Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86, 30–39, 2015 Copyright q SHAPE America ISSN 0270-1367 print/ISSN 2168-3824 online DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2014.980939

A Systematic Review of Public Health-Aligned Recommendations for Preparing Physical Education Teacher Candidates Collin A. Webster University of South Carolina

Liana Webster Texas A&M University –Corpus Christi

Laura Russ Georgia Regents University

Sergio Molina, Heesu Lee, and Jason Cribbs University of South Carolina

Purpose: Since Sallis and McKenzie’s seminal article in 1991 outlining physical education’s role in public health, increased attention has been given to promoting youth physical activity in schools. The present study systematically reviewed the literature from 1991 to 2013 to identify recommendations for the preparation of physical education teacher candidates (PETCs) from a public health perspective. Method: Eight online databases (e.g., Educational Resources Information Center, Google Scholar) served as data sources for the study. Multiple combinations of key terms (e.g., physical education teacher education [PETE], public health, health-oriented) were used to identify relevant literature meeting search criteria. A content analysis was used to identify 47 distinct recommendations from 25 included articles and to synthesize these recommendations into major areas of focus. Results: Three major areas of focus were identified: (a) candidate profile (e.g., PETCs should be physically active and fit role models), (b) candidate knowledge (e.g., PETCs should know about behavior change theories), and (c) candidate skills (e.g., PETCs should be able to advocate for school-based physical activity). Conclusion: This review can serve as a blueprint for PETE programs seeking to align professional preparation with public health goals. Keywords: physical activity promotion, physical education teacher education, preservice teachers, professional preparation

In 1991, the landmark publication of an article by James Sallis and Thomas McKenzie in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, titled “Physical Education’s Role in Public Health,” galvanized a paradigm shift in the field. This

Submitted December 22, 2013; accepted May 20, 2014. Correspondence should be addressed to Collin A. Webster, Department of Physical Education and Athletic Training, University of South Carolina, 1400 Wheat Street, 218-J, Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail: collin.iconoclast@ gmail.com

shift, spurred by the obesity epidemic and substantial evidence associating obesity with physical inactivity, has been defined by an increased focus on children’s physical activity as a targeted outcome in schools (Sallis et al., 2012). Sallis and McKenzie argued that school physical education should aim to achieve two public health goals: (a) preparing youth for an active adulthood, and (b) providing youth with physical activity opportunities that help to establish habitual, health-enhancing physical activity behavior. To prepare youth for an active adulthood, the authors

PREPARING PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER CANDIDATES

suggested that “a health-oriented physical education program that teaches carryover activities” would be more effective than a “sports-oriented physical education program” (p. 131). The authors recommended programs to emphasize generalizable movement skills and planning skills that both youth and adults can employ to engage in, and sustain, physically active behavior. To provide physical activity opportunities, the authors argued that physical education classes should include moderate- to vigorousintensity activities with an emphasis on moderate-intensity activities, reasoning that such activities are appropriate for children and adults of all ages and are more likely to be maintained than vigorous activities. However, Sallis and McKenzie also acknowledged that the evidence base for health-oriented physical education was, at that time, slim and that research was still needed to address numerous questions about the effectiveness and implications of aligning physical education with public health goals. Since 1991, researchers have struggled to generate evidence confirming physical education’s ability to achieve the first goal of health-oriented physical education (preparing youth for a lifetime of physical activity; Sallis et al., 2012). Nevertheless, SHAPE America – Society for Health and Physical Educators (National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE], 2004) adopted this goal for K – 12 physical education programs. The evidence base for the second goal (providing opportunities for inclass physical activity) has grown considerably (Sallis et al., 2012). Specifically, school-based interventions have shown that health-oriented physical education programs can significantly increase students’ moderate-to-vigorous physical activity during physical education classes, while also ensuring other targeted physical education learning goals (e.g., fitness, sports skills) are met (e.g., McKenzie et al., 1996; McKenzie, Sallis, & Rosengard, 2009; Sallis et al., 1997). Several of these programs have been widely disseminated in schools across many states (Owen, Glanz, Sallis, & Kelder, 2006). In tandem with these research results, leading organizations with an interest in children and adolescents’ health have commonly advocated for daily physical education that provides students with high levels of physical activity (American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Council on School Health, 2006; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1997, 2010; Koplan, Liverman, & Kraak, 2005; Partnership for Prevention, 2008; Pate et al., 2006; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000, 2008). Furthermore, both federal and state governments have called for increasing physical activity minutes in physical education classes (Sallis et al., 2012). Concurrent with the growing professional, empirical, and political support for health-oriented physical education (alternatively referred to as health-related, health-enhancing, or health-optimizing physical education), the conceptual basis and recommendations attached to the role of

31

schools in public health have evolved. Although a key emphasis continues to be the role of physical education in school-based physical activity promotion, increasing attention has turned to how schools can extend physical activity opportunities beyond the physical education classroom. The perspectives and concepts shaping a schoolwide framework for physical activity promotion have grown to become embodied within the comprehensive school physical activity program (CSPAP; American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance [AAHPERD], 2013; CDC, 2013; NASPE, 2008a) model, which includes five components: physical education, physical activity during school, physical activity before and after school, staff involvement, and family and community engagement. At the core of the CSPAP model are the ideas that multiple professionals, stakeholders, and programs within and surrounding a school share the responsibility for promoting youth physical activity and that physical education should play the role of central protagonist in schoolwide promotion efforts. Not surprisingly, the increasing focus on schoolwide physical activity promotion, and particularly the idea that physical education should be the cornerstone of a CSPAP, has fueled an emerging literature base dedicated to forwarding recommendations and strategies for expanding the role of physical education teachers in schools. For example, several recent publications outline the roles and responsibilities of a school physical activity director, conceptualized as a physical education teacher who leads schoolwide efforts to promote physical activity (Beighle, Erwin, Castelli, & Ernst, 2009; Carson, 2012; Heidorn & Centeio, 2012). As the physical education field continues to consider its role in helping to meet public health goals and as the literature reconceptualizing the role of physical education teachers unfolds accordingly, it is becoming increasingly important to examine the implications of these developments from a teacher preparation perspective. In proposing that physical education take on the challenge of aligning itself with a public health agenda, Sallis and McKenzie (1991) were prescient in asking, “What changes in the training of physical educators will be needed?” (p. 134). To date, little research has investigated what aligning physical education with public health goals might mean for the way teacher education programs should train preservice physical education teachers, referred to as physical education teacher candidates (PETCs) in the National Standards for Initial Physical Education Teacher Education (NASPE, 2008b). Such research would provide a “blueprint” for physical education teacher education (PETE) programs wanting to design and implement a public healthaligned curriculum. This research would also help to develop questions for further research, such as studies comparing the effectiveness of different proposed teacher training strategies on PETCs’ physical activity promotion competencies.

32

C. A. WEBSTER ET AL.

The purpose of the present study was to examine, via a systematic review, the recommendations authors have forwarded for preparing PETCs that are consistent with Sallis and McKenzie’s (1991) proposal for the role of physical education in public health and the ensuing literature that has defined physical education’s role in youth physical activity promotion. Underpinning this purpose was the research question, “What recommendations have been outlined for teacher education in the published literature since 1991 that are in line with preparing PETCs for health-oriented physical education, and more broadly, schoolwide/community-wide physical activity promotion?”

METHODS Approach to Systematic Review A systemic review “attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question” (Liberati et al., 2009, p. W-65). Systematic reviews are generally defined by four key characteristics: (a) clearly stated objectives with explicit and reproducible methodology, (b) a systematic search to identify all eligible literature for the review, (c) an assessment of the validity of research findings from individual studies, and (d) a systematic presentation and synthesis of the research findings (Liberati et al., 2009). Although the present study focused on recommendations as opposed to research findings, the aforementioned defining characteristics (with the exception of validity assessment) are applicable to the approach taken in this study to identify, screen, select, and analyze the literature. Specifically, the study adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for conducting systematic reviews (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009) where appropriate. These guidelines were developed to increase transparency in reporting the protocols and procedures used when conducting systematic reviews. Contained within the guidelines are a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The guidelines cover all possible sections of a report (title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and funding), while the four phases in the flow diagram include identification (identifying all possible records), screening (assessing eligible records by title or abstract), eligibility (assessing eligible articles by full-text articles), and included (qualitatively/quantitatively synthesizing included articles). Search Protocol and Identification A literature search to identify all published literature, in English, from January 1, 1991, up to and including March 31, 2013, that contained public health-aligned recommendations for preparing PETCs was conducted using online databases.

Online databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Education Research Complete, Educational Resources Information Center, Academic Search Complete, Sport Discus, Physical Education Index, and Google Scholar. Search items initially included multiple combinations of the terms (with scaffolding) “physical education teacher education,” preservice, teacher preparation,” “professional preparation,” “physical education,” “public health,” “healthrelated,” “health-oriented,” “physical activity,” “comprehensive school physical activity,” “recommendations,” and “best practices.” Additional search items were then used based on key terms identified in the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the records yielded from the initial search. These additional search items included “health-optimizing,” “health-enhancing,” “coordinated school health,” and “physical activity professionals.” In total, 4,322 records were identified for the review. All duplicates were then removed, resulting in 3,300 records for screening. Eligibility and Screening The identified records were included in the review if they (a) were published in the specified date range, (b) were published in English, (c) were journal publications, (d) focused on the United States, and (e) contained recommendations for teacher education with respect to preparing PETCs to increase school-/community-based physical activity and/or promote youth’s lifelong physical activity participation. Unpublished dissertations, conference proceedings, and books were excluded from the search. One rationale behind this decision was that unpublished work may not have received the same level of rigorous peer review as published articles. The authors of this article felt that circumscribing the review to published work would help to ensure the identified recommendations had received a similar level of screening before appearing in print. Concerning books, the screening process that was needed to determine whether all inclusion criteria were met did not seem like a feasible task given the abundance of books on the market that target physical education, physical activity, and public health that could contain relevant information for this review. Screening consisted of reading the titles and/or abstracts of all records to determine if the records met all inclusion criteria. This process led to 2,848 records being excluded from further review. Abstracts of the remaining 452 records did not contain enough information to determine whether all inclusion criteria were met. Therefore, full-text articles for these records were obtained, resulting in 25 articles that were retained for analysis (see Table 1). The task of screening was divided among the six authors. Each author independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full-text articles against the inclusion criteria. During the screening process, all authors regularly met as a team to crosscheck samples of our work and discuss records for which one or more of us were “on the fence” about

PREPARING PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER CANDIDATES TABLE 1 Included Articles (Listed Alphabetically) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Ayers & Martinez (2007) Beaulieu, Butterfield, Mason, & Loovis (2012) Beighle, Erwin, Castelli, & Ernst (2009) Bulger & Housner (2009) Bulger, Housner, & Lee (2008) Bulger, Mohr, Carson, & Wiegand (2001) Carson (2012) Cone (2004) Corbin (2002) Corbin & McKenzie (2008) Fardy, Azzollini, & Herman (2004) Graber (2012) Heidorn & Centeio (2012) Kulinna, Brusseau, Ferry, & Cothran (2010) LaVine & Cortney (2006) Lund (2010) McKenzie (2007) McKenzie & Kahan (2004) Melville (2009) Overdorf (2005) Pangrazi (2010) Sallis et al. (2012) Trost (2004) Zeigler (2003)

including in the review. However, there were very few instances of uncertainty, as the inclusion criteria were straightforward and usually easy to identify. Analysis of Recommendations A content analysis was used to synthesize the public healthaligned recommendations for teacher education contained in the articles included for the review. The six authors independently searched for, distilled, and listed (by article) relevant recommendations (i.e., those pertaining to the preparation of PETCs in line with the public health goals of increasing/promoting physical activity), and then crosschecked samples of each other’s work to ensure all recommendations had been identified and remove any irrelevant recommendations. Next, the lists were pooled together to create a comprehensive list of recommendations. The six authors examined the list for redundancies and similarities and reduced the list to 47 distinct recommendations. Table 2 displays this final list of recommendations and identifies the articles from which each recommendation was drawn. The recommendations in the final list were then compared and categorized thematically into three major areas of focus (see Table 2).

RESULTS The three major areas of focus thematically represented in the final list of recommendations were labeled (a) candidate profile, (b) candidate knowledge, and (c) candidate skills,

33

although several recommendations combined focuses on knowledge and skills. Descriptions of each area of focus are provided in the following subsections. Candidate Profile Several of the recommendations focused on characterizing the type of candidates that teacher education programs should recruit and graduate. Melville (2009) stressed that PETCs are characterized in part by the dispositions they bring to their teacher education programs. He recommended using a flyer and a recruitment form to increase potential candidates’ awareness of a program’s orientation toward broad wellness goals and to help programs make decisions about who to admit into the program. He also recommended that NASPE (now part of SHAPE America) create a video to advertise physical education as a career choice to high school, community college, and college/university students, thereby expanding the reach of messages about the various roles and responsibilities of physical education teachers in both education and public health. Other authors recommended titles and certifications that physical education teachers should adopt to represent a broader professional training in physical activity and health promotion beyond solely teaching school physical education (Beighle et al., 2009; Bulger & Housner, 2009; Carson, 2012; Heidorn & Centeio, 2012; McKenzie & Kahan, 2004; Trost, 2004; Zeigler, 2003). For example, Zeigler (2003) argues for the title of “physical activity educators”; Bulger and Housner (2009) suggest physical education teachers become “sport, physical activity, and fitness education specialists”; and Beighle et al. (2009), Carson (2012), and Heidorn and Centeio (2012) advocate for the extension of physical education teachers into “directors of physical activity.” In many cases, these titles would be supported with relevant certifications. Bulger and Housner, for instance, recommend numerous certifications, such as from NASPE (now SHAPE America), the American College of Sports Medicine, the American Council on Exercise, and the National Strength Conditioning Association, and they support the idea that certification in physical education be based on children and adolescents’ developmental levels, rather than covering all grades in P –12, so that training can allow PETCs to specialize in physical activity promotion for specific groups. Another aspect of the recommendations that focused on the profile of PETCs and that was prepared in line with public health goals is candidates’ physical activity behaviors, movement competency, nutrition habits, and fitness. Melville (2009) suggested, “A system needs to be established in which physical activity, nutritional practices and physical fitness profiles are established and monitored from arrival to exit” (p. 54). Specific to expectations for PETCs to be regularly physically active, LaVine and Cortney (2006) stated,

34

C. A. WEBSTER ET AL. TABLE 2 Final List of Recommendations, Their Sources, and Their Thematic Areas of Focus (Candidates’ Profile, Knowledge, and/or Skills)

Recommendation 1. Use candidate recruitment process to ensure PETCs support broadened role expectations. 2. Train/certify PETCs to be physical activity leaders/ specialists.

3. Ensure PETCs are physically active, skillful, and/or fit role models. 4. Give PETCs knowledge related to physical inactivity and obesity. 5. Give PETCs knowledge of current trends and issues in health promotion. 6. Help PETCs understand the benefits of participation in physical activity. 7. Give PETCs knowledge related to health and fitness testing. 8. Give PETCs knowledge about how to motivate people to be physically active. 9. Orient disciplinary content toward physical activity promotion.

10. Include content on children’s behavioral, psychological, and physiological responses to exercise. 11. Give PETCs knowledge of how to develop skills that improve health. 12. Increase emphasis on sociology content related to physical activity. 13. Give PETCs knowledge of motor learning and control. 14. Give PETCs knowledge of biomechanics. 15. Give PETCs knowledge of physical growth and development related to physical activity. 16. Increase emphasis on psychology. 17. Include content on correlates of children’s physical activity. 18. Include content on ecologic models relevant to schoolwide and community physical activity promotion 19. Update content in history and philosophy of physical education to reflect shift toward public health orientation. 20. Include content in school and community health. 21. Train PETCs in nursing. 22. Train PETCs in counseling. 23. Provide PETCs with knowledge and skills related to behavior change. 24. Give PETCs fitness knowledge and fitness promotion skills. 25. Help PETCs learn to teach using key activity concepts and principles. 26. Give PETCs knowledge and skills related to management. 27. Give PETCs knowledge and skills related to curriculum (e.g., curriculum models that facilitate physical activity).

Source(s)

Thematic Area of Focus

Bulger & Housner (2009); LaVine & Cortney (2006); Melville (2009) Beighle et al. (2009); Bulger & Housner (2009); Carson (2012); Heidorn & Centeio (2012); McKenzie & Kahan (2004); Trost (2004); Zeigler (2003) LaVine & Cortney (2006); Lund (2010); McKenzie (2007); Melville (2009) Trost (2004)

Candidate Profile

Overdorf (2005); Trost (2004)

Candidate Knowledge

Beighle et al. (2009); Fardy et al. (2004); Trost (2004); Zeigler (2003) Fardy et al. (2004)

Candidate Knowledge

Beighle et al. (2009); Fardy et al. (2004); Lund (2010); Overdorf (2005) Ayers & Martinez (2007); Bulger et al. (2008); Cone (2004); Corbin & McKenzie (2008); McKenzie (2007); McKenzie & Kahan (2004) McKenzie (2007); McKenzie & Kahan (2004)

Candidate Profile

Candidate Profile Candidate Knowledge

Candidate Knowledge Candidate Knowledge Candidate Knowledge

Candidate Knowledge

Cone (2004)

Candidate Knowledge

Beaulieu et al. (2012); Zeigler (2003)

Candidate Knowledge

Zeigler (2003)

Candidate Knowledge

Zeigler (2003) Trost (2004); Zeigler (2003)

Candidate Knowledge Candidate Knowledge

Beaulieu et al. (2012) McKenzie (2007); McKenzie & Kahan (2004) McKenzie (2007); McKenzie & Kahan (2004); Pangrazi (2010)

Candidate Knowledge Candidate Knowledge

Melville (2009)

Candidate Knowledge

Melville (2009); Pangrazi (2010) Pangrazi (2010) Pangrazi (2010) Bulger et al. (2001); Corbin & McKenzie (2008); McKenzie & Kahan (2004); Trost (2004) Ayers & Martinez (2007); Bulger et al. (2001) Corbin & McKenzie (2008)

Candidate Candidate Candidate Candidate and Skills

Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge

Candidate and Skills Candidate and Skills Candidate and Skills Candidate and Skills

Knowledge

Zeigler (2003) Kulinna et al. (2010); Melville (2009); Zeigler (2003)

Candidate Knowledge

Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge

(continued)

PREPARING PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER CANDIDATES

35

TABLE 2 – (Continued) Thematic Area of Focus

Recommendation

Source(s)

28. Give PETCs knowledge and skills related to measurement and evaluation, including measurement and evaluation of physical activity/ nutrition. 29. Give PETCs knowledge and skills to promote physical activity with diverse students.

Melville (2009); Trost (2004); Zeigler (2003)

Candidate Knowledge and Skills

Beaulieu et al. (2012); Cone (2004); Fardy et al. (2004); Melville (2009); Sallis et al. (2012) McKenzie (2007); Melville (2009); Pangrazi (2010) Heidorn & Centeio (2012)

Candidate Knowledge and Skills

30. Expand focus on nutrition knowledge, instruction, and promotion. 31. Give PETCs knowledge and experience related to the CSPAP model. 32. Help PETCs learn to develop students’ motor skills. 33. Train PETCs to promote physical activity at recess. 34. Train PETCs to plan for a schoolwide physical activity program. 35. Train PETCs to monitor and evaluate schoolwide physical activity policy/program. 36. Train PETCs to design point-of-decision prompts. 37. Train PETCs to promote physical activity in academic classrooms. 38. Train PETCs to develop skills/strategies for school, home, and community advocacy for, and collaboration in, physical activity promotion.

39. Teach PETCs to develop students’ self-management skills for physical activity/diet. 40. Train PETCs to promote outside-of-school physical activity.

41. Prepare PETCs to promote school employees’ wellness. 42. Include coursework and field experiences that emphasize problem solving and critical thinking. 43. Train PETCs in physical activity and nutrition prescription. 44. Train PETCs to promote/increase physical activity in physical education classes. 45. Prepare PETCs to teach lifetime/adult-oriented physical activities. 46. Prepare PETCs for organizing, directing, and conducting before-school and/or afterschool physical activity programs 47. Provide field experiences related to schoolwide/ community-wide physical activity promotion

Overdorf (2005) Beighle et al. (2009); Melville (2009) Beighle et al. (2009); Bulger & Housner (2009); McKenzie (2007); Melville (2009) Beighle et al. (2009)

Candidate and Skills Candidate and Skills Candidate Candidate Candidate

Knowledge Knowledge Skills Skills Skills

Candidate Skills

Beighle et al. (2009) Beighle et al. (2009)

Candidate Skills Candidate Skills

Beaulieu et al. (2012); Beighle et al. (2009); Bulger & Housner (2009); Bulger et al. (2008); Carson (2012); Fardy et al. (2004); Graber (2012); Lund (2010); McKenzie (2007); McKenzie & Kahan (2004); Melville (2009); Pangrazi (2010); Trost (2004) Beighle et al. (2009); Corbin (2002); Corbin & McKenzie (2008); McKenzie (2007); Trost (2004) Beaulieu et al. (2012); Beighle et al. (2009); Bulger & Housner (2009); Corbin & McKenzie (2008); Fardy et al. (2004); Trost (2004) Beighle et al. (2009); Bulger & Housner (2009); Melville (2009) Beaulieu et al. (2012)

Candidate Skills

Candidate Skills

Candidate Skills

Candidate Skills Candidate Skills

Pangrazi (2010)

Candidate Skills

Corbin & McKenzie (2008); Sallis et al. (2012); Trost (2004) Bulger & Housner (2009); Cone (2004)

Candidate Skills Candidate Skills

Beaulieu et al. (2012); Bulger et al. (2008)

Candidate Skills

Beighle et al. (2009); Bulger et al. (2008); McKenzie & Kahan (2004)

Candidate Skills

Note. PETC ¼ physical education teacher candidate; CSPAP ¼ comprehensive school physical activity program.

Majors that are physically active understand the importance of being a physically educated person. With understanding comes the ability of these majors to identify with and assist their students in adopting a physically active lifestyle for a lifetime . . . . When PETE majors are invested in physical activity and its benefits, they are more convincing role models and better able to impact their students and their commitment to becoming physically active (p. 190).

Lund (2010) also identified movement competency as an important characteristic of PETCs who are prepared to promote physical activity: “The future teachers who graduate from our programs must be skillful . . . They are capable of doing some type of movement form, are competent enough to do all movement forms—dance, gymnastics, and games, and are role models representing our profession . . . ” (p. 319).

36

C. A. WEBSTER ET AL.

Candidate Knowledge Many of the recommendations focused on the knowledge base that teacher education programs should provide PETCs to be better prepared for public health-aligned professional roles. Some of these recommendations focused on adding perspective/content within traditional coursework for PETCs, while others focused on expanding the curriculum with new courses specific to schoolwide/community-wide physical activity promotion. For example, McKenzie and Kahan (2004) pointed out that exercise physiology courses included in most programs can provide a logical platform for infusing content geared toward physical activity: PETE programs could better serve their students by modifying traditional exercise physiology to offer content focused specifically on children’s behavioral, psychological, and physiological responses to exercise and physical activity. Additional topics should include correlates of childhood physical activity that are differentiated by age . . . and ecological models to explain physical activity behavior. (pp. 310– 311)

However, Pangrazi (2010) also recommended expanding the traditional program of study to incorporate content from fields such as nutrition, counseling, and nursing, which are not traditionally represented in PETCs’ professional preparation: Today, few children receive daily physical education and even if they did, it would not provide adequate physical activity for students . . . physical educators may be better used as physical activity promotion and healthy eating specialists. Physical education specialists might best serve their school in a manner similar to school nurses. Many school nurses teach students in group settings but also work individually with children in need. In addition, nurses do a lot of other tasks both in and out of school such as interface with parents, manage prescription medicine, and care for students who are ill. In similar fashion, the physical educator can be trained to teach group lessons, but also help prescribe activity and proper eating for students in need, promote physical activity throughout the school and neighborhood, and dialogue with parents about topics that are relevant for children at risk. (p. 330)

Similarly, Beaulieu, Butterfield, Mason, and Loovis (2012) recommended increased emphasis on sociology, psychology, and even foreign language, based on the expectation that physical activity promotion will need to be culturally relevant and extend into communities characterized by increased diversity. Despite expressing the need to build new perspectives/ content into teacher education programs, a few authors also suggested that much of the current focus in preparing PETCs should be preserved. Recommendations along these lines focused on both knowledge and skills. For example, McKenzie (2007) stated, “Meeting a public health agenda

for physical activity would require that a substantial amount of the information currently included in the PETE programs be maintained (e.g., sport and movement skill and content development)” (p. 353). Other recommendations focused on retaining content related to management (Zeigler, 2003), curriculum (Melville, 2009; Zeigler, 2003), and measurement and evaluation (Melville, 2009; Trost, 2004; Zeigler, 2003).

Candidate Skill The third major category of recommendations focused primarily on the skills candidates need to promote physical activity. The most widely recommended skill set within this category was collaboration/advocacy. According to Lund (2010), . . . all students who graduate from our programs should be advocates for their programs and have as a mission to get everyone active. We should teach students how to advocate to people of influence to promote the issues that have the greatest impact on our profession. Better yet, we should encourage them to run for political office or a school board and become a person of influence. (p. 319)

Similarly, Fardy, Azzollini, and Herman (2004) asserted: . . . teacher education must take advocacy very seriously. Physical education teacher preparation must impart the skills needed to navigate educational politics, the leadership qualities required for effective participation in professional organizations, and the skills necessary to engage community leaders and policy makers in programs as an ongoing process. Of the many groups that physical education teachers need to engage effectively, two of the most important are parents and policy makers. (p. 368)

Fardy et al. (2004) went on to provide a list of recommended advocacy skills that PETCs should learn, such as being able to verbally, and in writing, articulate the relationship between physical activity and public health, advocate that school-based physical education is the best place to provide regular exercise, and advocate the need for health-based physical education. Related to advocacy is the ability to collaborate with key stakeholders in physical activity promotion. Beaulieu et al. (2012) pointed out that “[PETCs] will need to work with community leaders to connect schools to programs and facilities in their community” (p. 15). Additionally, Bulger, Housner, and Lee (2008) suggested: There is a clear need for physical educators to move beyond their traditional role in order to meet the expanding health and wellness needs of schools and communities . . . These increased expectations include the development of staff fitness programs, after-school activity programs, family-

PREPARING PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER CANDIDATES

based interventions, and summer enrichment opportunities. In order to meet these additional demands, physical educators must be prepared to work collaboratively with other professionals in school administration, community recreation, public health, and medicine. (p. 48)

Beighle et al. (2009) recommended a number of learning experiences for PETCs to develop collaboration skills, such as working with community organizations (e.g., afterschool organizations, youth sport organizations) and working with local businesses to help organize active events (e.g., charity walks). Two other commonly recommended skill sets that are closely related to advocacy and collaboration focused on out-of-school physical activity and pedagogical skills for helping students learn to self-manage their physical activity/ diet. For example, Beighle et al. (2009) stated, “Teacher candidates need to be prepared to teach goal-setting and self-management skills that students can use to monitor their own behaviors, including physical activity levels” (p. 25), and Corbin and McKenzie (2008) suggested that “ . . . professional development classes should give future teachers the skills to . . . teach self-management skills and key activity concepts and principles, promote physical activity both in and out of schools, and collaborate with others to promote physical activity” (p. 49). Being able to help students learn to self-manage their health behaviors is also closely tied to another skill set (and knowledge base) that several authors recommended—namely, the understanding of, and ability to apply, behavior change theories. As Trost (2004) indicated: There is an urgent need for physical educators to know and understand behavioral theory (e.g., social cognitive theory) and how to plan, implement, and evaluate theory-based strategies to promote physical activity behavior in school physical education. The next generation of physical education teachers needs to adopt an activity-based approach rather than a fitness-based approach and learn how to effectively integrate the teaching of behavioral or self-regulatory skills in the physical education curriculum. (p. 334)

DISCUSSION This study systematically reviewed the recommendations for PETCs since 1991 from a public health perspective. Informing this perspective were conceptualizations of health-oriented physical education (Sallis & McKenzie, 1991) and schoolwide/community-wide physical activity promotion (e.g., CDC, 2013). Given increased attention to, and widespread support for, physical education as a key player in the public health arena during the last two decades (Sallis et al., 2012), it has become imperative to reexamine the mission and scope of professional preparation programs designed for preservice physical education teachers.

37

As indicated by this review, numerous authors have recognized the importance of this task and have forwarded recommendations for aligning physical education with the public health goals that many believe the field can help to reach. The recommendations cover a vast landscape of content. Many of the recommendations would require teacher education programs to introduce new courses or dramatically alter the content and/or approach taken for existing courses. Making these changes realistic requires careful consideration, particularly in light of the current political orientation that tends to direct the focus of teacher education programs. Specifically, the SHAPE America standards for initial certification in physical education (NASPE, 2008b), which drive program accreditation, contain very little language pertaining specifically to physically active physical education lessons or schoolwide/community-wide physical activity promotion. The only exception is Standard 2, which requires PETCs to demonstrate competency in movement skills/performance concepts and to achieve and maintain a health-enhancing level of physical fitness. This standard aligns with several of the recommendations focused on the candidate profile. Although not specific to physical activity promotion, Standard 6 includes a focus on collaboration, which was widely represented as a focus in the recommendations for bridging physical education with public health goals. Therefore, it could be possible for programs to link learning experiences related to physical activity promotion advocacy and collaboration with Standard 6 for accreditation purposes. By and large, however, given that PETCs are not held accountable under the current standards for much of the recommended knowledge and skill base identified in the present study, many programs may opt not to explore integrating more than a relatively narrow range of new learning experiences in line with the recommendations. The contention that programs may limit their integration of new learning experiences focused on expanding PETCs’ education and training in line with a public health agenda seems to be supported in a recent study (Webster et al., 2014). Faculty from 175 undergraduate programs were surveyed in regard to preparing preservice teachers for CSPAP roles. Importantly, many of the recommendations within the CSPAP model (AAHPERD, 2013; CDC, 2013; NASPE, 2008a) are consistent with those reviewed in this article. Although nearly all faculty members perceived their programs as effective in preparing majors for running a quality physical education program, there was more doubt expressed concerning the effectiveness of programs in preparing majors for other CSPAP roles, such as staff wellness and staff involvement. Additionally, faculty attitudes toward preparing majors for teaching physical education were consistently favorable, but attitudes toward preparing majors for other CSPAP roles were more varied. At this time, little is known about the factors that influence

38

C. A. WEBSTER ET AL.

faculty commitments to a program’s mission. It will be important for future research to investigate the relative contribution of faculty beliefs (e.g., attitudes), policy (e.g., standards), and other variables that may help to explain the extent or strength of program faculty’s commitment to a public health agenda for physical education. This study has several limitations. It needs to be acknowledged that the recommendations identified for review in this article were not examined from an evidencebased lens. This is because, in most cases, authors did not make it clear whether what they were recommending was based on research. Indeed, it is apparent that there may be a paucity of experimental research underpinning many of the recommendations, wherein the effects of preservice training on physical education teachers’ school-based physical activity promotion and students’ physical activity behavior are used to determine best practices. We suggest, therefore, that the reader consider these recommendations cautiously with the understanding that their empirical base needs to be further developed. In addition, although several measures were taken to help ensure all relevant articles were included in the review, it is possible that not every article was identified during our search. In spite of this possibility, we nevertheless remain confident that the data obtained are still a robust representation of the recommendations in the literature published in the past two decades, and we believe that this review can serve as a useful guide for teacher education programs searching for strategies to align professional preparation in physical education with public health goals. To build on this review, future research might examine recommendations that focus on key roles and responsibilities of other professionals and stakeholders connected with school-based physical activity promotion, as such promotion is generally viewed as a collective enterprise requiring the collaboration of multiple individuals both within and outside of physical education (CDC, 2013; National Research Council, 2013).

WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE ADD? This article underscores the growing attention on the role of physical education in public health, as all of the articles identified for inclusion in the review, which specified a publication date range of 1991 to 2013, were published after the year 2000 and the majority of them were published in the past 5 years. It is important for physical education teacher educators to be aware of this trend and to appreciate that the recommendations reviewed in this article signify the belief that a public health orientation in professional preparation programs has primacy in physical education realizing its proposed potential to help meet public health goals. The results of this study provide a basis for research aimed at investigating the veracity of this belief. Studies focusing on the extent to which faculty have used the recommendations

to guide program changes, how programs have successfully incorporated learning experiences that meet these recommendations, and what influence meeting recommendations has had on candidate outcomes must be pursued to know whether professional preparation programs can indeed set the tone for physical education to make a positive impact on public health. REFERENCES American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Council on School Health. (2006). Active healthy living: Prevention of childhood obesity through increased physical activity. Pediatrics, 117, 1834– 1842. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. (2013). Comprehensive school physical activity programs: Helping students achieve 60 minutes of physical activity each day (Position statement). Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.shape america.org/advocacy/positionstatements/pa/loader.cfm?csModule¼ security/getfile&pageid¼4726 Ayers, S. F., & Martinez, R. D. (2007). Implementing Physical Best in higher education courses. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 78(7), 33–40, 50. Beaulieu, L., Butterfield, S. A., Mason, C. A., & Loovis, E. M. (2012). Physical activity and U.S. public elementary schools: Implications for our profession. Journal of Research, 7, 12 –16. Beighle, A., Erwin, H., Castelli, D., & Ernst, M. (2009). Preparing physical educators for the role of physical activity director. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(4), 24 –29. Bulger, S. M., & Housner, L. D. (2009). Relocating from Easy Street: Strategies for moving physical education forward. Quest, 61, 442–469. Bulger, S. M., Housner, L. D., & Lee, A. M. (2008). Curriculum alignment: A view from physical education teacher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 79(7), 44 –49. Bulger, S. M., Mohr, D. J., Carson, L. M., & Wiegand, R. L. (2001). Infusing health-related physical fitness in physical education teacher education. Quest, 53, 403–417. Carson, R. L. (2012). Certification and duties of a director of physical activity. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 83(6), 16–19, 29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). Guidelines for school and community programs to promote lifelong physical activity among young people. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review, 46, No. RR-6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance. Atlanta, GA: Author. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Comprehensive school physical activity programs: A guide for schools. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Cone, S. L. (2004). Pay me now or pay me later: 10 years later and have we seen any change? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 271–280. Corbin, C. B. (2002). Physical education as an agent of change. Quest, 54, 181–195. Corbin, C. B., & McKenzie, T. L. (2008). Physical activity promotion: A responsibility for both K–12 physical education and kinesiology. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 79(6), 47–50, 56. Fardy, P. S., Azzollini, A., & Herman, A. (2004). Health-based physical education in urban high schools: The PATH program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 359 –371. Graber, K. C. (2012). Maximizing legislative opportunities for school physical education reform. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 83(7), 4–6.

PREPARING PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER CANDIDATES Heidorn, B., & Centeio, E. (2012). The director of physical activity and staff involvement. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &Dance, 83(7), 13–19, 25 –26. Koplan, J. P., Liverman, C. T., & Kraak, V. I. (2005). Preventing childhood obesity: Health in the balance. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. Kulinna, P. H., Brusseau, T., Ferry, M., & Cothran, D. (2010). Preservice teachers’ belief systems toward curricular outcomes for physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81, 189 –198. LaVine, M. E., & Cortney, R. (2006). Physical activity patterns of PETE majors: Do they walk the talk? Physical Educator, 63, 184–195. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., . . . Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, W-65–W-94. Lund, J. (2010). Getting on the right bus. Quest, 62, 312– 321. McKenzie, T. L. (2007). The preparation of physical educators: A public health perspective. Quest, 59, 346 –357. McKenzie, T. L., & Kahan, D. (2004). Impact of the Surgeon General’s report: Through the eyes of physical education teacher educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 300–317. McKenzie, T. L., Nader, M. D., Strikmiller, P. K., Yang, M. S., Stone, E. J., Perry, C. L., . . . Kelder, S. H. (1996). School physical education: Effect of the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health. Preventive Medicine, 25, 423–431. McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., & Rosengard, P. (2009). Beyond the stucco tower: Design, development, and dissemination of the SPARK physical education programs. Quest, 61, 114 –127. Melville, S. (2009). Implications of the physical educator’s broadened wellness role. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(2), 48–55. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 264–270. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2004). Moving into the future: National standards for physical education. Reston, VA: Author. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2008a). Comprehensive school physical activity programs. Retrieved from http:// www.wheresmype.org/downloads/Comprehensive-School-PhysicalActivity-Programs2-2008.pdf National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2008b). National standards for initial physical education teacher education. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket¼9jpRd%2B5aH84% 3D&tabid¼676

39

National Research Council. (2013). Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and physical education to school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Overdorf, V. (2005). Images and influences in the promotion of physical activity. Quest, 57, 243 –254. Owen, N., Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., & Kelder, S. H. (2006). Evidence-based approaches to dissemination and diffusion of physical activity interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(Suppl. 4), S35–S44. Pangrazi, R. P. (2010). Chasing unachievable outcomes. Quest, 65, 323–333. Partnership for Prevention. (2008). School-based physical education: Working with schools to increase physical activity among children and adolescents in physical education classes—an action guide. The community health promotion handbook: Action guides to improve community health. Washington, DC: Author. Pate, R. R., Davis, M. G., Robinson, T. N., Stone, E. J., McKenzie, T. L., & Young, J. C. (2006). Promoting physical activity in children and youth: A leadership role for schools (AHA Scientific Statement). Circulation, 114, 1214–1224. Sallis, J. F., & McKenzie, T. L. (1991). Physical education’s role in public health. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 124–137. Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Alcaraz, J. E., Kolody, B., Faucette, N., & Hovell, M. F. (1997). Effects of a two-year health-related physical education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students: SPARK. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1328–1334. Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Beets, M. W., Beighle, A., Erwin, H., & Lee, S. (2012). Physical education’s role in public health: Steps forward and backward over 20 years and HOPE for the future. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83, 125 –135. Trost, S. G. (2004). School physical education in the post-report era: An analysis from public health. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 318 –337. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy people 2010 (Conference edition, 2 vols.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). 2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov/PAGuidelines Webster, C. A., Russ, L., Webster, L., Molina, S., Lee, H., & Cribbs, J. (2014). Preparing preservice teachers for comprehensive school physical activity programs: A view from PETE. Manuscript submitted for publication. Zeigler, E. F. (2003). Guiding professional students to literacy in physical activity education. Quest, 55, 285– 305.

Copyright of Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

A systematic review of public health-aligned recommendations for preparing physical education teacher candidates.

Since Sallis and McKenzie's seminal article in 1991 outlining physical education's role in public health, increased attention has been given to promot...
152KB Sizes 0 Downloads 7 Views