Models for Curriculum and Pedagogy in Elementary School Physical Education

Author(s): Pamela Hodges Kulinna
Source: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 108, No. 3 (January 2008), pp. 219-227
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/529104 .
Accessed: 26/10/2015 22:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Elementary School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Models for Abstract

Curriculum and The purpose of this article is to review current

models for curriculum and pedagogy used in el-
Pedagogy in ementary school physical education programs.
Historically, physical educators have developed
Elementary School and used a multiactivity curriculum in order to
educate students through physical movement.
More recently, a variety of alternative curricular
Physical Education models have been developed, used, and in some
cases carefully evaluated. I discuss the following
models for physical education and the research
supporting their effectiveness: (a) sport educa-
tion, (b) tactical games, (c) updated multiactivity,
Pamela Hodges Kulinna (d) movement education, (e) personal-social re-
Arizona State University sponsibility, ( f ) outdoor recreation and adven-
ture education, (g) health-related physical edu-
cation, and (h) interdisciplinary. In addition,
methods/models for teaching physical educa-
tion are briefly discussed.

What is the knowledge of most worth? That

The Elementary School Journal
Volume 108, Number 3
䉷 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0013-5984/2008/10803-0007$10.00
question drives curricular decisions in all
academic disciplines. Within physical edu-
cation, the general answer can be found by
examining the national content standards
developed by the National Association for
Sport and Physical Education (NASPE):
“The standards define a physically edu-
cated person as one who: (a) demonstrates
competency in motor skills and movement
patterns needed to perform a variety of
physical activities, (b) demonstrates under-
standing of movement concepts, principles,
strategies, and tactics as they apply to the
learning and performance of physical activ-
ities, (c) participates regularly in physical
activity, (d) achieves and maintains a health-
enhancing level of physical fitness, (e) ex-
hibits responsible personal and social be-
havior that respects self and others in
physical activity settings, and ( f ) values
physical activity for health, enjoyment,

This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
220
challenge, self-expression, and/or social in-
teraction” (NASPE, 2004, p. 11).
Although the wording has changed over
the years, the fundamental goals of physical
education have remained largely the same
since the turn of the century. At that time,
the field largely settled on a philosophical
approach of developmental education with
a focus on “education through the physi-
cal,” wherein physical education was per-
ceived as a unique means to promote the
achievement of physical, motor, mental,
and social objectives (Siedentop, 2007).
To meet these broad curricular goals and
the diverse needs of students, physical ed-
ucators developed the multiactivity curric-
ulum. Still in existence today, in this model
students experience a wide variety of activ-
ities (e.g., sport, fitness, adventure, dance)
presented in relatively short units. In the-
ory, this diversity of lesson content provides
opportunity to address the varied goals of
physical education and exposes students to
activities that they may elect to continue for
a lifetime. In recent years, however, the
multiactivity model has received increasing
criticism for its lack of depth, inability to
engage all students, and failure to offer a
truly diverse array of activities. Despite
such criticisms, the model has been the
dominant curricular approach in physical
education since the 1920s, particularly at
the secondary level (Siedentop, 2007).
Fortunately, the multiactivity model is
no longer the only curriculum available to
physical educators. A variety of alternative
curricula have been widely disseminated
and, in some instances, carefully evaluated.
Because most of these new models align
reasonably well with the national stan-
dards, both school districts and individual
teachers now have a much wider range of
curriculum options from which to choose to
best meet the needs of their students.
In this article I organize newer and more
contemporary curricular models into four
categories: (a) games and sports, (b) individ-
ual and social development, (c) fitness and
wellness, and (d) interdisciplinary (see Ta-
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
ble 1). These categorical distinctions are in-
troduced only for the purpose of clarity. It
is important to keep in mind that the mod-
els are not necessarily exclusive.
New Curricular Models
Games and Sport Models
Games and sports have been the tradi-
tional core content of physical education.
Curricular innovations in this category in-
clude sport education, tactical games, and
updated approaches to the multiactivity
model.
Sport education model. Sport education
was created to provide students with a posi-
tive, educational, and authentic sport ex-
perience in physical education settings (Sie-
dentop, Hastie, & van der Mars, 2004). In
this model, everything that is taught or
learned in physical education happens in
the context of developmentally appropriate
forms of sport. The model differs from tra-
ditional physical education in purpose, pro-
cess, and assessment; its primary objectives
are developing competent, literate, and en-
thusiastic sportspersons rather than just
teaching sport skills and rules. The sport ex-
perience encompasses a broad set of goals
including team affiliation, etiquette, fair-
ness, appreciation, traditions, values, strat-
egies, and structure, along with the skills,
movement patterns, and content knowl-
edge needed to participate in the sport. Al-
though currently used more frequently at
the secondary level, sport education may
align even better with the purpose and
ethos of elementary schools (Taggart, Med-
land, & Alexander, 1995). A foundation may
begin for sport education with grade K–2
students, with gradual increases in imple-
mentation progressing to the full sport edu-
cation model by the fifth grade (MacPhail
& Kinchin, 2004).
A typical sport education season lasts
longer than a traditional multiactivity
physical education unit and is organized
around the concept of a natural sport season
rather than a unit of educational content.
Students work in teams for the sport season
JANUARY 2008
 CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY 221

Table 1. Brief Overview of Current Curricular Models in Physical Education

Model Description Level

Games and sports:

Sport education An authentic sport experience with participation in various S/E
sport roles
Tactical games Uses gamelike contexts to teach skills and tactics E/S
Updated multiactivity models Includes skill and fitness development activities E/S
Individual and social development:
Movement education Organized around the structure of movement (e.g., effort, E
space, body, relationships)
Personal-social responsibility Prioritizes the personal and social development of students S/E
Outdoor recreation/adventure Emphasizes the process of participation in activities such as S/E
education initiatives or challenge tasks
Fitness and wellness:
Health-related physical education Emphasizes the development of physically active behaviors E/S
(e.g., SPARK) and fitness
Conceptual physical education Prioritizes health outcomes with classroom and activity S/E
sessions
Interdisciplinary:
Interdisciplinary physical education PE content taught in other subjects and content from other E/S
subjects taught in PE
Be Active Kids! Science-based physical education curriculum E

Note.—E ⳱ elementary, S ⳱ secondary, E/S ⳱ both elementary and secondary, listed in order by prevalence
of use at each level.

and while on a team may learn and perform
additional roles beyond player including:
coach, captain, manager, trainer, publicist,
statistician, scorekeeper, and referee. De-
pendent on their age and readiness, stu-
dents assume partial or whole responsibil-
ity for team and class tasks such as drills
and practice. The teams participate in a cul-
minating formal competition in which stu-
dents may individually compete (e.g., gym-
nastics) for their team’s score, or entire
teams may compete in a tournament. Au-
thentic assessments such as skill exhibitions
or skill assessments during small-group
game play (e.g., 3 vs. 3) can be used as for-
mative and/or summative assessments.
Research indicates that the model facili-
tates student engagement and learning in
physical education, particularly for typi-
cally underserved students like females and
low-skilled students. The model’s persistent
team focus also results in the personal and
social development of students; expressly,
students develop skills of cooperation, re-
sponsibility, and trust (e.g., Wallhead &
O’Sullivan, 2005).
Tactical games model. Another form of
sport curriculum is the tactical games
model, also known as the teaching games
for understanding approach. In contrast to
the multiactivity model’s focus on decon-
textualized skill development and learning
rules, which culminates in full game play,
the tactical games approach uses student in-
terest in playing games to promote devel-
opment of skills and tactical knowledge
needed for students to become competent
participants (Mitchell, Oslin, & Griffin, 2005;
Teaching Games for Understanding Task
Force, 2007). Learning tasks are planned us-
ing gamelike contexts to develop students’
skills and tactical knowledge that progress
to modified games and eventually to full
game play at the secondary level.
Lessons in the tactical games model are
designed to teach the tactical elements of
game play and equip students with the abil-
ity to match game conditions with appro-
priate responses. Lessons often begin with
a small-group game (e.g., 2 vs. 2) with rules
given to students. Games are designed to
create a tactical problem for the students,
for example, how to score when the offense
has a numerical advantage. After game
play, the teacher questions students about
the tactical problem and their ideas for po-

This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222
tential solutions. Game-related practice ac-
tivities are followed by opportunities to try
the potential solutions. Instruction and mo-
tor-skill development occur in the context
of the game itself, with student demonstra-
tion of skillfulness (tactical, strategic, motor
responses) during game play serving as a
major outcome goal.
Research investigating outcome goals
has typically compared cognitive and psy-
chomotor learning outcomes of students
taught with the tactical games model with
those of students taught using traditional
multiactivity skill development approaches.
Although findings are equivocal, suggesting
that both models result in motor-skill and
knowledge development, the tactical games
model may lead to additional student bene-
fits including positive social interactions,
affective development, and higher-order
thinking skills (Light & Fawns, 2003). Nev-
ett, Rovegno, Babiarz, and McCaughtry
(2001), for example, found that fourth-grade
students taught using a tactical game model
for 12 weeks improved their tactical knowl-
edge (decision making) and skill execution.
Authentic assessments of skill and cognitive
assessments of strategic knowledge are often
used with this model.
Updated multiactivity models. Popular
examples of updated multiactivity ap-
proaches include the K–12 Dynamic Physi-
cal Education Curriculum (DPE; Pangrazi,
2007) and the Michigan-based Exemplary
Physical Education Curriculum (EPEC;
Michigan Fitness Foundation, 2006). These
models were developed, in part, to address
the fact that traditional physical education
multiactivity models did not provide ade-
quate physical activity for students (e.g.,
large-group team sport play). Both DPE and
EPEC keep the basic multiactivity structure
of short units but emphasize the importance
of true movement experience variety, not
just variety in various ball sports. Both pro-
grams are available for elementary and sec-
ondary physical education programs.
Within the elementary DPE curricula,
lessons follow a four-part lesson plan that
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
starts with a chance for all students to be
physically active in an introductory move-
ment challenge. The lesson then progresses
to a fitness-specific portion, which is fol-
lowed by work on motor-skill develop-
ment. The lesson culminates in the use of
those skills in modified games appropriate
to students’ developmental level.
The elementary EPEC lessons are orga-
nized around four areas: (a) locomotor
skills, (b) object-control skills, (c) activity
knowledge and fitness, and (d) personal/
social skills. Detailed lesson plans provide
for different combinations of content in-
cluded in each lesson along with integrated
assessments.
Although little empirical evidence is
available on student outcomes from DPE,
the curriculum is the culmination of 30
years of testing and revising the model with
continuous feedback and anecdotal evi-
dence from teachers (Pangrazi, 2007). Stu-
dent outcomes from participation in the
EPEC curriculum have been reported in
cross-sectional studies showing that ele-
mentary children in programs using EPEC
have higher physical activity knowledge
scores and more positive self-reported so-
cial behaviors than children in matched
control schools (e.g., Kulinna, Zhu, Kunt-
zleman, & DeJong, 2006).
Individual and Social Development
Models
Physical education has a long history of
curricular goals focused on individual and
social development of students. Within this
category of models are the movement edu-
cation approach, the personal-social re-
sponsibility model, and outdoor recreation
and adventure education.
Movement education. One of the few al-
ternatives to the “education through the
physical” philosophy is movement educa-
tion (Siedentop, 2007). Concepts of human
movement (e.g., effort, space, body, rela-
tionships) serve as the basis of this curric-
ular approach, which is commonly divided
into educational dance, educational gym-
JANUARY 2008

nastics, and educational games. Children
integrate concepts (such as changing direc-
tions or using force) into movement skills
(such as striking or catching) that are later
extended and refined in other units. Move-
ment education assumes that by mastering
key concepts of fundamental human move-
ment, students are prepared to explore and
succeed in any specific movement format
(sport form or fitness activity). Creativity,
rather than competition, is a key underpin-
ning this approach, which is largely based
on principles derived from constructivist
theory and is designed to integrate move-
ment with social and thinking processes
(Rovegno & Dolly, 2006).
Movement education is principally used
at the elementary level, particularly grades
K–3, because it provides a movement foun-
dation for all physical skills. A typical les-
son would focus on student exploration and
decision making with regard to movement
concepts. The teacher might start with a re-
view of a previously explored topic (Who
can tell me what balance means? What is a
base of support?) and then present students
with a new challenge (How many ways can
you find to balance on three body parts?).
After students have explored the challenge,
the teacher uses a series of well-constructed
questions to help students explore the con-
cept further (What happens when you
move those three body parts closer to-
gether? Farther apart?). Students make in-
dividual decisions about their ability and
response to the questions. Authentic assess-
ments, such as event tasks in which stu-
dents create and perform a routine, are of-
ten used.
Few studies have addressed student
outcomes from the movement education
curricular model. Of those, Chen and Rov-
egno (2000) found that elementary students
could develop critical thinking skills and
creative movement after participation in
movement education programs.
Personal-social responsibility model.
Don Hellison’s (2003) personal-social re-
sponsibility program began in 1970 in Port-
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY 223
land, Oregon, while he was teaching in an
alternative youth physical activity program.
It is now used in physical education pro-
grams as well as youth activity and sport
programs in the United States and around
the world. The primary focus of the model
is to teach life skills and values (respect for
the rights and feelings of others, effort and
teamwork, self-direction, helping, and use
of personal skills outside the gym) via
physical activity content. Lessons are struc-
tured to promote transfer of skills to stu-
dents’ lives outside class. Instructional
strategies of the personal-social responsibil-
ity model include gradually shifting re-
sponsibility from the teacher/program
leader to the students. In this model, devel-
oping sport skills, activity knowledge, and
physical activity behaviors is valuable but
is secondary to promoting students’ social
skills.
Physical education units are therefore
chosen for the opportunity to develop per-
sonal skills. For example, a teacher might
select a fitness unit with a focus on individ-
ual goal setting and effort. Hellison recom-
mends a five-part lesson for teaching the
personal-social responsibility model. Each
lesson progresses through (a) counseling
time (before or after lesson), (b) awareness
talk, (c) physical activity lesson content
(that meets individual program needs) with
personal-social responsibility integrated,
(d) brief group meeting, and (e) reflection
time. A central component of this curricular
model is the use of self-assessments as a part
of discovery with reflection and discussion,
leading to informed action, and an ongoing
process of improving what is working.
Support for the personal-social respon-
sibility model has been more theoretical
than research based. The few studies that
have investigated the model generally show
that students learn improved personal and
social skills as well as enjoy the unique ap-
proach (Hellison & Martinek, 2006).
Outdoor recreation and adventure edu-
cation model. Also designed to promote the
personal and social development of stu-
224
dents is the outdoor recreation and adven-
ture education curricular model. This broad
model includes a wide range of activities
from cooperative games to outdoor skills
(e.g., hiking, cycling, canoeing) to challenge
courses (e.g., low- and high-elevation chal-
lenges like rope courses). The model may
focus on student skill learning when teach-
ing units such as hiking or cycling but usu-
ally prioritizes the “process” of participating
in physical activity rather than the outcome.
For example, student success in a climbing-
wall activity is not defined by the speed or
technical merit of a climb but rather by the
student’s willingness to step outside of his
or her comfort zone to attempt the climb as
well as to rely on and encourage other stu-
dents. One popular adventure education
program is Project Adventure (Project Ad-
venture, 2007), grounded in the philosophi-
cal concepts of challenge, cooperation, risk,
trust, and problem solving.
Specific skills are taught in this model,
so a typical lesson might look a great deal
like a standard physical education lesson
with a teacher lecture/demonstration fol-
lowed by student practice in a particular
skill like tying rope knots or assembling a
tent. With regard to challenge-type activi-
ties, a lesson on building trust on a low-
ropes initiative challenge might start with a
chance for each child to set personal goals
before getting into a group to decide how
the group will attempt to solve the chal-
lenge. The group then participates in the
challenge, which requires all group mem-
bers to participate in order to succeed. After
the group exercise, the teacher leads the
group in a debriefing/group processing
session. Goals are revisited, team processes
examined, and links are made between the
experience and real-life opportunities for
students. Outdoor recreation and adventure
education programming is becoming in-
creasingly popular as an elementary physi-
cal education model as evidenced by the in-
creasing number of teacher-focused articles,
textbooks, resources, and professional pre-
sentations (e.g., the journal Teaching Elemen-
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
tary Physical Education published five arti-
cles on adventure curriculum in 2006).
A large body of research outside the
field of physical education supports the
many positive outcomes of outdoor recrea-
tion and adventure education program-
ming in multiple youth settings like sum-
mer camps and extracurricular programs. A
limited number of studies in physical edu-
cation settings give some support to the
proposition that through outdoor recreation
and adventure education units, students
develop in multiple domains (cognitive, so-
cial, emotional, physical) and show im-
proved self-perceptions on a variety of af-
fective measures, as well as more positive
attitudes toward physical education (e.g.,
Brown, 2006; Dyson, 2006). Most of the el-
ementary physical education studies are
qualitative investigations of students’ per-
ceptions of the models. Further research on
outdoor recreation and adventure educa-
tion models in elementary physical educa-
tion programs related to teacher percep-
tions and student learning is needed.
Fitness/Wellness Models and
Conceptually Based Programs
Models focusing on fitness and wellness
may be described as health-related physical
education programs and/or conceptual
physical education programs. These models
are largely driven by public health concerns
over national negative health trends like in-
creasing rates of obesity and diabetes. They
often include technology, such as pedome-
ters or heart-rate monitors, to track physical
activity behaviors as an outcome goal of
programs.
Health-related physical education.
Health-related physical education curricula
place a high priority on students develop-
ing physically active behaviors inside and
outside class. For example, the Sports, Play
and Active Recreation for Kids! (SPARK;
Sportime, 2007) curriculum is designed for
both skill and physical activity behavior de-
velopment (with a skill and fitness activity
component in each lesson). SPARK is both
JANUARY 2008

a curriculum for children’s physical educa-
tion and, as an integral component, contains
prescriptions for teacher development. The
potency of that combination is attested to
by research studies that show an increase in
physical activity for SPARK students (e.g.,
Locke & Lambdin, 2003).
A sample elementary lesson from the
SPARK curriculum includes a fitness and
skill activity in a 30-minute lesson. The les-
son might begin with a chase-and-flee fit-
ness activity focused on movement oppor-
tunities for students to increase their heart
rate. The fitness activity would be followed
by skill development time in which students
play modified games that improve physical
ability as well as provide increased move-
ment opportunities. Assessments used with
health-related physical education curricular
models often include physical activity pat-
terns and components of health-related fit-
ness.
The SPARK curriculum is perhaps the
most comprehensively evaluated curricu-
lum in physical education. Research dem-
onstrates that program outcomes include
increased physical activity and improved
physical fitness, sport skills, and academic
performance (e.g., Dowda, Sallis, McKenzie,
Rosengard, & Kohl, 2005).
Conceptual physical education pro-
grams. Conceptual physical education pro-
grams, which emphasize cognitive under-
standing of subject matter, are widely used
at the secondary level (e.g., Fitness for Life;
Corbin & Lindsey, 2005). Other conceptu-
ally based programs are used at the ele-
mentary level, such as the Physical Best El-
ementary curriculum (NASPE, 2005). One
study showed that students who had a high
school conceptually based course were more
physically active later (Dale & Corbin, 2000).
Interdisciplinary Models
Interdisciplinary models focus on en-
hancing student learning by addressing key
concepts in a variety of domains. Initial cur-
ricular programs for integration in physical
education focused on integrating content
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY 225
from the field’s subdisciplines (e.g., motor
learning, health psychology concepts) into
physical education (sometimes called an
internal interdisciplinary approach). More
recent programs represent external interdis-
ciplinary models where content is empha-
sized in a variety of courses. This switch to
an external focus is, in part, a response to
educational reform efforts that have placed
traditional academic subjects and student
learning at the forefront of schools’ priorities.
One major external interdisciplinary physi-
cal education curriculum effort has been un-
dertaken by kinesiology faculty at the Uni-
versity of Maryland. They have recently
developed (with support from the National
Science Foundation) a science-based third- to
fifth-grade physical education curriculum
based on national standards for science and
physical education—Be Active Kids! (Uni-
versity of Maryland, Department of Kinesi-
ology, 2007).
The Be Active Kids! curriculum model
provides lessons in Dr. Love’s Healthy
Heart (the science of cardiovascular health),
Mickey’s Mighty Muscles (the science of
muscular strength, endurance, and flexibil-
ity), and Flex Coolbody’s Fitness Club (the
science behind how bodies function at op-
timal levels). One fifth-grade lesson, for ex-
ample, in the healthy heart series involves
performing vigorous physical activity and
then identifying physiological changes that
occurred in the body. The corresponding Be
Active journal uses the scientific process to
assist student learning of science and
health-related concepts. This model fits well
with school-wide, comprehensive efforts to
create healthy and active school environ-
ments to improve children’s health and
school performance, such as healthy and ac-
tive schools programs (Action for Healthy
Kids, 2007; GOPHER, 2007).
Very few research studies have ad-
dressed interdisciplinary curricular efforts
in physical education. Findings generally
support the concept, but it is too early to
make general statements about this type of
curriculum. The Be Active Kids! program,
226
for example, reports year 1 results on their
website including a 20% increase in health-
related science knowledge in third- to fifth-
grade students at 15 experimental schools
versus students in comparison/control
schools. In a study of preschool students,
Connor-Kuntz and Dummer (1996) found
that adding language instruction to physi-
cal activity programming did not nega-
tively affect students’ motor-skill develop-
ment or require additional instructional
time, thus reinforcing children’s language
acquisition. These models were developed
recently, and much research on them will
likely be forthcoming in the next few years.
Methods/Models for Teaching Physical
Education
Similar to the curricular models, teach-
ing styles vary greatly both within and
across physical education programs. Mos-
ston and Ashworth’s (2001) spectrum of
teaching styles is the most widely used con-
ceptualization of teaching styles in physical
education programs today. Initially devel-
oped in 1966, it is a collection of systemati-
cally arranged and interrelated models.
Each of the 11 teaching styles is defined by
the number of decisions the teacher and the
student make. The spectrum runs the
gamut from the command style, in which
the teacher makes all decisions, on the left
end of a continuum, to the self-teaching
style, in which the student makes all deci-
sions, at the right end. The curricular model
adopted often drives the selection of teach-
ing styles. For example, movement educa-
tion lessons often employ styles that are less
teacher directed and promote student de-
cision making (from guided discovery to
learner initiated), whereas updated mul-
tiactivity models more frequently use the ef-
ficient teacher-directed styles (from com-
mand to inclusion). Mike Metzler (2005)
presents an alternative conceptualization of
methods or ways to teach physical educa-
tion in his instructional models textbook, in
which he richly illustrates a compendium of
possibilities to be used in long-term com-
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
prehensive curricular efforts, such as a se-
mester-long unit using cooperative learn-
ing.
From a curricular perspective, it is an ex-
citing time to be a physical educator. New
physical education curricular models offer
many viable options for developing quality
physical education programs that facilitate
the development of skills, attitudes, knowl-
edge, and behaviors needed to become
physically active for a lifetime.
Note
I would like to thank Donetta Cothran, Kim
Graber, and Larry Locke for their helpful sug-
gestions and editorial assistance. I can be con-
tacted by e-mail at: Pamela.Kulinna@asu.edu.
References
Action for Healthy Kids. (2007). Action for
Healthy Kids [On-line]. Available: http://
www.actionforhealthykids.org
Brown, M. (2006). Adventure education and
physical education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdon-
ald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Handbook of
physical education (pp. 865–702). London:
Sage.
Chen, W., & Rovegno, I. (2000). Examination of
expert and novice teachers’ constructivist-
oriented teaching practices using a move-
ment approach to elementary physical edu-
cation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 71, 357–372.
Connor-Kuntz, F. J., & Dummer, G. M. (1996).
Teaching across the curriculum: Language-
enriched physical education for preschool
children. Adapted Physical Education Quar-
terly, 13, 302–315.
Corbin, C. B., & Lindsey, R. (2005). Fitness for life
(5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Dale, D., & Corbin, C. B. (2000). Physical activity
participation of high school graduates fol-
lowing exposure to conceptual or traditional
physical education. Research Quarterly for Ex-
ercise and Sport, 71(1), 61–68.
Dowda, M., Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T., Rosengard,
P., & Kohl, H. W. (2005). Evaluating the sus-
tainability of SPARK physical education: A
case study of translating research into prac-
JANUARY 2008

tice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
76, 11–19.
Dyson, B. (2006). Students’ perspectives in physi-
cal education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M.
O’Sullivan (Eds.), Handbook of physical educa-
tion (pp. 326–346). London: Sage.
GOPHER. (2007). Active and Healthy [On-line].
Available: http://www.activeandhealthy
schools.com/
Hellison, D. (2003). Teaching responsibility through
physical activity (2d ed.). Champaign, IL: Hu-
man Kinetics.
Hellison, D., & Martinek, T. (2006). Social and
individual responsibility programs. In D.
Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.),
Handbook of physical education (pp. 610–626).
London: Sage.
Kulinna, P. H., Zhu, W., Kuntzleman, C., &
DeJong, G. (2006). Evaluating multilevel
data: An example using HLM to study a
physical activity curriculum. International
Journal of Physical Education, 43(3), 109–121.
Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game:
Integrating speech and action in games
teaching through TGFU. Quest, 55, 161–176.
Locke, L. F., & Lambdin, D. D. (2003). Putting
research to work in elementary physical educa-
tion: Conversations in the gym. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
MacPhail, A., & Kinchin, G. D. (2004). The use of
drawings as an evaluative tool: Students’ ex-
periences of sport education. Physical Educa-
tion and Sport Pedagogy, 9(1), 87–108.
Metzler, M. W. (2005). Instructional models for
physical education (2d ed.). Scottsdale, AZ:
Holcomb Hathaway.
Michigan Fitness Foundation. (2006). Exemplary
physical education curriculum K–5 modules, 6–
12 modules, after-school/summer program. Lan-
sing, MI: Author.
Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2005).
Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical
games approach (2d ed.). Champaign, IL: Hu-
man Kinetics.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2001). Teaching
physical education (5th ed.). San Francisco:
Benjamin Cummings.
National Association for Sport and Physical Edu-
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY 227
cation. (2004). Moving into the future: National
standards for physical education (2d ed.). Res-
ton, VA: Author.
National Association for Sport and Physical Edu-
cation. (2005). Physical best activity guide ele-
mentary level (2d ed.). Champaign, IL: Hu-
man Kinetics.
Nevett, M. E., Rovegno, I., Babiarz, M., & Mc-
Caughtry, N. (2001). Chapter 6: Changes in
basic tactics and motor skills in an invasion-
type game after a 12-lesson unit of instruc-
tion. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
20, 352–369.
Pangrazi, R. P. (2007). Dynamic physical education
for elementary school children (15th ed.). San
Francisco: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.
Project Adventure. (2007). Project Adventure [On-
line]. Available: http://www.pa.org/contact_
us.php
Rovegno, I., & Dolly, J. P. (2006). Constructivist
perspectives on learning. In D. Kirk, D. Mac-
donald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Handbook of
physical education (pp. 242–261). London:
Sage.
Siedentop, D. (2007). Introduction to physical edu-
cation, fitness, and sport (6th ed). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Siedentop, D., Hastie, P., & van der Mars, H.
(2004). Complete guide to sport education.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Sportime. (2007). SPARK [On-line]. Available:
http://www.sparkpe.org
Taggart, A., Medland, C., & Alexander, K. (1995).
“Goodbye superteacher!” Teaching sport
education in the primary school. ACHPER
Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 42(4), 16–18.
Teaching Games for Understanding Task Force.
(2007). Teaching games for understanding [On-
line]. Available: http://www.tgfu.org/index.
htm
University of Maryland, Department of Kinesi-
ology. (2007). Be Active Kids! [On-line]. Avail-
able: http://www.hhp.umd.edu/BeActive
Kids
Wallhead, T., & O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Sport edu-
cation: Physical education for the new mil-
lennium? Physical Education and Sport Peda-
gogy, 10, 181–210.
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:23:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions