In Steve's editorial
in the January 2012 issue of pelinks4u, publisher
Steve Jefferies charged our profession…"Maybe we
need to lead the charge to reject the mind-body dualism inherent
in today's public school education? Instead of fighting turf
battles with teaching colleagues, and fighting off programs
and position cuts advocated by misguided administrators, how
about integrating physical education with other compatible
subject matter?"
Physical educators are uniquely positioned
to offer opportunities for students to meet programmatic goals
specific to physical education, while simultaneously supporting
instruction in core content areas. While an interdisciplinary
method may involve including physical education as part of
regular classroom instruction, the cross-curricular approach
described in this article includes the involvement of other
core curriculum subjects such as reading, science, and mathematics
into physical education classes.
According to Pangrazi and Beighle
(2013), "integrating academic concepts into physical
education involves incorporating concepts learned in the classroom
into the physical education lesson in an effort to reinforce
the concepts or to teach them from a different perspective"
(p. 207). Many examples of integrated programs exist, including
Klimack's (2010) description of teacher Suzanne Haye's Fitness
Integration Teamwork and Technology (FITT) program in which
elementary students learn about math and social studies during
physical education. An excellent example for secondary school
math comes from Reys and Reys (2011) in which the authors
share geometric concepts such as circumference, perimeter,
areas of rectangles, speed of the serve, and the Pythagorean
theorem using a tennis court and tennis strokes.
Intuitively, the idea of integrating
core content into physical education is appealing because
physical education teachers often enjoy the flexibility to
expand activity offerings beyond traditional games such as
basketball, football, and soccer. On the surface, many students
appear to enjoy learning in an active environment, as opposed
to being seated at desks in a classroom setting. Because the
physical education environment is inherently dynamic, many
students give the impression of being interested and engaged
in subject matter content. Thus, physical education class
has emerged as a distinctive setting for integrating school
curricula because there is often flexibility to include non-traditional
content, it is one of the few active content areas, students
appear interested in the subject matter, and the atmosphere
is fun.
Findings from relevant literature
add credence to the instinctive support of integration, and
indicate students and parents support the importance of physical
education in schools. In 2003, a National Association for
Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) survey found that parents
believe physical education is as important as other subject
areas (as cited in Masurier & Corbin, 2006, p.49). When
surveyed, students have also responded favorably with regard
to their enjoyment of physical education. "Goodlad (1984),
in his classic study of American education, found that 86.9%
of elementary, 80.1% of junior high, and 79.8% of senior high
students stated that they liked physical education more so
than any academic subject” (Housner, 2009, p. 4).
Consequently, increased attention
to class content and enhanced information processing may result
from favorable feelings regarding a specific subject matter.
Housner (2009) reported that "since students like physical
education more so than academic subjects, it would seem reasonable
to argue that physical education would be an ideal choice
for integration with other subject areas" (p. 4). An
interdisciplinary teaching approach also affords physical
educators with opportunities to make connections and build
relationships with core subject teachers. In this capacity,
they may demonstrate the importance of physical activity and
the potential of their programs to their colleagues. Classroom
teachers generally appreciate the opportunity to collaborate
with physical educators as they recognize the potential of
students to benefit from actively learning more about essential
core content.
There are additional reasons why physical
educators should consider incorporating academic subject matter
into their lesson plans. During an era of increased accountability
for classroom teachers and administrators, physical education
teachers want to justify their programs as an equal among
other subject areas.
Because literacy rates in the United
States have dropped consistently for years (Mears, 2003),
and in response to increasing pressure for students to perform
well on standardized tests, there has been a renewed commitment
to dedicate more time and educational resources towards literacy
development. This has often occurred at the expense of other
subjects such as physical education (Burton & VanHeest,
2007). As a result, many physical educators have devoted additional
class time for the inclusion of academic content in an effort
to justify program relevance and avoid a narrowing of the
curriculum.
Numerous physical educators have recognized
the importance of expert research findings as they embrace
an integrated teaching approach that creates a blended learning
environment. According to Gardner (2006) bodily-kinesthetic
is listed as one of eight different types of intelligences.
Graham, Holt/Hale, and Parker (2013) note that "Gardner's
view of intelligence supports the interdisciplinary approach
to learning. He encourages educators to look at different
learning styles of children, and to help connect learning
while focusing on the particular intelligences individuals
possess" (p. 671).
Additionally, Hannaford (1995) reported
"eighty five percent of school age children are natural
kinesthetic learners" (as cited in Blaydes, 2001, p.11).
Thus, the gymnasium can be transformed into a movement-based
laboratory for different types of students across the learning-style
spectrum. An integrated approach merges a variety of subjects
while reducing "the fragmentation that schools often
impose by organizing teaching around traditional subject areas"
(Housner, 2009, p. 3).
It is important to note that an effort
should be made to maintain the integrity of the physical education
program when employing such a cross-curricular method. Pangrazi
and Beighle (2013) cautioned against sacrificing physical
education objectives by focusing on programmatic goals first,
then integrating academic content into activities second.
The authors suggested "integration should occur after
establishing a solid, well-planned, quality physical education
program" (p. 207).
Similarly, Masurier and Corbin (2006)
documented a list of "ten reasons why youths need quality
physical education" (p. 45). These included the role
of physical activity in disease prevention, promotion of lifelong
fitness, and motor skill acquisition which are traditionally
recognized by experts as important outcomes of a quality physical
education program. Only one of the ten reasons on their list
involved the mind-body connection as the importance of educating
the total child was highlighted.
In light of established connections
between physical inactivity levels and obesity rates, creating
and maintaining a quality physical education program involves
the promotion of physical activity and movement skill acquisition
as top priorities. Therefore, carefully calculating the amount
of time dedicated to integrating core content is an important
consideration but may require a rather delicate balancing
act.
Steve Shelton is an Instructor for
the Physical and Health Education Teaching Program at Radford
University. He previously taught elementary physical education
for 20 years before coming to Radford University in 2012.
His interests include systematic supervision techniques, the
association between academic achievement and physical activity,
and principles of effective teaching in elementary school
physical education. Steve currently teaches motor development,
cooperative activities, adapted physical education, and supervises
student teachers.
Anna DeVito is an Assistant Professor for the Physical and
Health Education Teaching Program at Radford University. She
taught previously at Shepherd University, Delaware State University,
and Syracuse University (while working on her Doctorate) before
joining Radford University in 2010. In addition, she teaches
a course in WVU’s Sport Management Graduate program,
serves as a mentor in the West Virginia Physical Education
Leadership Academy, and serves as a program reviewer for NASPE/NCATE.
Her interests include the sociocultural aspects of physical
education, sports, and recreation. Currently, she teaches
physical education assessment, individual and dual activities,
theory of team sports, and supervises student teachers.
Jon Poole is a Professor and Coordinator for the Physical
and Health Education Teaching Program at Radford University.
He taught previously at the University of Utah and Virginia
Tech before joining Radford University in 2000. He is an advocate
for a more coordinated approach to teaching physical and health
education in K-12 schools with his professional interests
including promoting physically active and healthy living for
K-12 students, health-related fitness education, and teaching
lifetime sports and physical activities. He teaches elementary
and secondary methods courses and supervises student teachers.
Jon has been a regular contributor to PELinks4U since 2000.
