02735024 jtpe vol6 no3 - human kinetics€¦ · functions in the curriculum development ... tion of...

JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 1987, 6, 198-213

Chapter 11

Historical Background

Ann E. Jewett

This monograph is primarily a report of independent research studies related to the Purpose Process Curriculum Framework (PPCF). This introductory chapter begins with a brief description of the PPCF and then provides the historical background for understanding the purposes of the individual researchers and for evaluating the significance of their findings.

Following an overview of the framework, the development of the PPCF as a curriculum theory is reported, from the conceptualization of the overall model to the initial efforts to build the theory-practice dynamic. After this review of the historical development of the theoretical model and its postulated elements, chronological highlights in the larger professional context are sketched. The chapter concludes with a brief update clarifying today's perspective of the PPCF.

The Purpose Process Curriculum Framework

The Purpose Process Curriculum Framework was designed initially as a conceptual framework for physical education curricular decision-making. As a conceptual framework, it is "a model or structure which attempts to systemati- cally describe the curriculum by identifying and operationally defining the elements and the ways in which they are or may be related to each other" (Jewett & Mullan, 1977, p. 1). The PPCF encompasses two major dimensions, purpose and process, which are summarized below as they were described in 1977 (Jewett & Mullan). Both purpose and process concepts are listed and defined in Appen- dix A.

Human beings of all ages have the same fundamental purposes for moving. The child needs movement learnings which will function meaningfully in [the] real world; the youth also needs physical education which will aid in becoming a fully functioning adult; the adult needs movement activities which will permit continuing self-actualization and more nearly complete individual- environment integration. The same key purposes can be used to design programs of movement opportunities for all persons, although specific goals vary

AM E. Jewett is Research Professor in the Division of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance at the University of Georgia, and Visiting Professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. She has co-authored several physical education curriculum textbooks and is the originator of the biennial conferences on Curriculum Theory in Physical Education. She is principal author of the Purpose Process Curriculum Frame- work and has guided numerous curriculum research studies.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 199

and individual experiences must differ. [Persons learn] to move to achieve these human purposes. A cumculum intended to transmit society's essential knowledges and to improve the quality of life for all citizens must certainly include opportunities to acquire the means by which these movement purposes can be fulfdled. A physical education curriculum designed within a framework of common movement purposes can provide scope for instruction appropriate to the pursuit of related but varying goals of individual learners. (Jewett & Mullan, 1977, p. 4)

The Purpose Process Curriculum Framework includes a purpose framework postulated on the premise that each individual person may seek personal meaning through any combination of the shared human movement goals. It includes 22 purpose elements for identifying the content of physical education experiences. It is emphasized that a "purpose" in this context identi- fies a unique way of finding or extending personal meaning through movement activities. The 22 purpose elements are not limited to voluntary goal-setting in physical education classes by either teachers or students. In a broader sense, they identify the various ways in which movement activities have been meaningful to individual persons. Thus, it is hypothesized that these represent potential avenues to other members of the species for enriching their lives through movement activities. It follows that physical education curricula should present to individuals opportunities to become aware of these possibilities and to develop personal abilities appropriate to their realization. (Jewett & Mullan, 1977, p. 4)

The second or process dimension of the PPCF has been developed in the form of a classification scheme for identifying the major types of movement operations. The three key process concepts of generic, ordinative, and creative movement have been hypothesized and seven movement process categories described. The focus ison learning processes and the attempt has been to differentiate important learning operations in order to facilitate im- provement of instruction. (Jewett & Mullan, 1977, p. 2)

Movement processes represent one large category of human behavior. The processes through which one learns movement must therefore be an in- tegral part of curricular planning. Physical education classes can be expected to result in improved quality of movement performance for more learners if cumculum planners are thoroughly cognizant of the processes by which an individual learns to facilitate, extend and utilize fully his [or her] unique movement capabilities. Movement processes provide a basis for sequencing potential learning experiences in physical education as teachers develop instructional objectives using purpose elements of human movement as the content focus and movement operations to identify the process toward which instruction is directed. If the learning of movement process skills is viewed as an important outcome, the student may be expected not only to improve performance, but also to increase [the range of his or her] movement abilities. (Jewett & Mullan, 1977, p. 9)

In summary, the PPCF was designed as a conceptual framework for physical education curricular decision-making and presented initially as a resource to guide curriculum planners through a systematic process for curriculum develop-

200 JEWETT

ment and instructional planning. Its two dimensions serve somewhat different functions in the curriculum development process. The purpose dimension provides for the selection of curriculum experiences in terms of three key purposes or human movement goals: (a) to fulfill personal developmental potential, (b) to develop movement skills for adapting to and controlling the physical environment, and (c) to assist the individual in relating to others. The scope of the physical education curriculum is further delineated through the identification and definition of seven major purpose concepts, encompassing 22 purpose elements. The process dimension provides for sequence in physical education instruction and learning by facilitating the organization of curricular content in terms of desired movement process outcomes. The movement classification scheme, developed as the process dimension of the PPCF, conceptualizes seven movement process categories and offers a taxonomy for the selection and statement of educational objectives.

Development of the PPCF as a Curriculum Theory

A review of the historical background of the Purpose Process Curriculum Framework can be approached in more than one way. The rationale for selecting a focus on the major ideas, and the processes through which they were developed, is the assumption that the critical components of any theory are the key concepts and the clarification of their relationship to each other. An analysis from this perspective leads to the identification of five developmental emphases during the past 20 years: (a) development of the overall conceptual model, (b) evaluation of the purpose dimension, (c) development of the Movement Process Category System, (d) construct validation, and (e) the theory-practice dynamic. These five threads in the development of the PPCF as a curriculum theory were initiated at different times and will be reported in that sequence. However, ifis important to recognize that theorFz'ig continues in all five of these aspects at the present time.

Development of the Overall Conceptual Model The overall model was conceptualized as a possible solution to the press-

ing professional need to bring order out of a chaotic physical education curriculum situation in the early 1960s, and was responsive to the curriculum trends of that era in general education. Curriculum workers in physical education typically were responding more to the curriculum reform movement of the 1950s than to the broader changes that characterized curriculum reform in the 1960s. Conceptual frameworks were "in." A conceptual framework was most often in- terpreted to mean a series of scientific principles that outlined the body of knowledge and could be organized to direct both curriculum scope and sequence. Most of the conceptual frameworks proposed for physical education during that period were based on analysis of movement elements, biological science concepts, or principles of physical fitness.

The PPCF, by contrast, reflects a commitment to the role of movement in total development, a philosophical orientation that was dominant among the curriculum specialists whose efforts were coordinated under the AAHPER1 umbrel-

'The title of the professional association when this project was initiated was American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. It did not take its present title, American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, until 1981.


la. These educators were influenced by humanistic philosophy and by concerns for personalized learning, opportunities for self-actualization, and a view of process as content. They studied Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming (ASCD, 1962). They read Maslow (1962), Taba (1962), Phenix (1964), Huebner (1964), Macdonald and Leeper (1965), Goodlad (1966), Polanyi (1966), Bruner (1967), and Ber- man (1968). Their philosophical orientation was probably best represented by This is Physical Education (AAHPER, 1965), a position statement adopted by the Physical Education Division, the Association structure that also sponsored the curriculum project that led to the development of the PPCF.

In the early 1960s, the officers and professional leaders of the Physical Education Division of AAHPER were very much concerned about the need for strengthening school physical education curricula. Many proposals were put forward for national projects with a curriculum focus. There were also a number of independent efforts to gain private foundation support for specific curriculum studies. It became clear that in order to provide a more sound direction for curriculum development, both the profession and the public schools would be best served by a coordination of these efforts. The Physical Education Division established a Curriculum Commission to study the problem and to make recom- mendations to the Division officers for giving leadership in the field of physical education curriculum development. A series of committee meetings and planning conferences in the mid-1960s resulted in a formal curriculum research planning proposal that was supported by the U.S. Office of Education and that received continuing AAHPER support for several years. (The individuals who played leadership roles are acknowledged in Jewett & Mullan, 1977, p. vi.) The Pur- pose Process Curriculum Framework grew out of the scholarly interaction of AAHPER professionals during these years.

The concept that the curriculum should be developed in terms of individual purposes for moving in a context of individual-enviromental interaction was established early. Brown and Cassidy (1963) had already described movement behavior in terms of individual and environmental variables and postulated three categories of movement possibilities: development, coping, and expression and communication. Consensus was achieved on the three key concepts of individual development, environmental coping, and social interaction (initially labeled communication) at the 1966 curriculum research planning conference. These three key concepts became the framework for the purpose dimension of the PPCF.

After these early efforts, the emphasis shifted to theorizing in a somewhat different context. Funds were no longer available for travel of curriculum researchers or for national committee meetings. The theorizing was dependent primarily upon graduate seminars at the University of Wisconsin and upon small groups of physical education curriculum specialists who could plan informal brainstorming sessions when they attended AAHPER meetings or other professional conferences. These activities were supported by the solicitation of professional reaction to conference presentations and articles in refereed journals, by professional interaction through the mail, and by graduate student research.

The curriculum reform movement of the 1950s and 60s brought into sharp focus the importance of process in human learning and the need to shift from the traditional cumculum planning orientation, as essentially the planning and presentation of information, to a concern with the learning of process skills. The conceptualizing of the process dimension of the PPCF drew upon two bodies of

202 JEWETT

the contemporary curriculum literature: (a) writings with a philosophical and psychological orientation that focused on the value of learning process skills, and (b) the work of those interested primarily in providing taxonomies for the writing of educational objectives.

The rationale for process as content, as delineated by Parker and Rubin (1966), was especially helpful. A key element in this rationale is the assertion that "the value of physical education as a subject field lies as much in its special way of looking at phenomena and its unique process learnings as in the information provided or the product-oriented performance skills developed" (Jewett & Mullan, 1977, p. 9). The philosophy that education should be directed toward the development of "persons in process," particularly as articulated by Berman (Berman, 1968; Berman & Roderick, 1977), was especially supportive of the philosophical perspective of the framework developers.

At the same time, the physical education profession as a whole was more receptive to taxonomic concerns. Curriculum planners in most subject areas were writing instructional objectives in accordance with the Bloom (1956), and Krath- wohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) taxonomies for the cognitive and affective domains, respectively. Physical educators recognized a need for a taxonomy for writing objectives in the psychomotor domain; this had never been provided by the Bloom group of educational measurement specialists. The process concepts of the PPCF were first reported as a taxonomy for educational objectives in the motor domain (Jewett, Jones, Luneke, & Robinsin, 1971). The process dimension of the PPCF conceptual model was based on the assumption that learning human movement requires certain unique process skills; it was designed from a persons- in-process philosophical perspective, and presented in a taxonomic format.

The development of the PPCF conceptual model in the 1960s can perhaps be better understood through a review of the symbolic representations used to highlight the key concepts during this developmental phase. The first three- dimensional model was a large cube divided into many smaller cubes of equal size. This model dictated a systems analysis approach to curriculum building, providing for sequential grade placement of specific purpose and process learning units. It was soon discarded because it lacked flexibility for personalizing physical education instruction.

The next model was based on a science fiction mobile consisting of two series of concentric circles that could rotate independently from the central thread. This model was presented to the American Academy of Physical Education in 1968 (Jewett, 1968). Although it was deemed more acceptable, this model was viewed by some leading theorists as too closed a system. In an effort to reflect more accurately the multitude of possibilities for individual-environment interaction and for interrelationships of the various movement purpose and process concepts and subconcepts, the current model was designed (Robinson, 1969). It consists of a mobius strip suspended within a tetrahedron, symbolizing the individual moving in interaction with the environment. The three key purpose concepts form the base of the tetrahedron; the three key process concepts form the sides. It is a totally open construct.

The overall conceptual model was well developed by 1969. Since then, refinement of the model has been directed primarily toward achieving consensus on the subpurposes and the individual process categories, toward answering questions about the relationships of purposes and processes, and toward broadening


the scope of theorizing to deal with the larger question of the role of curriculum theory in physical education. Physical education scholars have been concerned with the identification and description of a structure of physical education as an area of scholarly study and research for at least a quarter of a century. A national conference was held in Zion, Illinois, in 1969 to address this issue (Ulrich & Nixon, 1972). Participation in this conference and subsequent activities during the intervening years have convinced this author that physical education curriculum theory is synonymous with physical education theory, and that its primary function is to improve physical education practice through description, explana- tion, and communication of concepts dealing with human movement phenomena. (For further discussion, see Jewett & Bain, 1985, pp. 284-287.)

Evaluation of the Purpose Dimension

The second stage in PPCF theory-building was directed toward in-depth study of the purpose dimension. The 22 purposes were first identified and defined through processes of literature review, logical analysis, and small-group consensus-seeking. LaPlante (1973) conducted the first content validity study of this set of 22 purposes. Using a modified Delphi technique with a panel of 166 judges, she was able to demonstrate substantial consensus on the importance of the purposes as desired student learning outcomes. (LaPlante's research is reported in detail in chapter 2.) Based on the LaPlante study, it was possible to state that these purposes were viewed by professional physical educators as desired student outcomes of a physical education program. It was also reasonable to conclude that the objectives of physical education valued by LaPlante's judges were included among the 22 human movement purposes stated. LaPlante's findings have been supported by more recent studies, also using modified Delphi tech- niques (Pasternak, 1981 ; Speakman, 1985).

Although there is considerable consensus among educators concerning the purposes of human movement that should serve as a basis for physical education curricular decision-making, it does not follow that program participants seek the same meanings in physical activity that were intended by the program planners. Chapman (1974) devised an instrument to evaluate the affective responses of secondary school students to the 22 purposes. Her data demonstrated that student views differed depending on level of maturity, that students discriminated between likeability and utility, and that their rankings of purposes tended to differ from those of professional educators as reported in other studies. Additional research reported in Part I1 includes several studies identifying genuine differ- ences in how the purposes are valued by program participants of different ages and in varying life circumstances.

Another aspect of the theorizing relating to the purpose dimension of the PPCF is reflected in the rephrasing of the purpose statements in the various in- struments used for curriculum planning and research. LaPlante's (1973) study led to redesignating masking as simulation, and to several minor word changes as well. It also raised some questions about the definition of purpose and the meaning of important. Purpose is now defined as "a unique way of finding or extending personal meaning through movement activities" (Jewett & Mullan, 1977, p. 4). Beginning with Chapman, PPCF researchers have been alert to the need to define important or to substitute more precise terms.

204 JEWETT

A change in format became effective in 1979, rewording the stem from "man moves to" to "I move to." This change was partially a response to the need to eliminate sexism in the language. More important, it was designed to shift the focus to the participant and to place greater emphasis on personal meaning. Norton has traced these purpose statement changes through 1983 (Norton, 1983, Appendix H, pp. 139-151).

Development of the Movement Process Category System

In its early stages, the PPCF was viewed as a "transitional model built upon three key concepts of human movement . . . [that were] essentially purpose- oriented, relating to the functions of movement in achieving the goals of man" (Jewett, 1968, p. 13). The 1964 commitment of the Physical Education Division to a major curriculum effort "directed toward the identification and evaluation of a conceptual framework for the curriculum in physical education" (AAHPER, 1967) suggested an "analysis of the body of knowledge" approach popular with general curriculum specialists of the 1950s and 60s. However, by 1968 a process- oriented classification of movement was established as the second component of the curriculum model.

The process component was developed "to emphasize the role of process as physical education curriculum content, to symbolize our unique mode of inquiry, to describe our special way of looking at phenomena" (Jewett, 1968, p. 13). Three categories were conceptualized to be parallel to the three types of operations in interdisciplinary learning identified by Parker and Rubin (1966, p. 63). Developmental movement was considered to be comparable to Parker and Rubin's intake operations; it was later termed generic movement. Organizing movement was roughly equivalent to manipulative operations; it became ordinative movement. Inventive movement corresponded to applicative operations; it has since been designated creative movement. In the 1968 conceptual model presented to the American Academy of Physical Education, the two dimensions were represented as alternating concentric circles of the science fiction mobile, using the terms individual development, coping with environment, and communication for the purpose dimension and developmental, organizing, and inventive movement for the process dimension (Jewett, 1968, p. 14).

The second stage in the development of the process dimension focused on the refinement of definitions and descriptions of the processes and upon the delineation of a taxonomy for stating educational objectives. The taxonomies for writing educational objectives in the cognitive and affective domains published by Bloom and Krathwohl and their associates (Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl et al., 1964) were in widespread use, and many physical educators were concerned about the lack of a comparable taxonomy for the psychomotor domain.

The Movement Process Category System (MPCS) was developed in accordance with current motor learning theory as reported by Fitts and Posner (1967), Whiting (1 969), Robb (1972), and Gentile (1972). From the beginning, it was designated for use with the motor domain. This term was selected in prefer- ence to psychomotor to establish the domain as primarily the province of physical education, and to make it clear that learning in the cognitive and affective domains also has psychological components and that motor learning has cognitive and affective aspects, just as cognitive and affective learning have neurolog-


ical bases. Tentative classifications for the psychomotor domain, available by 1970 (Clein & Stone, 1970; Kibler, Barker, & Miles, 1970; Simpson, 1966), were studied. The process of developing the taxonomy was similar to that used by Bloom and his associates-essentially one of analyzing and classifying hundreds of objectives found in textbooks, course outlines, and lesson plans. Many persons par- ticipated in the task of classifying objectives using a two-way grid. Working with the areas of greatest consensus, researchers conceptualized and defined eight movement process categories. The first published version of this taxonomy for writing physical education objectives presented a series of eight movement process categories (Jewett et al., 1971).

During the 1970s, considerable effort was directed toward strengthening classification consensus and toward the use of the MPCS for writing educational objectives. Response to the Quest report (Jewett et al., 1971) led to the elirnina- tion of the imitating category as a generic process and the acceptance of the present seven categories and definitions of the MPCS (Jewett & Mullan, 1977, pp. 9-10). A grid based on three major characteristics of movement processes (performance criterion, motor design, and observable behavior) was developed (Jewett, Har- rington, & Mullan, 1979), but it proved to be too sophisticated an approach to be helpful to the average teacher.

Key research studies by Mullan (1973), Harrington (1974), and Shrader (1975) gave direction to the development of the process dimension during this second stage. Mullan supported the potential of the motor taxonomy for teacher use by demonstrating that instruction in educational taxonomies did enhance student teachers' observation and perception of pupil learning behavior. Harrington devised the Feedback Diversity Classification System (FDCS), using the seven movement processes as the content component in physical education class observation. She was able to demonstrate generalizability of the FDCS across observ- ers, over occasions, and within situations. Shrader developed and tested a model of skill learning that detailed motor, sensory-perceptual, and cognitive functioning characteristics of certain generic and ordinative movement processes. All three studies are reported in chapter 3.

In the next stage of the work, the focus of interest shifted to study of the creative processes. One of the original sources of support for development of the MPCS was the recognized need for better understanding of creative movement. Motor learning research had focused almost entirely on skill acquisition and refinement, as had other proposed taxonomies for the psychomotor domain. Conceptualizers of the PPCF were especially interested in increasing attention to the development of motor creativity in the physical education curriculum. The work of Bressan and Woollacott (1982) had broadened the theoretical and scientific basis available for curriculum theorizing to include recent findings of motor development research. Their work lent support to the consistent position over the years that the processes could not be viewed as truly hierarchical; research evidence did not support a single linear developmental sequence. A combination of these diverse factors resulted in a rethinking of the MPCS in which the primary effort was to apply current understandings of human creativity, particularly as they were applied in education by Torrance (1970), into a physical education curriculum context of motor development and motor learning.

Key research into this aspect of development of the MPCS was conducted by Brockmeyer (1976), Hall (1977), and Carnes (1985a). Brockmeyer designed

206 JEWETT

and tested implementation of an instructional unit composed of teacher behaviors directed toward eliciting student creative movement performance. Although she demonstrated that physical educators can increase their utilization of these behaviors, her study was not designed to document creative behavior in the pupils. Hall (1977) and Carnes (1985a) each made contributions in the area of identifying and defining behavioral characteristics of varying, improvising, and com- posing, which may ultimately permit systematic observation. These three studies are reported in Part HI.

The most recent work with the Movement Process Category System has been directed toward encouraging and facilitating its use by teachers as a total seven-category system. Current educators are particularly interested in future development of the MPCS as a tool to help teachers at the local level with sound curriculum development and effective instructional planning. The research studies conducted by Potter (1979) and Carnes (1981, 1985a), reported in chapter 11, continued the work of evaluating the process concepts as a system for classification of instructional objectives with this broader focus.

Construct Validation

Initial efforts in development of the PPCF focused upon the creation of a viable overall conceptual model for curricular decision-making and upon the definition of key concepts. The identification of 22 purpose elements and seven movement process categories provided a satisfactory framework for basic curriculum decisions. However, it soon became clear that further analysis was needed for research purposes and for those long-term improvements in the physical education curriculum dependent upon such research. This line of PPCF research was initiated in order to permit more meaningful decisions about the selection of curriculum content.

Use of the PPCF to select content begins with the identification of one or more of the 22 purpose elements as a significant program goal. Meaningful choices of content require further analysis of the purpose element to determine what sub- elements are included. The curriculum practitioner typically works from a hypothetical construct of what each relevant element includes. The construct continues to be hypothetical until it can be subjected to some acceptable means of verification or validation.

The first PPCF research study to use a construct validation methodology was an investigation of "the construct of body awareness in space as reflected through children's ability to discriminate directions, levels, and pathways in movement'' completed by Jones (1972). Jones drew upon the expertise of Safrit, one of the first physical educators to become truly knowledgeable about construct validation. Safrit greatly assisted in determining the research design and helped to guide the investigation to a successful conclusion. This work also established a pattern for other studies directed toward the validation of individual purpose constructs. (See Safrit, 1975, for more on construct validity.)

Unfortunately, these construct validation procedures are somewhat tedious and exceedingly time-consuming. They necessarily limit the scope of a research study as well. Consequently, the extensive series of research studies that will be needed to complete construct validation of each of the 22 purpose elements has not moved forward rapidly. The studies completed to date (Blaser, 1974; Jones, 1972; Rady, 1981; Segall, 1984; Tiburzi, 1979) are reported in chapter 7.


The Theory-Practice Dynamic

Development of a curriculum theory requires the conceptualization of a model and the identification and description of key elements. It also requires description and clarification of the interrelationships among the elements. It is in this latter aspect that the PPCF has been least well articulated. These intenela- tionships must be described if the framework is to be helpful in putting theory into practice. In order to strengthen the theorizing, it is also necessary to evaluate the practice and analyze the practical problems.

A major task in developing the overall framework was to conceptualize three key concepts including seven major purposes and 22 subpurposes. The process dimension was conceptualized similarly as including three key process concepts encompassing seven movement process categories. There have always been more questions concerning the relationship between the two dimensions in implementing the theory in practice. The general response has been that the purposes are used primarily to set program goals, to determine scope, and to select content, while the movement process category system is most practical in planning unit organization and in sequencing particular activities. This response is clearly an oversimplification; the answers to the questions have often been less than satisfactory.

Several highlights in the theorizing directed toward bridging the theory- practice gap can be noted. Chapman and LaPlante developed a 1972 position statement including a model for curriculum decision-making using the PPCF (Jewett & Mullan, 1977, pp. 49-51). Jewett included a model identifying seven steps in the PPCF decision-making process in a paper prepared for a professional prepa- ration conference (Jewett, 1980).

McGinn (1979) conducted a full-scale investigation to develop and apply a "conceptual model for games teaching with focus on personal integration." Her model was designed with three theoretical components, PPCF curriculum theory, Martineuk and Samela motor skill acquisition theory, and Renick games theory. She applied her model to analyze the game of basketball, develop instructional goals, and construct a curricular package to develop concepts of teamwork and competition. The curricular package was pilot-tested in 8th- and 1 lth-grade physical education classes.

The efforts to put it all together in a theory-practice sense have been ad- vanced in the present decade through naturalistic inquiry and research studies that triangulate both quantitative and qualitative data collected from different perspectives. Ennis (1984) opened up new potential for PPCF theorizing in an investigation of middle-school physical education in which she examined purposes present in the existing curriculum from the perspectives of the formal, perceived, experiential, and operational domains. The Ennis (1984) research study is reported in chapter 8.

Professional Context for Development of the Purpose Process Curriculum Framework

The preceding section has reviewed the historical development of the PPCF as a curriculum theory. This review was organized so as to clarify the chronological development of the major ideas, concepts, and theoretical elements.

208 JEWETT

Another important aspect of the historical background was the changing professional context from 1965 through 1985. Three periods of differing conditions and emphases can be described.

The PPCF grew out of a major curriculum project of the Physical Education Division of the AAHPER. It was initiated late in a decade of strong federal support for curriculum development in the nation's public schools. The Association received funding for planning a ''long-term research project directed toward the identification and evaluation of a conceptual framework for the curriculum in physical education" (AAHPER, 1967). When no federal funding could be se- cured beyond the planning phase, the Association continued the project at the level of support possible within its own budget.

In these circumstances, considerable national professional interaction was possible through frequent conferences and small-group meetings. During this period the Design Conference was funded by the Athletic Institute. The Curriculum Commission meeting, the Curriculum Research Planning Conference, the Zion Conference of 13 (theoretical structure project), and a relevant Scholarly Direc- tions project were all funded by AAHPER. In addition, the annual AAHPER conferences provided a forum for semiofficial reports on the curriculum project. The Association also provided financial support for communication by mail and for publications culminating in a monograph reporting progress "on efforts to develop curriculum theory for physical education," including a description of the Purpose Process Curriculum Framework (Jewett & Mullan, 1977).

During this first period, important graduate research was completed and frequent seminars furthered the development of PPCF theory. Because AAH- PER provided crucial support and the primary channels for reporting and dis- semination, however, the emphasis of the work was on achieving broad consensus on the key purpose and process concepts and consistent effort was expended to apply the theory to school practice. This context influenced the development of the PPCF into the early 1970s.

In 1974 the geographical center for PPCF theorizing shifted from the Uni- versity of Wisconsin to the University of Georgia. Coincidentally, AAHPER's interest in curriculum development became less central as the Association was moving toward its future alliance structure. By this time, there was a real decline in federal support for educational research and development. Higher education budgets were tight, and funds to support professional travel and miscellaneous expenses incurred by individual faculty members for professional projects were severely cut. Graduate research continued, but the institutional seminar credit structure did not support continuing curriculum faculty and student professional interaction or the research momentum that is fostered by such a group.

Progress in curriculum theorizing was dependent almost entirely upon graduate research studies and presentations to scholarly, but small, audiences. The primary opportunities for professional feedback were the annual meetings of the American Academy of Physical Education. Most specialists in physical education pedagogy focused their interests on instruction in contrast to curriculum, and interaction between scholars in the two areas was limited. The impact of this context on PPCF curriculum work was in-depth involvement of the scholars in the general curriculum literature, an increasingly theoretical orientation, and a lack of focus reflecting a well-planned, effectively coordinated, long-term research plan.


By the turn of the decade, a resurgence of interest in curriculum study became evident. On the national scene there was increasing concern about the quality of public education. Physical educators felt threatened with the loss of required programs. Support from the professional associations increased. NASPE was promoting the "Basic Stuff" series and sponsoring conferences designed to stimulate the upgrading of physical education programs at all levels. The Curric- ulum and Instruction Academy and the Council on Physical Education for Chil- dren were both active in sponsoring conferences on pedagogical topics. Physical educators held the first meeting in the Big Ten conference series dealing with pedagogy, a conference on teaching physical education (Templin & Olson, 1983). The instruction researchers and curriculum theorists recognized the importance of cooperative effort and of meeting together. Professional interaction at the international level grew rapidly, fostered especially through the Olympic Scientif- ic Conference and the efforts of AIESEP and ICHPER.

More physical educators were becoming sophisticated about curriculum development. In 1979 the first Conference on Curriculum Theory in Physical Education was held (Jewett & Norton, 1979). Physical education curriculum specialists felt that this conference filled a need for professional interaction of a scholarly and theoretical nature. Conferences have been held in alternate years since (Carnes, 1985b; Harrington, 1981; Jewett, Carnes, & Speakman, 1983).

The professional context of this third period, which continues today, has influenced the development of physical education curriculum, theory, and research in several positive ways. An increasing number of scholars are involved in physical education pedagogy, and many of them are choosing to work within the general curriculum mainstream. This has helped to strengthen the theoretical foundations for daily practice, and is leading to a resolution of the artificial separation between the curriculum specialists and instructional specialists. Theoretical perspectives for curriculum development have now been defined in terms appropriate to physical education (Jewett & Bain, 1985, pp. 24-29). During this period the theoretical development of the Purpose Process Curriculum Framework has been supported chiefly through the Conferences on Curriculum Theory in Physical Edu- cation and the conferences sponsored by the Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. Excellent focus and broad-based interaction have been provided through the con- vention programs and preconvention workshops offered by the Curriculum and Instruction Academy. The increasing participation of curriculum specialists from many countries has added to the quality of the resulting theorizing and research.

The PPCF Today

It seems appropriate to conclude this introductory chapter detailing the historical development of the PPCF by reporting how the PPCF is viewed today by those most directly involved. The basic beliefs or assumptions upon which it is based reflect a personal meaning philosophy and are currently stated as follows (Jewett & Bain, 1985, pp. 73-74):

1. Persons are holistic beings, continuously in the process of becoming, who can intend what they will do . . . and for what purpose.

2. The creation and enhancement of meaning is the fundamental concern of education.

3. The primary concern of physical education is the personal search for meaning by the individual moving in interaction with the environment.

4. The basic goals of education are individual development, environmental coping, and social interaction.

5. Process skills are essential learnings. 6. Today's curriculum requires a future orientation. 7. Goal priorities, content selections, and sequence decisions are determined

at the local level.

At this time, both the purpose concepts and the process concepts are considered to be relatively stable. Working with this conceptual framework over a 20-year period has convinced us that the common human purposes for engaging in physical activity have been identified and are not likely to change, except for changes in emphasis or priority. We are satisfied that the early decision to include process as the second dimension was sound and that the seven-category Movement Process Category System will continue to be a useful tool.

The PPCF can presently be viewed (a) as a conceptual framework, (b) as a curriculum theory, (c) as a curriculum model, or (d) as a body of research. It is a conceptual framework. The Physical Education Division of AAHPER com- mitted itself in 1964 to the development of a conceptual framework. The design- ers accepted that task, and the PPCF is that "conceptual framework for the curriculum in physical education, grades K-16. "

Designing a conceptual framework for curricular dtcision-making necessarily involves theorizing. Those who worked with the PPCF found intellectual stimulation in the theorizing and have continued to build theory. It would be presumptuous to suggest that the PPCF is a fully developed curriculum theory. There are many unexplored relationships, conflicting perceptions, and even major gaps. But it continues to facilitate curriculum theorizing in physical education.

The strength of the PPCF for theory-building is its weakness as a curriculum model. The openness that theory-building requires prevents translation into a formula for program development. The PPCF provides guidelines for procedures to follow in planning a local curriculum. It clarifies the important decisions to be made and suggests approaches to reaching these decisions. Good programs have been developed using the PPCF as a general curriculum model. A more specific curriculum model can be developed from the PPCF by a school district central office staff and faculty. By itself, however, the PPCF will never be aprescriptive curriculum model, since this is contrary to its personal meaning perspective.

The PPCF has provided the focus for a considerable body of research during the past 15 years. Because of the interest in building theory, it has also offered a framework for generating research questions and suggested innumera- ble research hypotheses. This monograph brings much of this research together for the first time. A listing of completed research studies appears as Appendix B.

References

American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. (1965). Zkis is Physical Education. Washington, DC: Author.


American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. (1967, May). Co- operative development of design for long-term research project directed toward the identification and evaluation of a conceptual framework for the curriculum in physical education, grades K-16 (Final Report Contract No. OEC-2-6-068314-0743, rnimeo- graphed). Washington, DC: Author.

ASCD. (1962). Perceiving, behaving, becoming. Washington, DC: Author. Berman, L. (1968). New priorities in the curriculum. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Berman, L.M., & Roderick, J.A. (1977). Feeling, valuing, and the art of growing:

Insights into the affem've. Washington, DC: ASCD. Blaser, B.J. (1974). The construct ofjoy of movement as reflected through seventh graders '

enjoymat of movement tasks. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Wisconsin. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: Cognitive domain.

New York: David McKay. Bressan, E., & Woollacott, M. (1982). A prescriptive paradigm for sequencing instruction

in physical education. Human Movement Science, 1, 155-175. Brockrneyer, G.A. (1976). Development and evaluation of a teacher behavior instructional

unit for eliciting creative movement pe$onnance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

Brown, C., & Cassidy, R. (1963). Theory in physical education: A guide to program change. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger .

Bruner, J.S. (1967). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cames, M.M. (1981). Definition of intended student competencies through a movement process category system. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Georgia.

Cames, M.M. (1985a). A movement process classification instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

Cames, M.M. (Ed.) (1985b). Proceedings of the Fourth Curriculum Theory Conference in Physical Education. Athens: University of Georgia.

Chapman, P.A. (1974). Evaluation of affective responses of students to a selected list of purposes for human movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin.

Clein, M .I., & Stone, W. J . (1970). Physical education and the classification of educational objectives: Psychomotor domain. Physical Educator, 27(1), 34-35.

Ennis, C.D. (1984). Purpose concepts in physical education curriculum development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

Fitts, P.M., & Posner, M.J. (1967). Human pe$ormance. Belmont, CA: BrookslCole. Gentile, A.M. (1972). A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching.

Quest, 17, 3-23. Goodlad, J.I. (1966). The changing school curriculum. New York: Fund for the Advance-

ment of Education. Hall, D.M. (1977). Creative movement processes behaviorally defined. Unpublished

master's thesis, University of Georgia. Harrington, W.M. (1974). Feedback diversity in teaching physical education. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Harrington, W.M. (Ed.) (1981). Proceedings of the Second Cum.culum l?zeory Confer-

ence in Physical Education. Athens: University of Georgia. Huebner, D. (Ed.). (1964). A reassessment of the curriculum. New York: Teachers

College, Columbia University.

212 JEWETT

Jewett, A.E. (1968). Implications from cumculum theory for physical education. Academy Papers, 2, 10-18.

Jewett, A.E. (1980). Purpose process curriculum framework. Paper presented at the COPEC National Conference, Kent State University.

Jewett, A.E., & Bain, L.L. (1985). The cum~culum process in physical education. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Jewett, A.E., Cames, M., & Speakman, M. (Eds.) (1983). Proceedings of the Third Conference on Cum'culum Theory in Physical Education. Athens: University of Georgia.

Jewett, A.E., Harrington, W.M., & Mullan, M.R. (1979, July). The movement process category system in teacher education. Proceedings of the International Council on Health, Physical Education and Recreation World Congress. Kiel, West Gemany.

Jewett, A.E., Jones, L.S., Luneke, S.M., & Robinson, S.M. (1971). Educational change through a taxonomy for writing physical education objectives. Quest, 15, 32-38.

Jewett, A.E., & Mullan, M.R. (1977). Curriculum design: Purposes and processes in physical education teaching-leaming. Washington, DC: AAHPER.

Jewett, A.E., & Norton, C. (Eds.) (1979). Proceedings of the First Cum'culum Theory Conference in Physical Education. Athens: University of Georgia.

Jones, L.S. (1972). The construct of body awareness in space as reflected through children's ability to discriminate directions, levels, and pathways in movement. Un- published doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin.

Kibler, R.J., Barker, L.L., & Miles, D.T. (1970). Behavioral objectives and instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook ZI: Affective domain. New York: David McKay.

LaPlante, M.J. (1973). Evaluation of a selected list of purposes for physical education using a modiJied Delphi technique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin.

Macdonald, J.B., & Leeper, R.R. (Eds.). (1965). Theories of instruction. Washington, DC: ASCD.

Maslow, A.H. (1962). Toward apsychology of being. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand. McGinn, A.F. (1979). Conceptual model for games teaching with focus on personal

integration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. Mullan, M.R. (1973). Educational taxonomies and student teacher focus on pupil learning

behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Norton, C.J. (1983). Student purposes for engaging in fitness activities. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. Parker, J.C., & Rubin, L.J. (1966). Process as content: Curriculum design and the

application of knowledge. Chicago: Rand McNally. Pastemak, M. (1981). Adult perspectives on purposes for moving 1980-2000. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. Phenix, P.H. (1964). Realm of meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor. Potter, D.L. (1979). Evaluation of movement process categories as a system for classi-

fication of instructional objectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

Rady, A.L.M. (1981). A construct validaton of sparial relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.


Robb, M. (1972). Ihe dynamics of motor skill acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Robinson, S.M. (1969). Ihe use of topology to depict the key concepts of the physical education cum.culum model. Unpublished paper.

Safrit, M.J. (1975). Construct validity: Applications in physical education. Proceedings, CZC Conference (pp. 90-1 13). Iowa City: University of Iowa.

Segall, B. (1984). Development and validation of a teamwork construct. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

Shrader, R.A. (1975). Movement process feedback and movement product feedback in the teaching-learning of an open and closed skill. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin.

Simpson, E. J . (1966). The classijication of educational objectives, psychornotor domain (Vocational and Technical Educational Grant Contract No. 0E5-85-104). Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Office of Education.

Speakman, M.A. (1985). A cross-cultural comparison ofpulposes for moving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

Taba, H. (1962). Cum'culum development. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Templin, T., & Olson, J. (Eds.). (1983). Teaching in physical education. Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics. Tiburzi, A. (1979). Validation of the construct of physiological $mess. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University Georgia. Torrance, E.P. (1970). Encouraging creativity in the classroom. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C.

Brown. Ulrich, C., & Nixon, J.E. (1972). Tones of theory. Washington, DC: AAHPER. Whiting, H.T.A. (1971). Acquiring ball skill. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

02735024 jtpe vol6 no3 - human kinetics€¦ · functions in the curriculum development ... tion of...

Documents