in sports’. This signals a potentially lopsided
approach to Physical Education in which playing sport and competitive games are
privileged over the broader educational capabilities of the subject. Indeed, one of the
stated aims of the NCPE (2013a) is to ‘engage in competitive sports and activities’,
but this pupil’s remark serves as a reminder about the importance of inclusive practice
in which all pupils are given a platform on which to succeed, and learn.

Neither teachers nor pupils seem able to impart a consistent message about what
pupils are supposed to learn in Physical Education. One manifestation of success in
Physical Education is the ‘busy, happy, good’ approach (Placek, 1983) and, more
recently, it has been argued that success in Physical Education should be measured by
interpreting ‘what is written on the faces of our learners’ (Rimmer, 2013:103).
Clearly, this is a way of gauging pupils’ enjoyment, or measuring how entertained
they are, but if the educational validity of Physical Education is evidenced by relying
on the facial expressions of its learners, or is, more bluntly, reliant upon teachers’
interpretive guesswork, then the subject is only inviting deeper scrutiny. It is highly
unlikely, for instance, that a teacher of English would measure their pupils’
understanding of a ‘subordinate clause’ by gauging their levels of enjoyment from
using it correctly. Regardless, the simultaneous lack of learning or enjoyment that
many pupils experience in Physical Education (Wright, 2001) is testament perhaps to
the indifference shown to the pupils’ educational interests. Pupil engagement is
neither a direct nor certain correlate to learning, which is why, in other curriculum
areas at least, the evidence of learning is, quite literally, written on the walls. Whether
in the form of facial expressions or the written word, pupils rarely have nothing to say
in PE. The problem seems to be that the predominant practices in Physical Education
seldom afford pupils a platform on which to communicate what they have learned.

During their school life, pupils can expect to receive homework tasks from a
range of subjects covering a variety of issues. Indeed, it is the responsibility of all
teachers to set out-of-class activities to extend knowledge and consolidate learning
(DfE, 2013c). Homework in Physical Education, however, has been identified as an
under-utilized strategy to support learning (Novac and Lynott, 2015) and it could be
argued that this oversight is woefully detrimental to the propensity of Physical
Education to achieve is holistic aims. Such issues have fundamental implications for
the philosophical power-struggles in Physical Education developments. For instance,
those who adopt a monist perspective on human embodiment assert that the body and
the mind are both indivisible and are of equal value (Whithead, 2010). This
philosophical perspective underpins the rationale for physical literacy as a companion
to Physical Education and would seemingly bode well for those who aspire to justify
Physical Education as a standalone subject to be celebrated in its own right

161
Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 10, 1

(Whitehead, 2010). Ironically, however, the desire for curricular detachment is a

dualist conception in itself. Rejecting a dualist approach to human embodiment does
not necessitate the prioritization of movement-with-no-meaning, certainly not in an
educational context. The acquisition of motor skills, whilst clearly valuable, have for
many years been the dominant pedagogical aim in Physical Education, often resulting
in the marginalization or exclusion of other ways of knowing and meaning-making
(Siedentop, 1982). Given the chance, however, pupils are all-too-keen to exhibit more
intellectual engagement with their embodied self as a means to evidence learning
through Physical Education (Sprake, 2014; Sellers and Palmer, 2008). Perhaps the
root of the problem is that Physical Education is hopelessly striving for a holistic
outcome through a dualist process.

Moving further away from education still, is the issue that most Physical
Education classes are sports orientated (Tinning, 2005). Since the 1950s, Physical
Education practices have been closely-tied with some form of codified sport and these
cultural practices are highly resistant to change (Kirk, 2011). Whilst sport can play a
role in Physical Education, it is one small piece in a much larger jigsaw representing
what it means to be physically educated (Palmer and Hughes, 2014). However, with
increasing numbers of coaches being used to teach primary Physical Education
(Smith, 2013), and the intensified agenda for competitive sport in the curriculum
(NCPE, 2013a), perhaps sport and Physical Education have just renewed their vows
in what is already a delicate marriage.

The influence of the National Curriculum

Research concerning Physical Education in schools is often centred around its
implementation rather than the curriculum itself (Van Deventer, 2004; Du Toit et al.,
2007). The National Curriculum is a set of subjects and standards used by primary
and secondary schools in order for children to learn the same things. It outlines what
subjects are taught and the standards expected of children in each subject. Other types
of school such as academies and private schools are not obliged to follow the National
Curriculum (DfE, 2016) and such educational disparities have sparked questions
about the purpose of having a National Curriculum if it is not for everyone (Morris,
2012). Nevertheless, the National Curriculum is a framework of subjects and content
which all maintained schools in England are required to follow, and Physical
Education is part of this framework. The curriculum for Physical Education has
undergone tremendous change over the past century, a full exploration of which is
beyond the remit of this paper. However, providing a snapshot of curriculum
developments can help to illuminate some of the main changes which, inevitably, have
consequences for what is taught, and learned, in Physical Education.

The 1933 syllabus for Physical Education (then termed Physical Training)
contained 352 pages of comprehensive guidance for teachers, which included

162
 Andrew Sprake and Claire Temple

pictures, lesson plans and explanations (Board of Education, 1933). Central to the
remit of this syllabus was the notion of a healthy physique and a general physical
capacity for efficient movement (Bailey et al., 2009). By 2007, the health agenda was
still noticeably present in the NCPE as it strived for pupils to become:

‘…successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve, … confident
individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives and…responsible citizens
who make a positive contribution to society’ (QCA, 2007:189).

The notion of citizenship is firmly-rooted in the language of the 2007 NCPE, yet
any guidance on how pupils could explore this as a learning avenue was minimal. In
fact, the majority of educational outcomes for Physical Education in this curricula era
were described as a list of ‘dogmatic claims’ by Sellers and Palmer (2008:191). The
2013 NCPE contains only 6 pages designed to cover the whole subject (DfE, 2013a)
which, again, contains limited guidance for teachers. However, following a public
consultation on the government’s proposals to reform the National Curriculum in
England, respondents from the Physical Education community were broadly
supportive of the slimmed-down draft programmes of study, which were seen to
provide schools with greater freedom (DfE, 2013b). Indeed, the NCPE (2013) being
less prescriptive might provide a timely opportunity to explore the richer educational
capabilities of Physical Education.

This curricular-freedom is by no means a sure-fire way of ensuring high quality

Physical Education for all. In fact, increased flexibility amidst curriculum reform has
been found to perpetuate inequities in both breadth and quality of experience
(Wilkinson, 2016). Competitive sport in Physical Education is an alienating
experience for many pupils (Ennis, 2012) and has been deemed as a harrowing
experience for others (Stolz, 2014). When asked whether the new NCPE’s emphasis
on competition was either positive or negative, respondents to the aforementioned
public consultation were evenly split (DfE, 2013b). Interestingly, those who argued
against the emphasis on competition were seemingly ignored as the published NCPE
(2013) contains language which bolsters competition and success, suggesting that
‘pupils should be taught to use a range of tactics and strategies to overcome opponents
in direct competition through team and individual games e.g. badminton, basketball,
cricket, football, hockey, netball etc.’ This approach appears to reflect the
Government’s view of Physical Education as synonymous with particular forms of
sport and also as a means of continuing to legitimise traditional games (Wilkinson,
2016). Furthermore, the unmistakable desire for competition in Physical Education
seemingly overlooks the risk of alienating pupils and appears to reinforce the
assumption that ‘playing games’ is somehow an educative experience for all.
Conversely, there is no suggestion as to the educational ends that these games are
working towards (Palmer and Hughes, 2014). That is, of course, assuming that

163
Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 10, 1

Physical Education is intended to be educative and not simply entertaining. The latter
was emphasized by a teacher of Physical Education whose advice was to ‘never
underestimate the power of a football in PE’ (PE Teacher – personal correspondence).
Such statements illustrate the impact of teachers’ philosophies for Physical Education
and signal the implications of these to Physical Education practice. In fact, the issue
of whether or not Physical Education is adequately implemented in schools has been
highlighted as a global concern (Hardman, 2008; Sherman, et al, 2010). Invariably,
the pupils’ experiences of Physical Education at the ‘chalk-face’ are ultimately in the
hands of the teachers themselves.

The influence of the teacher

Debates about why Physical Education exists in the curriculum, what it
contributes to learning and how it should be facilitated are both complex and dynamic.
Nevertheless, teachers have a responsibility to engage in such debates and to
deliberate the future directions of Physical Education (Penney and Chandler, 2000;
Sprake, 2014). Teachers’ perspectives about the role of Physical Education vary
significantly (Green, 2008), however, and this has inevitable and significant
implications for pupils’ learning experiences. For instance, in a damning vignette
about his Physical Education experience, one student recently recalled how his class
were forced to play rugby on the frozen ground in winter months and recalled the
backlash for suggesting an alternative educational experience:

I stupidly decided to grow a backbone and ask Mr D if we could escape the frosted,
hardened, patch of frozen weeds we called the ‘rugby field’, for the warm comforts of a
classroom to watch an educational DVD.

As shameful as it is predictable, this student was forced to run laps for the
remainder of the ‘lesson’ and his recollections of this ‘torture’ seemingly cast a dark
shadow over the could-be educational experiences in Physical Education, providing it
was in the right hands; Levi Hobby went on to say (cited in Palmer et al., 2016:83-84).

It was like trying to run on a load of upturned plugs. This experience was not only
Physically Excruciating (PE?) but Painful Emotionally (PE?) as I was aware that my
friends also had to endure this torture because of my suggestion. I learnt a Punishing Ethic
(PE?) that day, but not much in the way of Physical Education

Teachers’ personal philosophies clearly have a profound impact upon pupils’

experiences, thus outcomes and, indeed, memories of Physical Education. However,
this is one in a plethora of underlying issues facing the subject. Pupils’ learning
experiences in Physical Education appear also to be hamstrung by the teacher’s
presumption of linear pupil-progress. For instance, Frapwell (2016:19) questions
whether or not contemporary assessment practices in Physical Education are fit for
purpose and highlights that, in large part, teachers appear ‘unconcerned whether

164
 Andrew Sprake and Claire Temple

children have mastered learning in PE’ and, instead, ‘they move on to the next activity
because it is the next one scheduled’. The quick-fix and tick-box assessment practices
are somewhat of a chilling reflection of the conveyor-belt culture in Physical
Education; when pupils ‘fall off’, they are left behind, awaiting instructions to join the
next phase of the ‘production line’.

On a broader level, the degree to which Physical Education teachers are, or should
be, influencing the fate of their subject is seldom explored. The APPG (2016:8)
recently suggested that teachers of Physical Education are partly to blame for the
misguided educational experiences of the pupils;

As professionals, it must be admitted that Physical Educators themselves are in part to

blame for the situation in which we find ourselves in this country. The leaders of the
discipline have remained largely silent for a generation and the subject has lost its way.

If Physical Education is to find its way then the holistic educational value of the
subject must be explored and championed. Inevitably, this would involve a move
away from the over-reliance on physical performance as the predominant measure of
learning (which is arguably a measure of learned ability) and a move towards a holistic
understanding of what it means to be physically educated. Teachers, it could be
argued, are therefore responsible for the direction of the subject, not only at the micro
level (pedagogy and practice) but also by engaging at the macro level (curricular and
policy development).

However, promoting the deeper educational capabilities of Physical Education

will inevitably encounter cultural obstacles. Measuring the holistic outcomes of
Physical Education will potentially go against the grain of traditional Physical
Education practices, namely because it would involve more than the ‘busy, happy,
good’ approach (Placek, 1983). Teachers’ perceptions about the role of Physical
Education share their roots in the cultural messages that are transmitted, internalized
and, occasionally, challenged. This process can broadly be defined as teacher
socialisation. In the context of the teaching profession, the study of socialisation
generally seeks to ‘understand the process whereby the individual becomes a
participating member of the society of teachers’ (Zeichner and Gore, 1990:329). This
functionalist assumption clearly has its limitations. Teachers can, of course, challenge
the environment in which they work. However, all-too-often, the educational
messages are drowned out by the (re)transmission of Physical Education-for-sport,
reducing Physical Education to physical entertainment in the process. In-service
teachers’ personal philosophies for Physical Education have a profound effect on the
perceived role of the subject (Capel, 2000) and it is far from uncommon that those
entering Physical Education teacher education (PETE) do so on account of their
‘sporty’ profile (Valtonen, Kusela and Ruismaki, 2011). Therefore, it is reasonable to

165
Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 10, 1

assume that a new teacher of Physical Education, armed with a ‘sporty’ profile to suit,
will bolster the value of sport in Physical Education. The construction of teachers’
values and beliefs about Physical Education can be traced back to long before they
became a teacher with the result that teachers’ philosophies can become formed in
various ways, including teacher-as-pupil, teacher-as-trainee-teacher and teacher-as-
teacher.

Teacher-as-pupil
Whilst learning in a broader sense is a lifelong journey, most teachers will likely
have been at one time, an institutional pupil. Teachers’ philosophies are largely shaped
and moulded by their personal experiences as a pupil of Physical Education (Wilcox,
1987; Stuart and Therlow, 2000). This aspect of teacher socialisation is known as
acculturation, in which future recruits learn from and internalise messages about the
profession from teachers themselves, before entering into the PETE programme
(Richards, Templin and Graber, 2014). Interestingly, many teachers of Physical
Education have expressed a lack of learning in their own experiences as pupils of
Physical Education and that the everyday experience involved ‘playing games’
(Morgan and Hansen, 2008). It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that the ‘playing of
games’ has consumed the Physical Education environment, increasing the
entertainment but suffocating the educational value of the subject.

Teacher-as-trainee-teacher
The next phase of teacher socialisation is known as professional socialisation,
during which prospective teachers are enrolled in a teacher certification programme
(Richards, Templin and Graber, 2014). Invariably, prospective teachers of Physical
Education hold pre-existing values about the role and nature of the subject (Behets
and Vergauwen, 2006; Chen and Ennis, 1996; Tsangaridou, 2006). Amongst the
prospective teachers who embark on PETE programmes, many of them already
assume that they hold what Dewar and Lawson (1984:15) describe as a ‘subjective
warrant’ to teach Physical Education. That is, they enter the teacher training
environment with an assumption that they already understand what they need to know
in order to be an effective teacher. Many teachers of Physical Education also enter the
profession based on the assumption that it involves teaching others how to play games
(Dewar and Lawson, 1984). This is echoed by Kirk (2010) whose personal reflections
of teacher training confirmed the predominance of games and sport in Physical
Education as being consistent with his personal experiences of Physical Education as
a pupil. At worst, therefore, it might seem that PETE programmes are viewed as a
means to an end, the means being the programme itself and the end being the chance
to play games – again! The mentoring process on teacher training programmes have
profound implications to the socialisation of trainee teachers (Stidder, 2015).
Consequently, there is the potential, or risk, that the trainee teacher may become a

166
 Andrew Sprake and Claire Temple

moulded reflection of the cultural practices inherent to the organisation they are placed
in. Trainee teachers are also unlikely to question what they are being taught if that’s
how they’ve always experienced PE (Kirk, 2010). The repetition and re-confirmation
of experience may be a habitual myopia which limits progress in educational terms,
as opposed to exploring new pedagogical approaches. Teachers are invariably more
comfortable teaching how and what they know, and with the culture of sport and
games in Physical Education so highly resistant to change (Kirk, 2010), this indicates
a momentous challenge in order to reverse the trend of physical entertainment.

What’s more, it is argued that trainee teachers’ previous experiences of Physical

Education are more influential to their value systems than the training itself and, that
the impact of teacher training is minimal in comparison (Crum, 1990). Combined with
the issue that ‘student PE teachers are selective in what they learn on school
experience’ (Capel, et al. 2016:187), this paints a worrying picture for Physical
Education. That is, if the Physical Education teachers of the future are entering the
profession with a narrow and selective mind-set, then it demonstrates an
overconfidence and potential ignorance within the profession.

Teacher-as-teacher
The third phase of teacher socialisation is defined as organisational socialisation
and occurs when individuals assume the role of a teacher (Richards and Graber, 2015).
Organisational socialisation involves a ‘process through which a new organisational
employee adapts from outsider to integrated and effective insider’ (Cooper-Thomas
and Anderson, 2006:492). Again, the functionalist interpretation of teacher
socialisation seemingly overlooks the potential of those being socialised to challenge
or change the cultural transmission of their role as a teacher, when, in fact, the role of
the Physical Education teacher is ‘defined and negotiated’ within schools themselves
(Richards, 2015:1). This dialectical approach recognizes that individuals have the
capacity to resist the influence of socialising agents (Zeichner and Gore, 1990) and
acknowledges that teachers will interactively shape and be shaped by their institution
(Schempp and Graber, 1992). This will have inevitable implications to the perceived
role and value of educational experiences in Physical Education between different
teachers and different schools. Teachers, it could be argued, can therefore be complicit
in the production and reproduction of the status quo in Physical Education.

The role of the Physical Education teacher has deep roots in teacher socialisation,
which can be traced from their own experiences as pupils, the teacher training process
and also once they become a teacher. The cyclical experiences of teacher-as-pupil,
teacher-as-trainee and teacher-as-teacher and the impact this has on teachers’
philosophies is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Despite being a universal language, the role
of Physical Education continues to be lost in translation and any changes to the
cultural practices of Physical Education would require a cultural change in thinking.

167
Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 10, 1

That is, no one single element of the teacher socialisation process is solely
accountable, but rather, the collective domino effect that has Physical Education on
repeat.

‘The health agenda makes me nauseous’, said PE…

The Association for Physical Education believes that, as part of the subject’s
remit, Physical Education should provide the foundations for lifelong adherence to
physical activity and healthy living (AfPE, 2012). Physical Education has a
longstanding and widely accepted relationship with health promotion (Waddington,
2000; Green 2008) and has perhaps more notably been used to alleviate the problem
of obesity (Lear and Palmer, 2008). In striving for this outcome, however, Physical
Education has often relied on entertainment-through-sport as the ‘carrot’ to encourage
pupils to lead healthy, active lives (Lear and Palmer, 2008:85). The health agenda for
Physical Education exerts a ‘powerful influence’, even a ‘stranglehold’ not only on
the philosophies and practices of teachers but also on the potential of the subject to be
educative at all (Evans, 2003:87). It would seem that the health agenda distorts, even
damages the educational purpose of Physical Education in the curriculum and results
in a forced marginalisation of the true educational potential of the subject. The drive
for health in Physical Education is hugely attractive, at least for teachers who are
‘short on a more enduring and substantial educational rationale’ for the subject
(Evans, 2003:87). Painfully ironic, is that both the health and educational interests of
pupils may be damaged by the relentless pursuit of health aims (Evans, 2003). Perhaps
the most immediate priority, therefore, is to stop using Physical Education as a cattle
prod, and to alleviate the problem that pupils’ Physical Education is suffering from a
chronic illness itself - neglect.

Future plans, Jurassic problems…

As it stands, Physical Education is seemingly in a position of ill-health, void in
the most part of the holistic education that it claims, but has unique capacity to serve.
Kirk (2010:121) proposes three possible futures for Physical Education: ‘more of the
same, radical reform or extinction’. Avoiding the latter might be realised only through
radical reform and by gaining a unified consensus as to the role and purpose of the
subject (Sprake and Walker, 2015). Recognising the bigger picture and wider
educational potential for Physical Education as well as its position in educational,
sport and health discourses, is likely to inform the future directions for the subject
(Kirk, 2006). Initially, it might seem that a logical starting point for a radical shakeup
in Physical Education would be to make changes to the NCPE, perhaps with more
specific guidance as to the holistic and educative outcomes. Curricular development
is a complex issue (Fullan, 2001) however, and without teachers’ personal
commitment to change, any curricular developments may be diluted or undermined
(Jin, 2013). On this point and concurrent with setting out a professional plan of

168
 Andrew Sprake and Claire Temple

education, there is perhaps a need for research to examine if and how curriculum
reform impacts upon teachers’ philosophies and practices at an individual level.

Furthermore, there remains a limited amount of research which has been

conducted with pupils in Physical Education (Dyson, 2006). The vast potential in this
research, by offering a ‘voice to the voiceless’ (Sprake, 2014) might inspire new
directions for, and expose some fundamental oversights in, pedagogical development
in Physical Education. Pupil voice work is salient and purposeful because it provides
pupils with opportunities to be involved in their own learning, creates possibilities for
pupils to develop a sense of being, and integrates theory and practice (Batchelor
2006). For the pupils themselves, this integration of theory and practice might appear
more like a collision, but it nevertheless has profound value to the development of the
subject. Pupil-informed research can act as a thought-provoking mirror to Physical
Education, reflecting back an image that many in the profession would neither
recognise nor want to see (Palmer 2014a).

It is important to note, however, that conducting research involving pupils will

not automatically correct the problems in Physical Education. In order to positively
impact upon the future of Physical Education, the results of research need to be
digested and acted upon. The pupils’ perceptions in this paper, for example, have
stated their dissatisfaction with the subject, and yet they are just another one that got
away. Physical Education in schools cannot re-educate the uneducated. Therefore, the
primary goal of pupil-centred research cannot be simply to consider and share their
perceptions, but to act on them, develop pedagogical strategies, perhaps in
conjunction with the pupils themselves, to increase the educational value of the
subject. Currently, Physical Education teachers are all-too-frequently entering the
profession with a sport and games mentality, which is often exacerbated by PETE
programmes. Enhancing the educational value of Physical Education, therefore, may
require a radical shakeup of the way in which teachers are educated and socialised on
PETE programmes; ensuring that the educative value of Physical Education is found
in the process. Addressing this problem is hindered by the fact that, in many cases,
both PETE programmes and qualified teacher posts require that candidates have
experience of playing various sports and games to a high standard. Clearly, the
repertoire of skills and competencies required to be an effective teacher of Physical
Education extend far beyond playing sport at a high level, but outlining sporting
ability as a desirable attribute serves only to perpetuate the entertainment issue.

Conclusion
It would seem that the entire culture of Physical Education, from political to
pedagogical levels, is in dire need of a wakeup call. For too long, Physical Education
has been unwilling to look itself in the mirror and question its own educational
validity. Developing skills for sport and games, or pushing for improved physical

169
Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 10, 1

health are not educationally sufficient to justify Physical Education as a standalone

subject. The simultaneous lack of learning and enjoyment in Physical Education
(Wright, 2001) warrants a long overdue rethink as to the overarching purpose of
Physical Education, and how best to achieve its claimed educational intentions. The
long-term security of Physical Education within the curriculum would seemingly
depend on this. The social, cognitive and affective domains, habitual to Physical
Education but seldom explored, are also in desperate need of pedagogical attention
and research. Less research is needed into how Physical Education contributes to other
areas of education and more research is needed to explore what and how Physical
Education already contributes to holistic education. Only then might Physical
Education be celebrated in its own right. That is, of course, if Physical Education is
to achieve more educational status than merely being entertainment. In the interests
of avoiding ‘extinction’ (Kirk, 2010), therefore, it would seem that Physical Education
is in urgent need of a radical shakeup in pedagogical approaches, a renewed rationale
for and reconsidered methods of assessment, as well as a way in which the subject can
evidence learning in an educationally viable format. Failure to do so may well result
in Physical Education becoming an archaeological study in itself.

References
Association for Physical Education (2012) Advocacy and influence AfPE [online]. Available
at: http://www.afpe.org.uk/advocacy-a-leadership (Accessed 4th December 2014)
Association for Physical Education (2016) Outcomes: High Quality Physical Education and
School Sport. Available at: http://www.afpe.org.uk/physical-education/wp-
content/uploads/Outcomes-of-PE-Poster-September-2016-web-version.pdf (Acc. 7.12.2016)
Bailey, R. (2009) Physical Education and sport in schools: a review of benefits and outcomes
(pp. 29-37) In, Bailey, R. and Kirk, D. (Eds.) The Routledge Physical Education Reader,
Routledge, Oxon.
Batchelor, D. (2006) Vulnerable voices: An examination of the concept of vulnerability in
relation to student voice. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38, 6, 787-800.
Behets, D. and Vergauwen, L. (2006) Learning to teach in the field (pp.407-424). In, Kirk D,
Macdonald, D. and O’Sullivan. M. (Eds.) Handbook of Physical Education. Sage, London.
Board of Education (1933) Syllabus of Physical Training for Schools (HMSO, London).
Capel, S. (2000) Re-reflecting on priorities for Physical Education: now and in the twenty-
first century (pp. 209-220). In, Capel, S. and Piotrowski, S. (Eds.) Issues in Physical
Education. Routledge, Oxon.
Chen, A. and Ennis C.D. (1996) Teaching value-laden curricula in Physical Education.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 15, 3, 338-354.
Cooper-Thomas, H. and Anderson, N. (2006) Organizational socialization: A new theoretical
model and recommendations for future research and HRM practices in organizations.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 5, 492-516.

170
 Andrew Sprake and Claire Temple

Cothran, D.J. (2017) Designing effective programs: creating curriculum to enhance student
learning (pp. 39-53). In, Ennis, C. (Ed.) Routledge handbook of Physical Education
pedagogies, Routledge, London.
Crum, B.J. (1990) Shifts in professional conceptions of prospective Physical Education
teachers under the influence of preservice professional training (pp. 286-294). In, Telama,
R., Laakso, L., Pieron, M., Ruoppila I. and Vihko V. (Eds.) Physical Education and life-long
physical activity. Jyvaskyla Sport Congress: movement and sport – a challenge for life-long
learning (AIESEP World Convention, June 17-22, 1989: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland).
Dewar, A.M. and Lawson, H.A. (1984) The subjective warrant and recruitment into Physical
Education. Quest, 36, 1, 15-25.
Department for Education (2013a) National curriculum in England: Physical Education
programmes of study [online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-
education-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-
programmes-of-study (Accessed 27th November 2016).
Department for Education (2013b) Reform of the National Curriculum in England. Report of
the consultation conducted February-April 2013. DfE, London.
Department for Education. (2013c) Teachers’ Standards: guidance for school leaders,
school staff and governing bodies [online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/301107/Teach
ers__Standards.pdf (Accessed 3rd December 2016).
Department for Education (2016) The National Curriculum: overview [online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/overview (Accessed 27th November 2016).
Du Toit, D., Van Der Merwe, N. and Rossouw, J.P. (2007) Return of Physical Education to
the curriculum: Problems and challenges facing schools in South African communities.
African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 13, 3, 241-253.
Dyson, B. (2006) Students perspective on Physical Education (pp. 32-46). In, Kirk, D.,
Mcdonald, D., and O’Sullivan, M. (Eds.) The Handbook of Physical Education. Sage, CA.
Ennis, C. D. (2012) Students' experiences in sport-based Physical Education: more than
apologies are necessary. Quest, 48, 4, 453-456.
Fisher, R and Laws, C. (1999) Pupils' interpretations of Physical Education( pp. 23-37). In,
Hardy, C.A. and Mawer, M. (Eds.) Learning and Teaching in PE. Falmer Press, London.
Fullan, M. (2001) The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press, NY.
Green, K. (2008) Understanding Physical Education. Sage Publications, London.
Griffiths, S. and Gillespie, J. (2016) Zumba puts team games on the bench at top school. The
Times [online]. Available at: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/zumba-puts-team-games-on-
the-bench-at-top-school-gcqcpvcvt (Accessed 29th November 2016).
Hardman, K. (2008) Physical Ed. in schools: A global perspective. Kinesiology, 40, 1, 5-28.
Houlihan, B. (1991) The government and politics of sport. Routledge, London.
Jin, A. (2013) Physical Education curriculum reform in China: a perspective from Physical
Education teachers. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18, 1, 15-27.

171
Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 10, 1

Johnrose, W. and Maher, A. (2010) National curriculum Physical Education: health lifestyles
and lifelong participation in physical activity. Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports
Studies, 4, 1, 15-22.
Kirk, D. (2006) The obesity crisis and school Physical Education. Sport, Education and
Society, 11, 2, 121-133.
Kirk, D. (2010) Physical Education Futures. Routledge, London.
Lake, J. (2001) Young people’s conceptions of sport, Physical Education and exercise:
implications for physical education and the promotion of health-related exercise. European
Physical Education Review, 7, 1, 80-91.
Lear, R. and Palmer, C. (2008) Obesity and the exercise opportunity, a critical dialogue in
Physical Education. Journal of Qualitative Research in Sport Studies, 2, 1, 83-98.
Morgan, P.J. and Hansen, V. (2008) The relationship between PE biographies and PE
teaching practices of classroom teachers. Sport, Education and Society, 13, 4, 373-391.
Morris, E. (2012) The National Curriculum: why have one if it’s not for everyone? The
Guardian [online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/23/national-
curriculum-review (Accessed 27th November 2016).
Novac, B. and Lynott, F. (2015) Homework in Physical Education: benefits and
implementation strategies. Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, pp. 22-26.
Ofsted (2013) Not enough physical in Physical Education. The office for standards in
Education, press release: 14th February 2013 [online]. Available at:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/not-enough-physical-physical-education (Access 4.12.2014)
Ozoliņš, J. and Stolz, S.A. (2013) The Place of Physical Education and Sport in Education,
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45, 9, 887-891.
Palmer, C. and Hughes, C. (2014) Out of Touch (Chapter 3, pp. 29-52) In Palmer, C. (Ed.)
The sports monograph: critical perspectives on socio-cultural sport, coaching and Physical
Education. SSTO Publications, Preston, UK.
Palmer, C. (2014a) A collective pedagogy: coaching academic talent in Physical Education
and sport (Chpt1: pp1-14). In, Palmer, C. (Ed.) The sports monograph: critical perspectives
on socio-cultural sport, coaching and Physical Education. SSTO Publications, Preston, UK.
Palmer, C. et al. (2016) Lessons in learning, teachers take note. Journal of Qualitative
Research in Sports Studies, 10, 1, 95-128.
Penney, D. and Chandler, T. (2000) Physical Education: what future(s)?’ Sport, Education
and Society, 5, 71-78.
Piotrowski, S. and Capel, S. (2000) ‘Formal and informal modes of assessment in physical
educaton’. In: S, Capel. and S, Piotrowski (eds) Issues in Physical Education (Issues in
Teaching Series), pp. 99-114. London, Routledge Falmer.
Placek, J.H. (1983) Conceptions of success in teaching: Busy, happy and good? In, Templin
T.J. and Olson J.K. (Eds.) Systematic observation instrument for Physical Education. Leisure
Press, West Point, NY.
QCA (2007) Physical Education programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment target.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, HMSO, London [online] Available at:
http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/uploads/QCA-07-3342-p_PE_KS3_tcm8-407.pdf (Accessed
13th February 2015)

172
 Andrew Sprake and Claire Temple

Richards, A. (2015) Role socialization theory: the sociopolitical realities of teaching Physical
Education. European Physical Education Review, pp. 1-15.
Richards, K., Templin, T.J. and Graber, K. (2014) The socialization of teachers in Physical
Education: Review and recommendations for future works. Kinesiology Review, 3, 113-134.
Rimmer, V. (2013) What is success in Physical Education and how can this best be
achieved? (pp. 89-106). In, Capel, S. and Whitehead, M. (Eds.) Debates in Physical
Education. Routledge, Oxon.
Sellers, V. and Palmer, C. (2008) Aims and dreams. A sideways look at the Physical
Education programme of study for Key Stage 3 and attainment target, QCA National
Curriculum (2007). Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies, 2, 1, 191-216.
Schempp, P.G. and Graber, K.C. (1992) Teacher socialization from a dialectic perspective:
pre-training through induction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 329-348.
Siedentop, D. (1982) Movement and sport education: Current reflections and future images.
Edited proceedings of the 12th Commonwealth and International Conference on Sport,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Brisbane.
Siedentop, D. (2002) Content knowledge for Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 21, 1, 368-377.
Smith, A. (2013) Primary school PE and sports coaches: evidence from a study of School
Sport Partnerships in NW England. Sport, Education and Society, 20, 7, 872-888.
Smith, A. and Parr, M. (2007) Young people’s views on the nature and purposes of Physical
Education: a sociological analysis. Sport, Education and Society, 12, 1, 37-58.
Sprake, A. and pupils. (2014) I’ve got my kit for PE Sir, but what else is missing?
Perceptions of Physical Education in a Secondary school (Chapter 60, pp. 337-348) In,
Palmer, C. (Ed.) The sports monograph: critical perspectives on socio-cultural sport,
coaching and Physical Education. SSTO Publications, Preston, UK.
Sprake, A. and Walker, S. (2015) Blurred lines: the duty of Physical Education to establish a
unified rationale. European Physical Education Review, 21, 3, 394-406.
Stidder, G. (2015) Becoming a Physical Education Teacher. Routledge, London.
Stolz, S.A. (2014) Philosophy of Physical Education: a new perspective. Routledge, London.
Thorburn, M. (2016) Fitness and Physical Activity curriculum (Chapter 6, pp. 85-96). In,
Ennis, C.D. (Ed.) Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies. Routledge, Oxon.
Tinning, R. (2005) Physical Education in Australia: an interpretive account (pp. 52-65). In,
Puhse U. and Gerber M. (Eds.) International comparison of physical education. concepts-
problems-prospects. Meyer and Myer Sport, Oxford, UK.
Trout, J. and Graber, K.C. (2009) Perceptions of overweight students concerning their
experiences in Physical Education. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 28, 3, 272-292.
Tsangaridou, N. (2006) Teachers’ beliefs (pp. 486–501). In, Kirk D,, Macdonald, D, and
O’Sullivan, M. (Eds.) The Handbook of Physical Education. Sage, London.
Valtonen, J., Kuusela, J. and Ruismaki, H. (2011) The leisure time physical activity
background of pre-service class teachers (pp. 61-74). In, Ruismaki H. and Ruokonen I. (Eds.)
Design learning and wellbeing: 4th International Journal of Intercultural Arts Education:
Post Conference Book. University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education. Helsinki.

173
Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 10, 1

Van Deventer, K.J. (2004) A case for Physical Education/life orientation: The health of a
nation. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 26,
1, 131-146.
Van Deventer, K.J. (2007) A paradigm shift in life orientation: A review. South African
Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 29, 2, 131-146.
Waddington, I. (2000) Sport, health and drugs: a critical sociological perspective. E and FN
Spon, London.
Whitehead, M. (2000) Aims as an issue for Physical Education (pp. 7-21). In, Capel, S. and
Piotrowski, S. (Eds.) Issues in Physical Education. Routledge Falmer, London.
Whitehead, M. (2010) Physical Literacy: throughout the lifecourse. Routledge, London.
Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by design. Association for supervision
and curriculum development. Alexandria, VA.
Wilcox, R.C. (1987) DROPOUTS – the failing of high school Physical Education. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 58, 6, 21-25.
Wilkinson, S. (2016) Equity and inequity amidst curriculum reform (Chapter 13:187-200). In
Ennis C.D. (Ed.) Routledge Handbook of Physical Education pedagogies. Routledge, Oxon.
Wright, S. C. (2001) The socialization of Singaporean physical educators. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 3, 207-226.
Zeichner, K., and Gore, J. (1990) Teacher socialization (pp. 329-348). In, Houston W.R.
(Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education, Macmillan, New York.

JQRSS Author Profiles

Andrew Sprake1 graduated with a first class honours degree BA in Sports Studies from
Uclan in 2012. After his PGCE in Physical Education at Liverpool John Moores University
and working in mainstream secondary school PE, he is now an Associate Lecturer in
Physical Education at UCLan. He is also researching for his PhD in The place of Physical
Education in learning and literacy.

Claire Temple2 graduated in 2015 with 1st class honours degree BA in Sports Coaching and
entered Initial Teacher Training on a PGCE at Durham University in Physical Education.

Reviewer Comments
A well-researched critique of Physical Education is offered in this paper which is
refreshing and stimulating to read. The phrasing is passionate and emotive to recruit
the reader into a reflective mode, which may prove influential for change as the
authors seem to urge for. This paper has prompted a questioning of one’s own school
PE experiences and yes, now they have made me think about it, my Physical
Education was all about sport and little about learning in what I understand now as
being a worthwhile educational subject. Maybe I was robbed but didn’t even know it?
A strong message in this article is the scope of opportunity that lay ahead for PE to
retake valuable pedagogical ground in the education of young people. The authors

174
 Andrew Sprake and Claire Temple

show sound reasoning for their claim that Physical Education is not a support subject
to bolster learning in other areas of the curriculum. Rather, that Physical Education
has the capacity to become the physical act of learning that every other subject yearns
for, but struggles to achieve as readily as PE might do. Put another way, PE seems to
have it on a plate, but only if PE wishes to eat. To this end, PE appears to have an
identity crisis and possibly, a lack of self-worth, underestimating its contribution to
the overall intellectual learning in schools. For whatever reasons, PE has seemingly
confined itself to become expert in fun, fitness and the battle of fatness, entertainment
and maintaining discipline in corridors - whilst every other subject is taken more
seriously for its academic contribution? There seems to be a world of change ahead
for PE if it can be shaken from its current homeostasis of what it has to offer. Looking
to the future, the very notions of monism and becoming physically educated seems to
place Physical Education as the jewel in the intellectual crown of school-based
education, if it can develop the confidence to wear it.

175
Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies 10, 1

176

View publication stats