A National PE Curriculum Model or a Program Framework - Research Paper Example

 Sports education tends to occupy an important but different position in the academic literature on education and pedagogy. This could be attributed to the content of the subject as well as the attitude of students towards it. As the name of the subject implies, the content involves exposure to various types of sports and fitness in an effort to help students learn from the experience. It is set apart from other academic subjects in the sense that students are immersed into various types of physical activities throughout the year. The traditional form of instruction involves a combination of instructional and experiential approach throughout the school year. Helping students to make decisions with respect to the kind of physical activity they will take in the course of their lives is recognized as the overarching objective (Bulger, Mohr and Rairigh 2007, p. 4). This is quite a general goal and this serves as one of several issues that prompt the call for new approaches to physical education. Additionally, there is the fact that students have participatory issues, with reports finding uneven level of engagement (Burrows, Macdonald & Wright, 2013, p. 64). There are studies, for instance, that found how girls tend to avoid physical education at all cost (Hastie, 2003; Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). The Sport Education in Physical Education Program (SEPEP) is one of the programs that supposedly answer the challenges of not only teaching physical education but also with respect to the problem of participation issues and learning outcomes. SEPEP is distinguished from any other physical education programs mainly by its focus on the staging of a sports tournament. Throughout the program, the students organize and manage the sporting competition. It is expected that they would learn about sports effectively at the same time gain practical and theoretical insights with respect to the roles and dynamics of sports in real life. In this vein, one also recalls the main characteristic and goal of the authentic model, which is to teach sports by creating an authentic setting and experience for learners. Particularly, there is the emphasis on the diversity of roles. The authentic model makes sure that students do not merely participate as players but also take the role as referee, score keepers, record takers, performance reporters, coach and team managers. The main difference, however, is that the SEPEP framework is broader for the students with the added responsibility of having to organize the sporting event itself. This is particularly important especially when one takes into account a recognized theory that, in order for physical education to be effective – that it exerts a meaningful impact to the students’ life - it must be taught within the social context as enacted in the community (Burrows, Macdonald & Wright, p. 64). The idea is that students are in a better position to learn concepts such as teamwork, fitness and fair play, among others. The SEPEP as teaching framework is an interesting model. It entails a different approach with respect to the teacher and the students; roles. There is a radical shift away from traditional PE instruction in the sense that it lets the students explore and experience on their own with the teacher guiding and helping them along the way. This is not unlike the experiential learning for academic subjects wherein students are allowed a degree of independence to learn by themselves by exploring on their own and interacting with others. This context as applied in the SEPEP program is the most important advantage of the model. There is the expectation of in-depth learning about sports and fitness. In addition there is a far more diversity in terms of roles. These two elements address critical issues that hinder PE instruction and learning outcomes. By experiencing and holding sports activities as they are staged in real life, the students are expected to gain better understanding on concepts such as cooperation and fair play. This is important because physical education is not only about learning game play and tactics. Hastie explained, for instance, that students also need to better understand and learn about game situations, knowledge of the rules, and skills such as leadership and the ability to teach others (p. 24). He called it as being truly literate about sports. The diversity of roles that comes with the added responsibility of having to stage a sporting competition ensures better participation and investment on the part of the students. This is important especially in engaging low-skill students and girls to participate. It appears that the SEPEP program allow for these marginalize PE learners to feel that they have a meaningful contribution either to the game or the sporting event, which could lead to a better enthusiasm and engagement. These, in turn, could lead to an increased learning opportunity in terms of the improvement of both skills and knowledge about sports. The empirical evidence to support this may be found in several studies that investigated improved performance in Sports Education model, which observed the same diversity of roles played during learning activities. For example, while there was no significant change with respect to game play performance and skill improvement in comparison with the traditional model of instruction, students report that they understand the sports better, leading to the ability make correct decisions (Hastie et al., 2011, p. 120). The SEPEP is not part of the Australian PE curriculum. However, it could prove to be an invaluable component within a national PE curriculum model or a program framework. It is both a learning and motivational platform that could complement the main program as its extension. As Pill (2008) cited several scholarly work and expert positions, it can provide inclusive and educationally purposeful movement experiences (p. 23). An improvement that I could think of would have to be in the area of assessment. This aspect is quite challenging given the diversity and scope of activities and roles. Understandably, there is still a dearth of information as to how a system or mechanism of evaluation could be developed. My position is that a viable assessment strategy, one that could be standardized, should be developed in order for SEPEP to be considered a legitimate PE program. References Bulger, S., Mohr, D., and Rairigh, R. (2007). Sport Education Seasons. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Burrows, L., Macdonald, D. and and Wright, J. (2013). Critical Inquiry and Problem Solving in Physical Education: Working with Students in Schools. New York: Routledge. Hastie, P. (1998). Applied Benefits of the Sports Education Model. JOPERD, 69(4), 24-26. Hastie, P.A. (2003). Sport education. In A. Laker (ed.) The future of physical education: building a new pedagogy (pp. 121-135). New York: Routledge. Hastie, P., Martinez de Ojeda, D. and Luquin, A.C. (2011). A review of the research on sport education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(2), 103-132. Pill, S. (2008). A teachers' perceptions of the sport education model as an alternative for upper primary school physical education. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 55(2/3), 23-29. Sidentop, D. and Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Read More