This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]

On: 08 January 2015, At: 09:10

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quest
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20

Physical Education: A Professional Field

a a
James O'Hanlon & Thomas Wandzilak
a
University of Nebraska , Lincoln
Published online: 16 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: James O'Hanlon & Thomas Wandzilak (1980) Physical Education: A Professional Field, Quest, 32:1, 52-59, DOI:
10.1080/00336297.1980.10483696

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1980.10483696

 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 09:10 08 January 2015

publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 QUEST, 1980,32(1),52-59

Physica Education:
A Professional Field
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 09:10 08 January 2015

JAMES O'HANLON AND THOMAS WANDZILAK

Considerable effort has been expended toward the development of a

discipline of physical education. The nature of physical education,
however, reveals that it is more likely a professional field than a
discipline. What is required is a means to draw from the several
contributing disciplines and subdisciplines information needed to
improve the practice of physical education. A model is described
which centers on "disciplined study in physical education" in which
the integration and synthesis work necessary to produce a theory-
practice link is undertaken.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s performances" (p. 14).The domain

considerable attention has been
given in physical education to pro-
ducing some kind of academic dis-
cipline t o serve as a theoretical
foundation for the field. This work
was given special impetus by the
paper"Physica1 Education: An Aca-
demic Discipline" which Franklin
Henry wrote in 1964, espousing
the concept of a discipline of physi-
cal education. Henry reiterated his
theme in 1978 stating that this
discipline consists of "such diverse
fields a s anatomy, physics and
physiology, cultural anthropology,
history and sociology, as well as
psychology. . . . focus[edl . . . on
the study of the human as a n
individual, engaging in . . . motor
About the Authors
James O'Hanlon and Thomas Wandzilak
are with the School of Health, Physical
Education and Recreation at the University
of Nebraska, Lincoln.
of the discivline can thus be identi-
fied, according t o Henry, the need
being for the further development
of its scholarly ~ r o c e d u r e sand
-
methodologies.
The movement t o develop a dis-
cipline of physical education has
been grounded in part in a n effort
t o provide greater clarity of pur-
pose and a conceptual structure for
the field. Basic to this work also has
been a desire t o produce a n im-
proved research base for physical
education theory as well as means
for verifying practices in the field.
Others support the development
of a discipline for its own sake, i.e.,
for the knowledge it will generate.
Nature of the Discipline
Movement
During this period there have
been two important thrusts in the
efforts of physical educators to
 PHYSICAL EDUCATION
develop a discipline. One has been
the identification and development
of various "subdisciplines." Under-
lying the subdiscipline approach is
the intention of building a bridge
between education and
established academic disciplines
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 09:10 08 January 2015
through the development of sub o r
specialized areas of such disciplines.
Thus exercise physiology is a sub-
discipline derived from physiology,
sociology of sport from sociology,
and motor learning and sport psy-
chology from psychology, etc. This
approach makes it possible to bring
the methodologies of the existing
disciplines to bear on physical edu-
cation questions. Some advocating
this approach suggest that after
these subdisciplines are well devel-
oped it will be possible to combine
them to form a single discipline of
physical education. How that is to
be done is not now clear (Ross,
1978).
Considerable actively has been
conducted in the subdisciplines.
Graduate education in particular
has embraced the subdiscipline
approach. Siedentop (1972) has
pointed out that "many of the very
brightest young physical educators
. . . are pursuing research and
scholarly topics that develop from
the [sub] discipline model. . . . Most
of these young scholars see them-
selves as discipline oriented" (pp.
66-67).
The second major thrust in the
discipline movement has been work
toward forming a discipline around
the "human movement" concept.
The academic study of human
movement, according to Renshaw
(1973), involves "the disinterested
objective pursuit of the physical
sciences, human sciences and phi-
losophy with the intention of pro-
viding a theoretical illumination of
53
the heterogeneous forms of human
movement" (p. 82). Brown (1967)
has presented a model for the study
of human movement and the relat-
ing of that study to physical educa-
tion in "The Structure of Knowl-
edge of Physical Education." She
has indicated that the human move-
ment concept is an appropriate base
for a discipline because it is "empir-
ically conceived" (p. 53). Human
movement is defined here as "the
study of movement interactions
between man and his environment"
(p. 53).
Perhaps the major attraction of
human movement as the basis for a
physical education discipline is that
it focuses on those aspects of phys-
ical education which are unique to
it and thus not part of any existing
discipline. In recognition of this,
some university departments of
physical education have been re-
named "Department of Kinesiol-
ogy" to indicate emphasis on the
academic discipline of human move-
ment.
Analysis of the discipline move-
ment reveals that it has produced
for physical education "higher levels
of scholarship, development of new
and more sophisticated research
tools and measuring devices, in-
creased rigor, and expansion of
horizons" (Ross, 1978, p. 10). It
appears clear, however, that many
of those associated with this move-
ment have tended to move away
from physical education concerns.
Scholars working in the subdisci-
plines have aligned themselves
more and more with the disciplines
from which these subareas are
drawn. Those involved in human
movement studies have developed
interests in areas of movement not
important to physical education
(e.g., the relation of the human
 54 O'HANLON A N D WANDZILAK
being to the machine). As a result,
physical education questions have
been given less attention.
The most unfortunate outcome
of the discipline movement has
been the development .of an in-
creasing discipline-profession con-
frontation. Zeigler (1977) has
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 09:10 08 January 2015
pointed out the detrimental effects
of the "battle between those who
feel that the field's mission is to
prepare physical education teach-
ers and sports coaches primarily
for the secondary level and those
who are saying, 'How can we have
a true profession (discipline?) un-
less we prepare scholars and re-
searchers in sufficient quantity to
give us a body of knowledge on
which to base our efforts?"'(p. 54).
Bressan (1979)has gone so far as to
forecast the possible demise of the
profession as a result of this con-
frontation. Locke (1977) has also
addressed the profession-discipline
schism, reaching similar conclu-
sions. He has suggested that "we
now must train a new generation
of professionals who can ask that
perennial question, What is the
practical application of your re-
search?" (p. 37). Clearly, a healthy
theory-practice link between "dis-
ciplinarians" and "practitioners"
does not exist; instead the two
seem to be growing apart.
The effects of the failure to de-
velop this link can be seen in physi-
cal education programs in schools.
During the 1960s almost all other
fields commonly taught in elemen-
tary and secondary schools experi-
enced considerable innovation in
goals, content, and instructional
methodology which were of an
extent to require teacher re-educa-
tion. Developments in physical ed-
ucation programs during the same
period were minor in comparison
(Goodlad, 1966).
Teacher education seems to b
the place where the failure to relat
the discipline movement and prac
tice is particularly evident. Mos
teacher education programs toda
include subdiscipline-type course
teaching-oriented courses (i.e
methods), and activitylsports ski
development courses. Although o
the surface such a variety ma
seem to be desirable, the curricu
lum is generally without articula
tion or unifying rationale. In par
ticular, there are no planned rela
tionships among learnings in th
various subdisciplines nor are ther
any between them and what
included about teaching meth
odology. Students are expected t
pull together what they are learn
ing into a meaningful whole eve
though the college faculty has no
done this in designing the teache
education program.
Whether the concept of a physi
cal education discipline is a viabl
one can be questioned. The natur
of the problems and concerns i
physical education are such tha
generally several disciplines mus
be drawn on to deal with them
effectively. For example, question
concerning programming in th
youth sports area must be based o
findings from physiology, socio
ogy, psychology, and growth an
development as a minimum. Thu
the field does not have a singl
clearly distinguishable set of rules
standards, procedures, and meth
ods through which scholars attemp
to create knowledge, a commonl
held criterion for a discipline (Nixon
1967). It therefore seems mor
fruitful to view the various area
included in the discipline movemen
a s "contributing disciplines an
subdisciplines" to physical educa
 PHYSICAL f f DUCATION
tion rather than as a potential dis-
cipline of physical education. This
concept will focus on the need for
linkages between disciplinary schol-
arship and practices of the field.
Physical Education
is a Professional Field
Regardless of what happens in
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 09:10 08 January 2015
the develovment of a discipline of
physical education, by whatever
name, there will always remain a n
educational field of vhvsical educa-
1 ,
tion. The primary reason for this is
that people will continue t o engage
in and learn about movement activ-
ities for pleasure, self-fulfillment,
and spar;. The hLman experience
which has come to be represented
in that which is called ohvsical .
,.
education does exist and will con-
tinue t o be significant in people's
lives. Because people of all ages will
continue to "do" vhvsical educa-
L ,
tion, there will be a need for practi-
tionersleducators who will help
them do it.
Unfortunately, the practice of
physical education today suffers
from a lack of clarity of purpose,
adequate ties with theory, and use
of evaluation to bring about im-
provements. When Locke (1977)
stated that "there are almost n o
documented and unambiguous in-
stances of research directly causing
any persistent change in the public
school gymnasium" (p. 41) and
I,
our researchers are answering
questions teachers have not yet
asked" (p. 43), he described the
crux of the problem. He, however,
gave no direction concerning what
can be done to unify the work of
the researcher and teacher. Neither
will the present attempts to recast
physical education as a discipline,
especially as they follow Henry's
55
(1964) idea that the discipline can
prosper "without any demonstra-
tion or requirement of practical
application" (p. 32), contribute to
meeting this need.
What is required a t this point is
the recognition of the importance
of developing physical education as
a professional field. The concept of
the professional field and the sig-
nificance of its endeavors have long
been established. As far back as
1915, Flexner described the char-
acteristics basic t o professional
practice. Steinhaus's (1967) defini-
tion of a profession is particularly
relevant t o physical education: "A
profession is the practice of an art
that utilizes many disciplines in
serving mankind" (p. 69). The goal
of physical educators today should
be to attain professional stature
for their field. To accomplish this
requires bringing together theory
and practice to generate solutions
to common problems and the elim-
ination of any disciplinarian-prac-
titioner dichotomy. (Tyler (1967)
has described what needs t o be
done in this manner: "If teaching is
to become a profession, educators
must be able to exvlain and defend
their professional positions on the
important questions of ends and
means in education. This can be
accomplished only by systematically
studying the problems of ends and
means by appropriate techniques"
(p. 333).
A Model for Professional Practice
If physical education is t o become
a professional field it must operate
from a sound theoretical base con-
sisting of unifying principles, con-
cepts, and guidelines which have
been verified through research and
evaluation. The question is often
 56 O'HANLON A N D WANDZILAK

asked why research has not been
linked with practice in physical ed-
ucation. Perhaps the explanation is
that no one has been specifically
designated and ~ r e ~ a r efor
d that
process for it has been falsely as-
sumed to take place without special
attention. What is needed is a model
which establishes a n area of en-
deavor in which the relating of
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 09:10 08 January 2015
activities. Those working in the
educational practice arena are
responsible to identify questions,
problems, etc., for which they,
as practitioners, need answers;
to provide observational evalu-
ations ("conventional wisdom")
of what works in practice; to
apply the paradigms which they
are provided to deal with their

theory and practice can take place.
Figure 1presents such a model.
Three stages of operation are
required to establish the means for
applying that which is learned from
the contributing disciplines to the
practice of physical education and
for focusing scholarly effort on the
problems of the field:
1. Educational practice of ~ h ~ s i c educa-
al
tion. This is carried out in schools
and other settings where people
learn and do physical education
questions, problems, etc.; and
t o participate in t h e formal
evaluation of these paradigms.
2 . Contributing disciplines. Included
here are the subdisciplines and
human movement studies pre-
viously described in which vari-
ous forms of scientific method
are used to generate and test
hypotheses important to the
resolution of physical education
questions. Most of this work is
carried out by university faculty.
3. D i ~ c i ~ l i n e d s f uofd yphysical education.

in Physical Education
(integration, synthesis)

Figure 1. A model for the improvement of physical education practice.

 PHYSICAL EDUCATION
This is basically the "direction
center" for the work of relating
theory t o practice. It is in this
stage that the integration of
knowledge takes place that al-
lows for a linkage of theory and
practice. To work in this stage
requires a scholar with a sound
knowledge of the practice of the
field and the nature of the con-
tributing disciplines. Unfor-
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 09:10 08 January 2015
tunately, little scholarly work
of the nature called for has been
done, a t least partly because
those trained as scholars have
been so occupied with working
in Stage 2.
Essential to disciplined study is
the identification of a philosophy
or focus of physical education t o
provide direction for the work in
that stage. Although any focus
adopted must be viewed as"emerg-
ing," that is, continually open to
test and modification as the result
of new information and concep-
tualization, it is essential that it be
stated as clearly and definitively as
possible for it t o serve as a guide.
The disciplined study scholar must
take the lead in the establishment
of a focus. In doing so, however,
reliance must be placed on the
views of practitioners and students,
data about students' needs and
learning capabilities, information
about societal needs, and findings
from the contributing disciplines.
Focus construction thus provides
an opportunity for interaction be-
tween disciplined study scholars
and both practitioners and those
working in the contributing disci-
plines.
A second major responsibility of
those working in the disciplined
study stage is to formulate ques-
tions essential to the practice of
57
physical education in a manner
that they can be researched either
by drawing from existing knowl-
edge in the contributing disciplines
and conventional wisdom or by
conducting new studies specifically
aimed a t them. The focus provides
the basis for screening possible
questions for disciplined study.
Questions such as "At what age is
it most effective to introduce an
individual to aerobic exercises t o
produce physical skill, physical
prowess, and the development and
use of a healthy life style?" and
"What kinds of movement experi-
ences a r e most appropriate for
senior citizens?" can solicit research
information of direct use t o uracti-
tioners. For those questions for
which existing information is not
adequate, disciplined study schol-
ars will work to encourage those in
the contributing disciplines to di-
rect their research to help answer
them. These individuals will also
be responsible for aiding students
preparing to be physical educators
in the relating of knowledge de-
rived from Stage 2 to the practice
of physical education.
After the appropriate research
and evaluation information relative
to any question has been assembled,
the next task is that of integration
and synthesis of that information.
Bloom (1956)suggests that a proper
"goodness of fit" integration or
synthesis has been accomplished
when the purpose and nature of
the problem are properly inter-
preted, all important elements are
dealt with. irrelevant or inaccurate
elements are eliminated, basic and
subordinate elements are properly
identified and related, and appro-
priate standards for proof have
been applied. The process of syn-
thesis is a most challenging one,
 58 O'HANLON A N D WANDZILAK
calling for both analytical and crea-
tive thought. Bloom (1956) de-
scribes it as "the process of work-
ing with elements, parts, etc., and
combining them in such a way as t o
constitute a pattern o r structure
not clearly there before. Generally
this linvolvesl a recombination of
parts of previous experience with
new material, reconstructed into a
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 09:10 08 January 2015
new and more or less well-inte-
grated whole" (p. 152).
The integration and synthesis
work leads directlv to the devel-
opment of paradigms for imple-
mentation. The ~ a r a d i g mis an ed-
ucational ~ l a for
n dealing with the
practitioner's question or problem.
It provides the practitioner with
specific direction as to what to do,
direction which is based on clearlv
identified research evidence. Again-
the focus provides guidance in the
development of paradigms by iden-
tifying what is desirable learning
and how it can best be achieved. It
is evident that those working a s
disciplined study scholars must
have-close ties to practitioners in
the field if they are to be able to
develop paradigms which can be
successfully applied. Undoubtedly,
it will be necessary to establish a
set of rules for the development of
paradigms.
The final step in linking theory
and practice is the testing of the
paradigms. This must be done in
the field where physical education
takes lace. Data must be gathered
using accepted principles of evalu-
-
ation. That which is learned throunh
this process not only enables im-
provement in practice b u t also
provides additional tests of theory.
Conclusion
As far as the discipline movement
in physical education is based on a
goal of providing verified princi-
ples, concepts, and guidelines, as
well as methods for generating
such knowledge which can improve
practice in physical education, it is
most needed. Certainly, physical
educators in the past have suffered
from a lack of theory t o guide their
endeavors. If, however, the inten-
tion is to develop a discipline which
is separate from and not responsi-
ble to the field of physical educa-
tion, then this movement is mis-
guided. It must be understood that
the primary justification for disci-
plinary study related to physical
education is to provide the neces-
sary knowledge base for the prac-
tice of the field. Those who do not
accept this end to their work are
perhaps best considered not to be
physical educators any longer (and
physical educators should resist
their converting physical education
resources to other purposes as has
apparently happened in some uni-
versities). Physical education is
clearly oriented towards being a
professional field, and discipline-
type work supportive of it should
always be based on that premise.
Particularly needed today are schol-
ars who will give their attention to
the relating of theory and practice
in physical education so that physi-
cal education can progress toward
becoming a professional field.
REFERENCES
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.).Tnxonomy of educntionnl objec-
tives handbook I: Cognitivedomain. New York:
McKay, 1956.
Bressan, E.S. 2001: The profession is dead-
Was it murder o r suicide? Quest, 1979,
31, 77-82.
Brown, C. T h e structure of knowledge of
physical education. Quest, 1967,9,53-67.
Flexner, A. Is social work a profession?
School and Society, 1915, 1, 901-911.
 PHYSICAL EDUCATION
Goodlad, J.I. The changing school curriculum.
New York: The Fund for the Advance-
ment of Education, 1966.
Henry, F.M. Physical education: An aca-
demic discipline. Journal of Health, Physical
Education and Recreation, 1964, 35(7), 32-
33; 69.
Henry, F.M. The academic discipline of
physical education. Quest, 1978,29,13-29.
Locke, L.F. From research and the disciplines
t o practice and the profession: One more
time. Proceedings ofthe N C P E A M / N A P E C W
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 09:10 08 January 2015
National Conference, 1977, 34-45.
Nixon, J.E. The criteria of a discipline. Quest,
1967, 9, 42-48.
Renshaw, P. The nature of human move-
ment studies and its relationship with
59
physical education. Q u e s t , 1973, 20,
79-86.
Ross, S. Physical education: A pre-discipline
in search of a paradigm. International Jour-
nal of Physical Education, 1978,15(2), 9-14.
Siedentop, D. Physical education: Introductory
analysis. Dubuque, Ia.: Brown, 1972.
Steinhaus, A. The discipline underlying a
profession. Quest, 1967, 9, 68-72.
Tyler, L.L. Is teaching a profession? In H.
Full (Ed.), Controversy in American education.
New York: Macmillan, 1967.
Zeigler, E.F. Philosophical perspective o n
the future of physical education and
sport. In R. Welsh (Ed.), Physical education:
A view toward thefuture. S t . Louis: Mosby,
1977.