physical education, discourse, and ideology - bringing the hidden curriculum into view

QUEST, 1992, 44, 35-56

Physical Education, Discourse, and Ideology: Bringing the

Hidden Curriculum Into View

David Kirk

The hidden cumculum has served the very useful purpose in educational discourse of alerting educators to the complexity of physical education teaching and learning. However, the ambiguity of the phenomena the term attempts to describe has led to a certain notoriety, and there is now considerable confusion over the meaning of the term hidden curriculum. This paper reviews selected studies of the hidden curriculum in physical education and other literature. The aim of this review is to assess its potential for helping us to better understand physical education as a cultural practice. Building on this review, it is suggested that the terms discourse and ideology locate the hidden agendas of physical education teaching and learning within the realm of communication and meaning making. The implications of this perspective for physical education teaching and research are examined. It is suggested in conclusion that the more precise identification of the hidden curriculum as an aspect of communication and meaning making is important, given new pressures deriving from mass media and popular culture that impact on physical education teaching and learning in subtle ways.

Hidden curriculum is a term that has gained enormous currency in educational discourse over the past 20 years, to the point where it has become part of the day-to-day parlance of educational researchers and practitioners alike. The ubiquity and popularity of the term is due, no doubt, to its heuristic value, to its ability to provide a label for "that form of learning for which we have some feeling, but for which we often find articulation difficult" (Seddon, 1983). The words convey a sense of the complexity of teaching and learning. They speak of those grey areas, of those ambiguous moments that occur in all educational interaction, and of the multidimensionality of the human beings who engage in these processes. Just as the term curriculum has become a focus for so much of the planning and evaluative activity that goes on in schools and other educational institutions, so the term hidden curriculum provides the negative to this purpose- ful, conscious, positive activity. It is to cumculum what antimatter is to matter, since it deals with the invisible or opaque forces that, together with the official

About the Author: David Kirk is with the Faculty of Education at Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 3217.

36 KIRK

and visible programs of teaching and learning, create the dynamic of educational activity.

So much for the idea that hidden curriculum expresses. But what happens when we attempt to move beyond the heuristic moment, when we've grasped the concept? It is at this moment that people's enthusiasm for the insight the term provides soon evaporates and turns into confusion. The very flexibility the words allow in thinking about educational transactions quickly becomes a hindrance, not a help. The complexity and ambiguity of the processes the concept of hidden curriculum is intended to help us see more clearly begin to get fogged up by the generality of the term itself. Before we know it, hidden cumculum is too hazy a notion to hang on to. "Everything seems to be tied up with the hidden cumculum," complains the bewildered student teacher. "And nothing!" replies her cynical teacher supervisor.

Despite Linda Bain's best efforts to map the shifting terrain of the hidden curriculum in physical education (Bain, 1975, 1985, 1990), we are in serious danger of abandoning this very valuable notion to the graveyard of overspent and misunderstood educational jargon. Through regular use in vastly different sets of circumstances, the meaning of the term has been stretched to the point where it risks becoming meaningless. In some circles, the hidden curriculum is a convenient way of describing all of the goings-on in classrooms and gyms over which teachers feel they can never gain control. In others, it signifies something sinister, suggesting subversive or perverse knowledge that has no proper place in educational programs. For instance, the concept of hidden curriculum has been used to focus on the nature of everyday life in primary school classrooms (Jackson, 1968); to study the processes of polarization and differentiation in secondary schools (Ball, 1981; Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970); to identify the problem of social control in the selection, organization, and distribution of school knowledge (Young, 1971); to show how particular features of social life, such as conflict, are deemphasized or distorted in some school subjects such as science (Apple, 1979); and to argue that the dominant approach to teacher education encourages conformity and political acquiescence in student teachers (Giroux, 1981). To compound the problem, research focusing on the hidden curriculum has often been complex and difficult to understand and demands knowledge of other more specialized fields such as sociology. Furthermore, these complex ideas are manifest in the real world of schooling at a number of different levels and in a variety of situations. The nub of the problem is that the hidden curriculum often appears in different shapes and forms, within different subject matter, and in a range of dissimilar circumstances.

This paper is not so much an attempt to rescue the hidden curriculum from a notoriety it may well deserve, as it is an assessment of its potential for helping us to better understand physical education as a cultural practice. As such, it reviews a number of selected studies, both in the mainstream literature as well as in physical education, that have been focused by the notion of the hidden curriculum. This review may help us find more appropriate terminology to articulate the notion that lies at the heart of the notion of hidden curriculum. Moreover, I suggest that if the term is to make a productive contribution to educational discourse, it needs to be tied down much more tightly and precisely. After some consideration, I propose the notions of discourse and ideology as a means of making the hidden cumculum more visible and offer some examples

PHYSICAL EDUCATION, DISCOURSE. AND IDEOLOGY 37

from physical education to illustrate these concepts. Finally, I address the implications of this view of the relationships between the hidden curriculum, discourse, and ideology for physical education teaching and learning. The purpose of this assessment is to try to bring the hidden curriculum into view, to force it out into the open, where we can at least see a little more clearly how we might begin to act on the insights it provides.

What Is the Hidden Curriculum?

It is generally acknowledged that the term hidden curriculum was first coined and elaborated in Phillip Jackson's (1968) celebrated study Life in Classrooms. Jackson was concerned to capture something of the everydayness of classroom life and those features that are less obvious and rarely seen by visitors but are well known (if not always articulated) by the teachers and pupils who spend significant portions of their lives in the schools. In a chapter entitled "The Daily Grind," Jackson identifies what he refers to as three facts of classrom life, which do much to shape the hidden messages students learn.

The crowds, the praise, and the power that combine to give a distinctive flavour to classroom life collectively form a hidden curriculum which each student (and teacher) must master if he is to make his way satisfactorily through the school. The demands created by these features of classroom life may be contrasted with the academic demands-the "official" curriculum, so to speak-to which educators traditionally have paid the most attention. (Jackson, 1968, pp. 33-34)

Two important points emerge from Jackson's statement. First, he tells us what the hidden curriculum is not, by contrasting it with the official curriculum. The hidden curriculum refers, in Jackson's study, to all pupil learning that does not match, or is not expressed in, the school's explicitly stated aims. Second, Jackson suggests that this hidden form of learning is not insignificant for the pupils' and the teachers' success in schools; indeed, it must be mastered if they are to make their way satisfactorily.

So what does the hidden curriculum refer to if not the school's explicit aims?-because clearly the official program frequently encompasses a whole range of learning in relation to cognitions, skills, emotions, and attitudes. In a comprehensive review of literature on the hidden cumculum, including Jackson's study, Terri Seddon (1983) suggests that the hidden curriculum is most commonly associated with the learning of knowledge, attitudes, norms, beliefs, values, and assumptions. The important factor that seems to distinguish this learning from the learning teachers intend to happen through the official curriculum is that these attitudes and values are communicated unintentionally, unconsciously, and unavoidably. The medium for this communication of these affective phenomena is, however, the official curriculum, the formal teaaching, organization, and content of the curriculum. In other words, the hidden curriculum refers to knowledge, attitudes, and so on that students learn as an unavoidable and unintentional consequence of participating in the formal, routine activities of the school. It might be useful, armed with this preliminary understanding, to look at some of the studies that have investigated the hidden curriculum both in general literature and in physical education.

38 KIRK

Selected Studies of the Hidden Curriculum

A number of studies have dealt with various aspects of the hidden curricu- ~

lum, some more explicitly than others. Let's refer, by way of example, to three studies that have investigated in an explicit way the hidden messages pupils learn in schools, before reviewing research more specific to physical education. We could do worse than return, as a starting point, to Jackson's work.

Using interviews and observations in classrooms, Jackson (1968) suggests that the day-to-day routines of classroom life communicate particular values to students. As we have just learned, he identifies three facts of classroom life that students learn to cope with, some students more effectively than others, which he terms crowds, praise, and power. Jackson utilizes the notion of crowds to refer to the collectives or groupings that characterize classrooms, and students learn basic social skills such as patience, waiting in turn, working together, and coping with interruptions that are necessary for survival in this environment. Praise is a second pervasive feature of school life, argues Jackson, and the teacher is engaged in evaluating learners' performances across a wide range of social, emotional, and academic dimensions. This fact, in itself, encourages students to behave in ways that increase the possibility of praise or at least avert criticism. The student learns that organizations like schools have hierarchies of power and that in the classroom the teacher has the authority to define appropriate and inappropriate behavior, the kinds of activities in which members of the class may engage, and the beginnings and endings of these activities. Students also learn that they themselves have very little power to control their own lives in schools, and what little power they do have resides in recusancy, or noncooperation. Jackson's study is important in that it was one of the first to point explicitly to the attitudes and values children learn as reflexive features of school organization, significantly influencing the ways they behave, the strategies they adopt, and the people they become.

In a more recent study, Glenn Turner (1983) suggests that examinations have a hidden curriculum of their own that affects students' work strategies and the nature of teacher-student interaction. Drawing on data derived from interviews with teachers and learners, Turner argues that teachers use exams as a means of ensuring cooperation from students and to promote conformity. The students, on the other hand, develop a range of strategies that are directed solely at gaining the best grade with the least amount of trouble to themselves, sometimes harassing teachers to give them hints about examination questions, and studying only the material they are likely to need to know for the examination. Turner concludes that knowledge becomes distorted through the instrumental attitudes learners develop to work, and the pedagogic interactions between teachers and students are also significantly shaped by these pressures.

Perhaps one criticism that might be leveled at both Jackson's and Turner's studies is that they tend not to locate their observations within a broader social context, nor to draw out the implications of their findings for issues such as social and cultural reproduction (Bain, 1985). One writer who has attempted to do just this, by investigating how the hidden curriculum reflects wider social forces, is Michael Apple. Using the concepts of post-Marxist sociology and the methodology of critique, Apple (1979) argues that in the teaching of school science and social studies, the notion of conflict is either omitted or presented as an evil or

PHYSICAL EDUCATION, DISCOURSE, AND IDEOLOGY 39

dysfunctional feature of society. He claims that this omission or misrepresentation conveys an often unrealistic view of how scientists really work. It also implies that conflict cannot be a productive force in promoting social change. The result of the hidden messages this situation communicates is that students are encouraged to view the proper order of society as founded in conformity, cooperation, and consensus, a view that Apple argues may lead to social oppression. The power of Apple's analysis is that it focuses on the taken-for-granted features of the teaching of two apparently noncontroversial subjects, science and social studies, and shows how they work as a medium for purveying a particular set of social values and practices.

Linda Bain (1975) conducted one of the earliest studies of the hidden curriculum in physical education and, in contrast to the previous three studies, which drew heavily on sociological paradigms, adopted a perspective rooted in social psychology, using the systematic observation of student and teacher behavior as its main method for collecting data. The purpose of Bain's research was to describe the patterns and regularities of behavior in physical education classes that appeared to communicate values and attitudes to students. She proposed, on the basis of her study, that a range of values relating to achievement, autonomy, orderliness, privacy, specificity, and universalism were evident in the interactions of teachers and students (Bain, 1975). These value dimensions were manifest to different degrees in the behavior of learners according to gender, urban or suburban schools, and ability in sport and physical education.

Interestingly, Bain (1985) has recently described this early work as "naive and atheoretical." She suggests that more recent studies of the hidden curriculum in physical education have begun to recognize that the hidden messages communicated to students in schools are best approached through cultural analysis and the investigations of the meanings individuals and groups attach to their experiences. Bain (1985, pp. 148-149) reports four studies that have used some form of ethnographic methodology to investigate the hidden curriculum in physical education. One study, by Tindall (1975), focused on students' views of proper personal conduct in basketball classes. Wang (1977) discovered contradictory teacher-sponsored and pupil-imposed curricula in a single physical education class, while Kollen (1983) found that some students experience physical education classes as demanding conformist behaviors and as humiliating and fragmented. And in a series of studies reported by Griffin (1984, 1985a, 1985b), differential student and teacher perceptions of sport and physical education were found to be strongly shaped by the sex and race of the student and the social context in which physical education classes were set.

It is evident from the range of substantive issues investigated by these studies that the values and attitudes conveyed through the hidden curriculum permeate all aspects of school life. These studies provide evidence that suggests that there are indeed other dimensions to the formal processes of teaching and learning to which educators need to attend. But the problem the diversity of subject matter embraced by these studies creates is that the notion of the hidden curriculum begins to be stretched so broad that it appears to embrace everything students learn in schools that is not specified in the school program. When this happens, the term is in danger of losing its potency as an analytical device, because it lacks the power to discriminate among the various media through which students learn. In order to come to grips with this difficulty, Patt Dodds

40 KIRK

(1985) has proposed a more discriminating way of looking at the hidden agendas of educational practice, through the notion of the functional cumculum.

The Functional Curriculum in Physical Education

Dodds (1985) suggests that four levels of curriculum operate simultaneously within any physical education program. The first level she identifies is the explicit curriculum, which is identical to Jackson's official curriculum and refers to "those publicly stated and shared items that teachers want students to acquire" (p. 93). This is the level of curriculum that appears in school programs, syllabuses, and policy documents and that teachers consciously pursue. On the second level there exists a covert curriculum, which Dodds claims refers to teachers' "unspoken, non-public agendas" (p. 93), to those qualities that are rarely, if ever, acknowledged in school documents or lesson plans (such as "students responding quickly and quietly to instructions" or "students trying hard") but that teachers would readily agree are consciously and intentionally communicated to students in the act of implementing the explicit curriculum.

The third level, the null cumculum, refers to those ideas, concepts, and values that could be included in the explicit and covert levels of curriculum but that are, either intentionally or unintentionally and unknowingly, left out. What is missing from a curriculum is significant, for, as Dodds remarks, "ignorance is not neutral; it is a void in the lives of our children. What is not there in physical education classes interacts somehow with what is there" (p. 93).

Finally, the fourth level, the hidden cumculum, is more restricted in Dodds's scheme than in other studies; here the term hidden curriculum refers to the reflexive aspects of what teachers say and do in organizing programs, writing lesson plans, and teaching classes. For instance, tone of voice or the use of gestures often do much more than simply accompany the substance of what someone is saying. The way in which something is said, or the way someone moves while speaking, is often crucial to conveying the meaning of what is being said. Tone of voice and gesture, as two simple examples, can communicate displeasure, sorrow, anger, acceptance, dominance, elation, frustration, and many other moods and feelings. Similarly, the ways in which teachers set up lessons, whether this is neatly done, prepared before students arrive for class, whether the lesson is is clearly laid out or is confusing or untidy, can tell much about the teacher who does the setting up, in terms of his or her habits, dispositions, knowledge, attitudes, and values. This conception of the hidden curriculum, more narrowly focused on the reflexive aspects of speech, action, and organization, is necessarily manifest at an unconscious level. Because of this, it is probably the most difficult level of the curriculum to grasp and the most complex in terms of understanding its effects on what students are learning. It is also the most far- reaching, however, since it is a crucial and significant feature of all of our attempts to communicate.

As Dodds suggests, each of these levels of curriculum will be in operation in every physical education lesson, although some may exert a more prominent influence than others at any particular moment. Taken together, these various levels constitute the functional curriculum, the full, dynamic display from which students learn. It is important that we do not commit the error of seeing the functional curriculum as in some way an aggregate of these four levels, though.


Indeed, these levels interact in ways that do not simply add one source of learning to another, but rather in ways that distort, contradict, or reinforce the messages that get through to students from teachers. This important point can be most clearly demonstrated through a number of examples drawn from studies in physical education.

Some research in physical education has focused on physical education teachers and their personalities, dispositions, and professional preparation. In one such study, Whitehead and Hendry (1976, p. 114) suggest that British "physical educators in general had poor social insight, high achievement drive, and were dominant and aggressive, with an authoritarian attitude." Although they were unable to outline in more than general terms the sorts of effects such persons may have on students, it is clear that many of these characteristics will be noticed and learned by students at covert or reflexive levels. Whitehead and Hendry go on to argue that many of these characteristics may be the result of a high emphasis on individual excellence in sporting activities within physical education teacher education, and this competitive ethos is reproduced in "a closed system perpetuated by colleges and schools, where successful pupils, in turn become teachers and reinforce certain values" (p. 115). This important insight parallels the work of writers like Giroux (1981, p. 143) who have studied the hidden messages communicated through teacher education programs generally.

Dodds suggests that, at the null level of curriculum, the activities left out of programs will influence the view teachers and students have of physical education. Tainton, Hacker, and Peckam (1984), in an evaluation of physical education in Australian primary schools, have shown that although a broad range of activities is presented in the official physical education program, including swimming, games and sports, physical fitness, gymnastics, dance, outdoor education, and adaptive physical education, in practice some activities, such as gymnastics, dance, outdoor education, and adaptive physical education, are consistently deemphasized, neglected, or omitted. Studies conducted in Britain reveal a similar picture, where games teaching dominates physical education in primary schools, and dance and gymnastics are often neglected or overlooked (Smith, 1984; Williams, 1980).

These examples of the null curriculum are significant in that they provide some clues to the sorts of things students might learn, not just in physical education, but about physical education. The problem of omission, and of the values implicitly communicated through this process, has been an issue of some significance in relation to how students, parents, teachers, and administrators perceive the status of physical education as an educational activity. In a widely cited paper, Hendry (1976) expressed this problem as the marginality of physical education to the school's central purposes. The fact that physical education has often been a nonmatriculation school subject has worked to relegate it to a low- status position in the curriculum, commanding little peak time on the timetable or influence in the distribution of resources. Even under more favorable circumstances, however, where physical education is a matriculation subject, with formal written examinations and classroom-based activities, it might be suggested that the values associated with physical education's marginality have not dis- appeared but instead continue to influence its role and status in the curriculum at a residual level. For instance, the fact that in some school systems students are forced to choose physical education against more prestigious subjects such

as science or math forces the most academically able students to choose these subjects and the less able to choose physical education, a process that in itself imputes a valuation.

Physical Education, Discourse, and Ideology

The notion of the functional curriculum is a particularly useful one for analyzing the hidden agendas of physical education teaching and learning. It demonstrates that teaching and learning is a complex affair, if ever anyone doubted it. And it provides a useful schema for giving expression to some of the less obvious learnings that take place in physical education classes. But we still seem to be left with the problem of the nature and substance of the hidden agendas the functional curriculum helps us to articulate. Part of this difficulty lies in terminology. To this point in the paper, we have referred to the hidden curriculum and functional curriculum as things and as the other side of the formal cumculum coin. In so doing, we have run the risk of implying that the hidden agendas of physical education teaching have some tangible, material existence, as the official curriculum of the school does. But here terminology is apt to mislead. Although it is possible, with a realistic hope of success, to ask to see a physical education program in operation, it is not quite the same thing to request to see the hidden agendas of teaching and learning at work.

This is not to suggest that these reflexive, null, or covert moments in teaching and learning have no tangible effects (or why would we be interested in them?). Rather, it is to note that the phenomena we are dealing with when we refer to the hidden agendas of physical education exist in the realm of communication and meaning making, in a symbol world of action, gesture, word, intonation, and sound. The hidden agendas that are communicated through everyday physical education teaching and learning do not occupy a separate existence of their own. Picking up on the point from Seddon stressed earlier in this paper, the hidden dimensions of teaching and learning are part and parcel of the official curriculum. They are interwoven, so that the official, visible, purposive teaching and learning that go on are a medium for a range of other effects. So, if we are to look for the hidden agendas of teaching and learning in physical education, it is to the communicative realm that we must turn our attention.

Two terms that might prove to be of some use in making the hidden dimensions of physical education a little more visible are discourse and ideology. As the eminent British sociologist Stuart Hall (1985) has pointed out, both terms are directly concerned with expressing ideas about communication. In a most basic sense, discourse refers to the ways in which people communicate their understanding of their own and others' activities and of events in the world around them. It refers to the ways in which they speak about (in our case) physical education, not only through what they say verbally, but through what they write and what they do; and also through the gaps or silences in their discourses, what they don't say, write, or do. Discourse is larger than language, because it embraces all forms of communicating rather than simply the verbal or written word. It refers to all meaning-making activity, whether this be intentional, conscious, unconscious, explicit, tacit, or reflexive. The plural of this term, discourses, refers to particular attempts at meaning making, relating to specific circumstances, periods in time and space, fields of knowledge, and so on. Physical education as


a cultural practice can be said to be informed by, or in Basil Bernstein's (1986) more accurate words, "embedded in," the discourses of exercise science, the popular health and fitness movement, and competitive sport, among other associated attempts to make sense of specific aspects of human existence and social life. Each of these discourses is interwoven through the practices we call physical education, assisting us to make sense of our activities in particular ways.

Ideology is a highly problematic and contested concept. Like the term hidden curriculum, the term ideology has been used in a vast number of ways by different groups with varying intentions. Because of the notion's complexity, some have argued for its abandonment. Others, like Teny Eagleton (1991), have pointed out that although it is a complex and at times confused notion, it seems absurd to be proclaiming the end of ideology just as neo-Stalinist communism has crumbled under the onslaught of democratic capitalism in Eastern Europe and Islamic and Christian fundamentalism have emerged as potent political forces in different parts of the world. Like Eagleton, I wish to argue for the retention of this notion as a specific form and function of discourse, one in which there is an arbitrary linking and fixing of formally separate discourses in ways that seem, or are made to seem, natural and necessary and that have a range of effects on social relations and power. One of Eagleton's main criticisms of inappropriate uses of the notion of ideology is that the notion is stretched to a point where it becomes coextensive with other conceptual categories, like language, communication, or discourse. When confronted by a particular view of ideology, his acid test is to ask what "would count as the other of it" (Eagleton, 1991). In this case, is it reasonable to suggest that all discourses can be described as ideology? My view following Hall (1985) is that it is possible to reserve the descriptor ideology for those cases where the linking of one discourse with others takes on the apjkarance of a necessary relationship, where this is in fact unwarranted, and where the outcome of such arbitrary linking has social and political consequences. Eagleton has noted, in criticism of the views of the philosopher Paul de Man, that "ideology is language which forgets the essentially contingent, accidental relations between itself and the world, and comes instead to mistake itself as having some kind of organic, inevitable bond with what it represents" (p. 200). This process of reification may, as Eagleton suggests, represent a rather limiting viewif ideology, but it does at least express one of its host important features, which is this linking and fixing together of otherwise separate elements of meaning making in ways that seem natural, inevitable, and uncontestable.

cultural activitieslike teaching and learning physical education take place within a nexus of discourses that provide the means of making sense of the world. When we view educational transactions in this way, ideology can be identified precisely as "frameworks of thinking and calculation about the world" (Hall, 1985, p. 99). Hall argues that ideologies appear in language, in "the domain of meaning and representation" (p. loo), and in "the rituals and practices of social action or behaviour which always occur in social sites" (p. 100). He suggests that "every social practice is constituted within the interplay of meaning and representation and can itself be represented. In other words, there is no social practice outside of ideology" (p. 103). On the other hand, applying Eagleton's acid test, this does not mean that "because all social practices are within the discursive, there is nothing to social practice but discourse . . . it does not follow that because all practices are in ideology, or inscribed by ideology, all practices

are nothing but ideology" (p. 103). Hall's point is that all attempts to make sense of the world utilize language or language-like systems of signs, and so an analysis of social practices as discursive systems reveals the attempts to create meaning that are inscribed within these practices. Clearly, there are material and other forces at work that affect social activity but that cannot be overruled simply because a group of people all agree to their nonexistence; we may all agree to believe that we did not lose the game, but this will not change the fact that we did lose if the other team scored more points.

Discourses are generated out of social practices carried out in particular sites. However, these discursive formations (tb use Hall's language) &e neither uniform nor necessarily internally consistent. Hall points out that ideologies are systems of representation that "operate in discursive chains, in clusters, in semantic fields" (p. 104), and that the fixing, or what he calls articulation, of one system to another is determined by prevailing conditions in any specific place and at any given time. Hall notes, in addition, that the existence of these chains of significations that make up discursive formations make it simplistic to talk about the dominant ideology. He stresses that there is interplay between chains, that they contest each other, they draw on common concepts, but then rearticulate and disarticulate them in specific sites and use them for specific, sometimes contrary, purposes.

To express these ideas slightly differently, we might say that discourse does ideological work when particular elements of discourse are linked together in ways that suggest necessary, rather than contingent, relationships. In the process, there may result a confusion of these relationships, or a foregrounding of some elements in the discursive formation at the expense of other elements, which may in turn have important outcomes for particular individuals and groups of people. An example recognizable to physical educators might be the relationships between ideas surrounding body shape, exercise, and health. Physiologically speaking, we know that people do not necessarily become healthy simply by doing exercise. We also know that people with certain somatotypes can change the shapes of their bodies only in limited ways. Furthermore, we can say with some certainty that having a slender, mesomorphic body is no assurance of good health or physical fitness. Recently, however, a much stronger relationship has been implied between exercise, health, and%ody shape through a number of media such as television and print adveAising and the exercise video (Morse, 1987-1988). By a use of the standard techniques of electronic media and advertising and other imagery being pitched at the level of sentiment and desire, a strongly bonded relationship has been fixed between exercise, body shape, and health. Over the last decade or so, the notion that there is a necessary relationship between these elements of discourse has become widespread among some people in certain sections of Western society, physical educators among them. In this situation, discourse does ideological work when formally separate or merely contingently related elements are arbitrarily linked so that the ways in which they relate to each other seem natural and when this fixing of ideashas specific social consequences. In the case of the fixing and continual reconfirmation of the exercise = slenderness = health = exercise relationship, we know that many women and some men suffer miserable lives due to their body shape anxieties, that some are constantly dieting; that some vomit after eating; that some take appetite suppressants; that some overexercise, thereby creating chronic injuries;


and that some starve themselves, sometimes to extreme emaciation (cf. Chernin, 1985; Glassner, 1989; Orbach, 1986).

This process of discourse doing ideological work is never straightforward or uncontested. The concept of ideological hegemony, as it is worked through in the writings of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1971), provides a useful means of expressing the contingent, contested, and constant process of struggle to utilize discourses, particularly in terms of winning consent from competing groups for social practices that advantage and disadvantage some fractions of society over others. Grarnsci's use of the notion of hegemony as coextensive with the entire social process marked a significant break with previous uses of the term and with static notions of particular ideologies linked too firmly to particular social class groups. He suggests that in advanced capitalist democracies, inequitable power relations are maintained in the main not by brute force or coercion, but instead by the willing compliance of the oppressed in their own subordination. This compliance is achieved by the appearance of inequalities as part of the natural order of things, as fixed and unproblematic. Gramsci argues that in the complex process of negotiation and compromise that characterizes democratic class societies, hegemony is never total or absolute, and indeed, the existence of oppositional or alternative discourses plays an active and constitutive part in the process.

In this Gramscian sense of ideological hegemony, Raymond Williams (1977) has pointed out that structured power relations and the inequality, disadvantage, and oppression that derive from these form part of people's consciousness at the level of common sense and the everyday. In this sense, power is woven into the fabric of culture. For Williams,

Hegemony . . . is a whole body of practices and expectations, over the whole of living: our senses and assignments of energy, our shaping perceptions of ourselves and our world. It is a lived system of meanings and values- constitutive and constituting-which as they are experienced as practices appear as reciprocally confirming. It thus constitutes a sense of reality for most people in the society, a sense of absolute but experienced reality beyond which it is very difficult for most members of the society to move, in most areas of their lives. It is, that is to say, in the strongest sense a "culture," but a culture which has also to be seen as the lived dominance and subordination of particular classes. (Williams, 1977, p. 1 10)

Through this notion of hegemony, Williams is suggesting that power relations are manifest and expressed in and through social interaction but not always, and sometimes never, at the level of conscious awareness and deliberate strategy. Furthermore, the contingent and process nature of the ideological hegemony, as a constitutive part of the ongoing flow of everyday life, denies the possibility of a dominant ideology associated with a particular social group.

Hall suggests that all social groups utilize discourse in a variety of ways to do ideological work to advance their own positions. The chains of ideas and images that constitute their raw materials, the entire range of discourse and meaning making, is in general circulation in a society. Elements of discourse are reassembled by different individuals, groups, and fractions of society for different purposes. At the same time, as Hall stresses, the contingent nature of this process

46 KIRK

of fixing chains of ideas to each other to form discourses does not imply that there are no determining principles in the distribution of power and privilege. Social formations are, as he suggests, a structure-in-dominance, with distinct tendencies and a certain configuration. Power is perpetuated through generations, and some social groups do, consistently, disproportionately occupy positions of privilege and influence over others. Some have a headstart on others in terms of their access to, or resources to make use of, the raw discursive materials that are available. The precise nature of this structure-in-dominance is always a matter for investigation, not reductive determination, because the distribution of power is dependent on a whole range of prevailing conditions and circumstances in any specific location at any given time.

These notions of discourse, ideological work, and hegemony may be a means of making more visible the hidden agendas of physical education teaching and learning. They may do this by providing a more delimited and precise sense of how exposure to the cuniculum can shape the emotional, psychological, and material dimensions of students' lives, by feeding the social construction of the contexts, the cultural climates, that attribute legitimacy and value to certain kinds of learning. Discourse and ideology also offer the opportunity of linking some of the learning that takes place in physical education with some of the wider social and cultural practices and forms of organization in society. In the next section, drawing on the pioneering work of Jennifer Hargreaves (1977) in this field, some of the discourses that do ideological work through physical education teaching and learning are sketched as just a few examples among many possibilities. This is done in an effort to illustrate how these notions may provide a useful means of making the hidden dimensions of curriculum more visible.

Ideology and the Hidden Curriculum in Physical Education

Hargreaves (1977) has argued that, at a very broad level, physical education can be linked ideologically to what she calls the capitalist mode of production. This is because, as a subject in the school curriculum, physical education "can be seen as a purveyor of bourgeois values and attitudes, which include competitiveness, individualism, respect for authority, work discipline and male- ness" (Hargreaves, 1977, p. 22). These values lie at the core of the Protestant work ethic, claims Hargreaves, which in itself is a major driving force behind industrial capitalism. Many of the activities that form a major part of physical education develop these values in explicit ways, through codes of conduct in competitive team games, and through some of the less attractive aberrations of competition like "win at all costs." More importantly, perhaps, these curriculum activities legitimate such values as being natural and necessary for a balanced and productive society. Although such values might be considered valuable in the business world, the curriculum activities that promote them may feed forms of disadvantage for a range of social groups (Karier, 1976), the largest being women. For example, certain types of masculinity and aggression are celebrated in many sports in a way that legitimates the notion of male supremacy, the idea that men are in some way naturally superior to women (Willis, 1982). This definition of good sport performance may serve to intimidate and restrict women's participation in physical activities and have a negative effect on women's self- esteem and body image (Bain, 1985, 1990).


Hargreaves suggests that a male definition of activity in physical education also serves to reinforce elitism through an unconscious and unproblematic celebration of high-level sport performance. In this context, schools are considered to be the "forges of Olympic reserve," where future champions are produced, where nationalism, patriotism, and racism are actively promoted through international rivalry in sport. Often this elitist conception of physical education activities is masked behind a rhetoric of "sport for all." In Australia, for instance, the recently launched Aussie Sports program of modified games claims to be concerned that the well-being of thousands of Australian children is in jeopardy because they do not have access to participation in a range of sports. This concern might be counterposed, though, against a promotional video produced by the Australian Sports Commission, which opens with a film sequence of elite Australian athletes winning gold medals or breaking world records, a commentary conducted by a famous Australian international cricketer, and an elaborate award program for pupils with associated paraphernalia of badges, certificates, stickers, charts, and other inducements to participate. The program is sponsored by a range of elite sporting bodies and could be said to reflect their vested interest in the production of champions. Despite the sport-for-all rhetoric, Aussie Sports is, arguably, proactively contributing to the reproduction and legitimation of discourses of elitism and nationalism. It might also be suggested that it is designed to create high levels of sport performance through school programs involving a process that creates a large wastage of talented youngsters, a plethora of serious sport-produced injuries that can often mean a lifetime of debilitation, and blighted hopes and aspirations among many young people.

The links between these discourses of elitism and competition, the world of work, and physical education might be said to be further reinforced through the trivialization of particular forms of physical activities, most often those associated with play-like activities, which emphasize subjectivity, experience, and other qualitative dimensions of participation. In order to be seen to be serious, productive, and legitimate, some forms of physical activity have attempted to emulate work-like practices by becoming highly codified, bureaucratized, scientifically based, and played out for high stakes in terms of honors and money. Many professional (and some amateur) sports would fit this description, and their collective ethos and practices are frequently reproduced in and through physical education lessons in schools. The distinction between work and play and the relative importance accorded to each in capitalist production feed discursive formations in which many of the practices of physical education are already embedded.

As a final example, Hargreaves argues that the commodification of leisure, and the leisure time of youth in particular, may be a powerful means of social control. She comments, "One could argue that there is a closer and more material link between PE and the capitalist mode of production. Sport is clearly a very significant aspect of the 'leisure industry,' and PE directs its energies, to an increasing extent, to the pupils' use of sporting facilities" (Hargreaves, 1977, p. 24). She suggests that the interest among physical educators in preparing students to make productive use of their free time may be framed by a discourse of social control that teachers, for the most part unwittingly, reproduce. She quotes an official British government report that, as early as 1960, proposed that "if more young people had opportunities for playing games, fewer of them would

48 KIRK

develop criminal habits" (in Hargreaves, 1977, p. 24). This point is made even more strongly in a report from the British Department of Environment, which stated in 1975, and in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis and massive youth unemployment, that "by reducing boredom and urban frustration, participation in active recreation contributes to the reduction of hooliganism and delinquency of young people" (in Hargreaves, 1977, p. 24).

In practical terms, this may well be. But as Hargreaves and others have been correctly led to ask, in whose interest is it to suggest that channeling youthful energy into physical recreation will reduce delinquency? What substitute are recreational activities in place of a real job and a living wage? Writing in the mid 1970s, when youth unemployment was at its height in Britain, Hargreaves (1977, p. 34) argued that "leisure . . . is viewed as a problem, and the tremendous increase in the number and range of recreative activities offered to students in secondary schools reflects the attempt to cope with it. This helps to direct attention away from much more intractable problems which would require major structural changes for their solution-for example, improved housing, better job opportunities, and stimulating education. The provision of leisure facilities is cheaper than other reforms." The discourse of social control is further reinforced by the use in recreational programs of sporting activities that are already embedded in discourses of elitism and "win at all costs," and so contain students' behavior at an overt level through the structuring of their free time, and at the level of consciousness, by encouraging, through these activities, habits of conformity, respect for authority, and controlled aggression.

None of this is to deny the legitimacy or value of physical educators' work in this area, where many may be laudably engaged in assisting unemployed or disaffected youth to cope with their desperate situations (e.g., Hellison, 1978). But Hargreaves's examples do provide some illustrations of how discourse does ideological work in the realm of communication, to frame and delimit the universe of possibilities in any particular situation. In this last example of the embeddedness of recreational arguments in a discourse of social control, all that is required is a lack of vigilance for ideological work to be done. Here, physical educators can be co-opted into reproducing repressive social conditions quite unwillingly and unwittingly. No malicious intent is required on the part of physical educators for social processes to work in this way. The hidden agendas of physical education teaching and learning are built in to everyday practices and work all the more effectively when they are passed on unnoticed, unconsciously, and innocently.

Implications for Physical Education Teaching and Research

Discourse and ideology are notions that present one way of conceptualizing more precisely the hidden curriculum and its effects. They allow us to begin to identify physical education teaching and learning as a cultural practice and provide the potential to link up activities in the gym and classroom with other, related cultural practices. Moreover, they show where we need to look for the hidden agendas of physical education, in the realms of language, communications, and meaning making. In our attempts to make sense of the world, we adopt and adapt particular frames of reference, or, to use Stuart Hall's language, we articulate various chains of significations. These discourses enable us to understand, to think and make sense. But in the process of enabling us to see, they simultaneously


limit access to other possibilities; they channel our vision, both enabling and constraining us at the same time. In attempting to move beyond the heuristic moment the term hidden curriculum provides for us, we need to turn our attention to discourse and ideology as tools for dismantling and reworking our frames of reference. What are the implications of the arguments advanced in this paper for physical education teaching and research? If the hidden curriculum operates in the realm of communications and meaning making, what do teachers and reearchers need to do?

In terms of teaching physical education across all levels of educational institutions, strategies for beginning to engage in the process of dismantling and reworking our frames of reference are already available to us, but they are not at the present time widely used by physical educators. In the pages of this journal, Jim McKay and Kent Pearson (1984) have shown how it is possible to begin to get students to critically question their commonsense assumptions about sport through the use of a range of strategies they label collectively as debunking. Early in their sociology of sport course for prospective physical education teachers, McKay and Pearson discuss popular proverbs and sayings that express commonsense knowledge and constitute a hidden curriculum of sport. They show that for any saying that reflects deeply embedded beliefs about sport there is another that challenges or refutes it. Using this tactic, they attempt to show how common sense as it is expressed in everyday language can be extremely influential in shaping ideas and assumptions, and that it can also be contradictory. In the second part of their course, McKay and Pearson develop their attempts to demon- strate to students that truth, evidence, and knowledge are contestable and problematic. They select a range of widely accepted notions such as the idea that sport performs a cathartic function, that sport is a cultural universal, or that sport is an egalitarian institution. They then draw together the findings of research in a number of fields to suggest that such common knowledge is frequently not supported in fact. Moreover, they point out that uncritical acceptance of a hidden curriculum of untrue or unsubstantiated beliefs can have dangerous social and political consequences, such as the legitimation of violence and the oppression of women.

A strategy that has much in common with McKay and Pearson's debunking approach is Neil Postman's (1989) advocacy of examining how language works in any given context. Concerned about the damaging impact of mass media on the general level of our conceptual literacy, which he views as the ability to think abstractly across space and time, Postman talks about the need for "languaging" (Postman & Weingartner, 1971). He argues that teachers, researchers, and students need to meet the issue of scrutinizing communication, language, and meaning making head on, not as a specialized activity but as a survival strategy in contemporary society. Languaging means raising questions about communication, about the taken-for-granted ways in which we attempt to make sense of the world, and so is ideally suited to address the hidden curriculum of physical education. Postman (1989) proposes seven principles that can be employed to language any slice of human communicative activity. These seven principles relate to challenging the apparent fixedness of definitions, asking questions, acknowledging that the simplest words are often the hardest, understanding the implications of the fact that language is metaphor-laden, avoiding making the mistake of confusing words for things, and accepting that media are never neutral channels for communicating.

A couple of examples might help to illustrate how this strategy for identifying the ideological work done by language can be applied to physical education. Postman's first principle of languaging is that definitions are never fixed or absolute and, so, need to be approached critically. The danger with definitions, he argues, is that we tend to treat them with too much reverence. The attempt to define effective physical education teaching is a case in point, as in this example, taken at random from a recent text-"the central feature of effective teaching in physical education is time-on-task as measured by the proportion of time devoted to task-practice-motor easy" (McLeish, cited in Underwood, 1988, p. 33). Operational definitions of terms such as this are fine when they are created to facilitate communication in specific instances. But the danger with definitions when we treat them too reverently is that they take on a life of their own, and when this happens they are apt to tyrannize over us rather than assist us. Because all definitions are produced by people, it is always advisable to treat them with a healthy degree of skepticism. At least we should always ask, Whose definition is this? For what purposes was it formulated? Under what circumstances was it formulated? What relevance does it have here and now?

As a second example, we can take Postman's third principle, which is that the most difficult words in any language are not those that are long, unusual, or difficult to pronounce. Rather, the hard words are the everyday words like good, bad, true, and false, or those words that we simply assume mean the same thing to everyone, such as teaching. But we all know that this is one of the hardest words around. What does teaching mean? Is it setting tasks, demonstrating, monitoring, and correcting student activity? Is it providing materials and resources for students to investigate topics themselves? Is it chalk and talk? Is it creating an environment that allows certain qualities to emerge? Is teaching all or none of these things? This isn't simply a matter of different "teaching styles" or "techniques." It's a matter of what the word means. On the basis of the debates that have raged in the academy for the last 20 to 30 years without resolution, I think we have to conclude that this is a pretty tough word. And what about the others, like learning, competence, excellence, equity, and even the term physical education itself?

Languaging means taking seriously the ways in which we attempt to make sense to ourselves and each other. By applying each of Postman's principles to any piece of discourse in physical education, we can assist students to begin to see how language works to communicate meaning that is not self-evident or obvious. Languaging, like debunking, is not some kind of magical technique that can solve problems. However, as Postman's critique of mass culture and electronic mass media emphasized, languaging is all the more important at a time when our systems of communication are becoming increasingly problematic and our anchoring and orienting categories for making sense are being radically broken down and reworked. This approach to bringing the hidden curriculum into view through an examination of language and meaning making is supported by a range of recent advocacies for more socially critical perspectives in education (e.g., Aronowitz & Giroux, 1985), teacher education (e.g., Zeichner & Teitlebaum, 1982), physical education teacher education (e.g., Kirk, 1986), and physical education more generally (e.g., Hellison, 1988).

A third strategy teachers might employ to approach the hidden curriculum is to extend back in time this process of examining the naturalization and fixing of linkages between contingent elements of discourse. There has recently been an

PHYSICAL EDUCATION, DISCOURSE, AND IDEOLOGY 5 1

upsurge of interest in the use of curridulum history as a means of helping learners create some analytic space for the examination of contemporary practices (Seddon, 1989). In the late 1950s, C. Wright Mills (1970) was arguing that historical sensitivity is an essential component of what he termed the "sociological imagination," along with anthropological insight and a critical perspective. This is because historical material can illustrate the processes of human struggle and contestation underlying social life that are less obvious to protagonists immersed and engrossed in the action at the time (Goodson, 1988). An historical approach to contemporary problems can bring the hidden curriculum into view by exploring the circumstances, and exposing the processes, in and through which elements of discourse become fixed to each other and by which orthodoxies are formed.

History is important not only to teaching but also to researching physical education. As I have already suggested, it supplies an antidote to the tendency in contemporary culture to imprisonment in the present through our absorption in electronic media and the visual image, by supplying a measure of analytic distance. Historical material can also illustrate the contested character of selecting, organizing, and distributing knowledge in physical education. By revealing the contested nature of physical education as a cultural practice and the discourses in which these practices are embedded, historical material can highlight the ways in which schooling intersects with power relations in society and their substantiations through relations of class, race, sex, and age, which are in themselves important features of the hidden curriculum.

History can supplement contemporary research in physical education and in so doing can provide useful insights into the workings of the hidden curriculum. Moreover, there are implications for research more broadly that follow on from the view that the place to look for the hidden curriculum is in the realm of communication and meaning making. If physical education is, indeed, a complex cultural practice, then the research tools created to study this slice of culture need to be suited to the task. As in the case of teaching and the hidden curriculum, many of these tools for research are already at hand, though their use in

education may not be widespread. Qualitative research methods such as participant observation, case study, and ethnographic interviewing have made some headway in physical education research during the past decade (Evans, 1986). These methods of data collection allow the researcher to gain access to the culture of a group either as a user of that culture her- or himself or as an involved observer and interpreter. Bain (1985) notes that these qualities are the kind needed to research the hidden curriculum, because they permit access to the meaning-making activities of individuals and groups in particular social settings. Others, such as Jan Wright (1990), have demonstrated the usefulness of a form of linguistic analysis to identify the ways in which speech and action in physical education lessons contribute to the implicit construction of sexuality.

Working in the field of cultural studies, Richard Johnson (1987) has argued that qualitative studies of lived experience and speech represent only two or three ways in which researchers have attempted to study discourse, meaning-making, and culture. One major orientation has utilized ethnography and other qualitative methods to focus on the subjective, lived experience of social life. There has been an increasing amount of work in physical education from this perspective in the past decade (see Bain, 1990; Evans, 1986). Another orientation has focused on culture as a text and has been carried out within the fields of literary criticism

52 KIRK

and semiology. Wright's (1990) work could be located within this category. A third orientation has tended to focus on the processes of producing culture, and studies within this area have generally been carried out by Marxists, critical theorists, political economists, and social historians. Within this category, researchers have tended to focus on sport rather than physical education (see McKay, 1986). Johnson suggests that, as studies of culture, each orientation by itself has been inadequate. Studies of lived experience have often highlighted the more concrete and private moments in social life at the expense of attention to the public forms and the forces that transcend particular settings in specific periods of time. Studies of culture as a text have tended to engage in more or less definitive readings of culture at the expense of the processes of producing and experiencing culture. And studies of cultural production have tended to be too concerned with the social structures governing this process and less with what happens to cultural products once they begin to circulate in society.

Johnson's purpose is not merely to point to the inadequacies of previous orientations to studies of culture, but to suggest that the path forward in doing research on (in our case) physical education as a cultural practice is to begin to focus on ways of highlighting the interrelationships between each of these approaches to studying culture. In terms of understanding the hidden cumculum in physical education, it seems to me that it is essential to generate frameworks and tools for research able to make these interlinkages. This is because the manifestations of the hidden cumculum in the practices of physical education are not exclusive to physical education alone. As a cultural practice, physical education is constituted by a range of interweaving discourses that also operate in other social settings. For instance, gender inequity is a feature of society more broadly and not just of sport and physical education. It is not easy to act on gender inequity in the gym without some sense of where else ideological messages about (alleged) male superiority and female inferiority might be coming from and, also, where an educational approach to such problems might lead beyond the physical education lesson.

Building on Johnson's analysis, perhaps it would be possible to identify the foregrounded and backgrounded discourses that constitute any particular cultural practice like physical education and then to track these discourses across other social sites, such as media sport, the fitness industry, and television and magazine advertising. In so doing, it may be possible to show how the values and interests of some fractions of society have been able to impact on, and have consequences for, the conditions and practices of other groups. The use of historical material could greatly contribute to this process by extending the time frame of this tracking exercise, perhaps tracking key elements of discourse through a variety of evolutions to their point of origin. However these studies are framed, qualitative and historical methods would seem to offer much in terms of data collection, because they permit a high level of sensitivity to cultural practices and the flexibility to treat the intangible and ambiguous material that constitutes human communication and meaning making.

Conclusion

Johnson's work, along with the teaching strategies of McKay and Pearson, Postman, and the curriculum historians, presents a challenge to physical educators

'101-26 '~2 '1sanD .uo!lmnpa 1~3rsdyd u! run~n3p1n:, uapprq au '(~~61) '77 'u!ea 'Inzd

ue8ag ?B a8papnox :uopuo~ .aga?s napun uo?iv3npg '(~861) 'H 'xnon~f) 79 "S 'ZI!MOUOlV 'Ined w8aa a8pallnox :uopuo? .wnln3pnn3 puv LZoloap~ '(6~61) 'M'w 'a~ddv

.jyad mo le L~uo sassaldxa I! lda3uo3 ayl uy Isalam! uopueqe aM lng .ssauInjasn sl! u~ol8lno MOU sdeylad seq ma1 aql 'Llqen8lv -8u!weal pw 8uyy3ea) uo!ie3npa le3lsLyd jo 3!weuLp ayl 8u!pmlslapun lafaq jo surral u! uels e sn uag8 sey zunp3&L(n3 uappg uua) ayL -Ai!n8!qurr! pw L~!xaldwo:, yl!~ 8u!leap jo sLe~ pale3ps!ydos alow 1aAa paau am '(~861 <033) Lr!leauaddq jo a8e ue u! '(6861 'La~re~) uolqpuo3 wapowlsod ayl aA!Nns 01 laplo UI 'L)!hp38 uewnq )ua8!11am! Lue jo md hressa3au e s! I! 1ng .lua!s!jjns .IOU hrol~ejs!~es laqllau s! uo!~~nr~suo~ap lahap jo IaAal ayl ie uoys sdols ley1 anbgu3 ley1 pyes aq 03 spaau I! '(1661) doluapars pue 'ay3oy 'ue~g1nS,o JO SUIS!~!I~~ ayl jo ly8g UI .pau!e~~alua sapq!q!ssod Mau pm pal3eua aq ly%!ur sany~ewaqs ley3 Loldwa Lay1 sy1oMaruelj pale3!1syqdos ay) pue sloqel any3alja.1 asayl jo syseq ay) uo s! 11 -UO~~~N)SUO~~.I pue 'uop3aljal 'uo!le~oldxa jo sassa3ord 8u!o8uo aq 'dl!ssa3au jo 'lsnw W~M u! sda~s lslg L~uo am aq3eld ~a.~nllns e st! uopmnpa 1e3lsLyd 8uyLpnls loj sylornamq pale3 -ps!ydos alow pue pualew 1e3po1syq %u!sn put! '%u!8en8uq '8u!)lunqaa

.alea13al 01 MO~ pue 'suods pue same8 Le~d 01 MO~

'ly la8 01 MO~ sluapnls Bu!ysaal jo ssa3old ayi u! suo!l!puos legos anyssalddo %u!3npo~da~ jo ssau!snq ayi uy aq IIaM Law s~o~e3npa 1e3!sAyd 'a3ua3ouu! Ile UI 'alLlsaj!~ pue 'yqsay 'uods ~J!M suo!@dn33oa~d ~uaun:, mo jo ap!s lay1ep ayi JO

sa~dmxa OM) lsnr are (0661 'a3uarepzqg) Lpoq ayljo uo!~ez!~e!~lawwo~ pue uope3y~poruu103 aql pue ((361 '8u!uu!~) ssawapuals jo qn3 au .awosaloym pue 'u8!uaq 'a~!j!sod aq sLe~1e lou dew ley) sLe~ uy sasmo:,s!p JO snxau sly1 u! dn lySne3 Ll8u!sea13u! s! uoy1e3npa le3!sdyd -(8861-~867 '£861 'as.~ow) euawouayd alLlsaj!l pm 'a~ns!al 'ssaulg 1e3!sLyd 'uods wpaw jo oapp pue uo!s!Aalai y8noq1 a3uau!wo~d 01 asp e uaaq sey a~ayl 'lxaluo3 s!y1 UI .uo!le3y!le~8 ale8ouns mq luelsu! jo loLa~nd e sa eypaw 3!uo113ala ssew jo a~uanlju! [npa~od Ll8u!sea.13u! ayl palou sey (~861) uewlsod .Llapos hrelodwaluo:, jo sanbpu:, lua3a.I awos Lq L3ua81n pappe ua~!% s! wnln3!un3 uappy ayl puelslapun 01 paau au

-1ue~1odury alow ayi Ile s! sdnor8 le!:,os pue slenppupu! RI -n3!md 103 sa3uanbasuo:, leluawy~ap sl! pue wn~n3yn:, uapp!y ayl jo ssaualeme 1e3!lu3 e 'auop uoseal sly1 log 'a3103 alnrq wyl SLEM 'xaldwo3 alow yanw 'laylo u! sawlado la~od 'sa!3e13owap is!@l!de3 ]sow jo ajg @pos hpka~a ayl u! in8 .sawoy pue 's1ooy3s 'siaa11s mo wo1j pareaddes!~ IOU aAey uoplao:, pm a3ua[o!~ 'asmo:, jo -dno1% IE!30S raylo awos jo md ayl uo 8u!llold 10 uo!$e~na@:, jo 11nsa.1 ayl woplas are smaJja yans ley1 1sa88ns L801oapy pue as~no3s!p jo suoyiou ayl jo s!d@ue 'rood ayl pm 'sal!y~uou 'uauroM sa y3ns 'sdno18 awos 103 snoa8eim~pes!p ualjo are wn~n:,!.~m:, uappry ay1 JO q3ajja ayl y8noyL .sy~o~ mn1n3y~n3 uapp!y ayl ~oy Ou!lellsuowap jo smaw e apl~old osp Lau -Ma!A olu! 8u!umal pue '8ulq3eal '8u!y3lt?asal uo!le3npa @:,!sad jo sepua8e uappry aql 8u!8uuq jo Ll!~!qpsod ayi lajjo L801oap! pue as~no:,s!p jo suo!1ou ayl ley1 laded sly1 u! pan8e uaaq sey 71 -sn pauap ~sej umlmpn:, uappg ayl jo uo!~ou ay1 q~y~ 01 uoyle3npa je:,!sLyd jo sap!xa1dwo3 ayj 8u!pw1slapun u! palsa.~alur

Bain, L.L. (1985). The hidden curriculum re-examined. Quest, 37, 145-153. Bain, L.L. (1990). A critical analysis of the hidden curriculum in physical education. In

D. Kirk & R. Tinning (Eds.), Physical education, curriculum and culture: Critical issues in the contemporary crisis (pp. 23-42). Lewes, England: Falmer.

Ball, S.J. (1981). Beachside comprehensive: A case study of a secondary school. Cam- bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bernstein, B. (1986). On pedagogic discourse. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 206-239). New York: Greenwood Press.

Chernin, K. (1985). The hungry self: Women, eating, and identity. New York: Times Books.

Dodds, P. (1985). Are hunters of the functional cumculum seeking quarks or snarks? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 91-99.

Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. New York: Verso. Eco, U. (1987). Travels in hyper-reality. London: Picador. Evans, J. (Ed.) (1986). Physical education, sport, and schooling: Studies in the sociology

of physical education. Lewes, England: Falmer. Fitzclarence, L. (1990). The body as commodity. In D. Rowe & G. Lawrence (Eds.), Sport

and leisure: Trends in Australian popular culture (pp. 96-108). Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Giroux, H.A. (1981). Ideology, culture, and the process of schooling. London: Falmer. Glassner, B. (1989). Fitness and the postmodem self. Journal of Health and Social

Behaviour, 30, 180-191. Goodson, I. (1988). The making of curriculum: Collected essays. Lewes, England: Falmer. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Griffin, P.S. (1984). Girls' participation patterns in a middle school team sports unit.

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 30-38. Griffin, P.S. (1985a). Boys' participation styles in a middle school physical education

sports unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 100-1 10. Griffin, P.S. (1985b). Teaching in an urban multiracial physical education program: The

power of context. Quest, 37, 154-165. Hall, S. (1985). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the post-structuralist

debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(2), 91-1 14. Hargreaves, D.H. (1967). Social relations in a secondary school. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul. Hargreaves, J. (1977). Sport and physical education: Autonomy or domination? Bulletin

of Physical Education, 13, 19-29. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Hellison, D. (1978). Beyond bats and balls: Alienated (and other) youth in the gym.

Washington, DC: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.

Hellison, D. (1988). Our constructed reality: Some contributions of an alternative perspective to physical education pedagogy. Quest, 40(1), 84-90.

Hendry, L.B. (1976). Survival in a marginal role: The professional identity of the physical education teacher. In N.J. Whitehead & L.B. Hendry (Eds.), Teaching physical education in England-Description and analysis (pp. 89-102). London: Lepus.

Jackson, P.W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston. Johnson, R. (1987). What is cultural studies anyway? Social Text, 16, 38-80.


Karier, C. (1976). Business values and the educational state. In R. Dale (Ed.), Schooling and Capitalism (pp. 21-31). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kirk, D. (1986). A critical pedagogy for teacher education: Toward an inquiry-oriented approach. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 230-246.

Kollen, P. (1983). Fragmentation and integration in movement. In P.J. Templin & S.K. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical education (pp. 86-93). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Lacey, C. (1970). Hightown Grammar: The school as a social system. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

McKay, J. (1986). Marxism as a way of seeing: Beyond the limits of current "critical" approaches to sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 3, 261-272.

McKay, J., & Pearson, K. (1984). Objectives, strategies, and ethics in teaching introductory courses in sociology of sport. Quest, 36, 134-146.

Mills, C.W. (1970). The sociological imagination. Harmondsworth, England: Pelican. (Originally published 1958)

Morse, M. (1983). Sport on television: Replay and display. In A. Kaplan (Ed.), Regarding television (pp. 44-66). Los Angeles: University Publications of America.

Morse, M. (1987-1988). Artemis aging: Exercise and the female body on video. Discourse, 10(1), 20-53.

Orbach, S. (1986). Hunger strike: The anorectic's struggle as a metaphor for our age. London: Faber.

O'Sullivan, M., Locke, L., & Siedentop, D. (1991, January). Toward collegiality: Compet- ing viewpoints among teacher educators. Paper presented at the AIESEP/NAPEHE World Congress on Collaboration Between Researchers and Practitioners in Physical Education, Atlanta.

Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Postman, N. (1989). Conscientious objections: Stirring up trouble about language, technology, and education. London: Heinemann.

Postman, N., & Weingartner, C. (1971). Teaching as a subversive activity. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Seddon, T. (1983). The hidden curriculum: An overview. Curriculum Perspectives, 3(1), 1-6.

Seddon, T. (1989). Curriculum history: A map of key issues. Curriculum Perspectives, 9(4), 1-16.

Smith, N. (1984). The place of physical education in the primary school cumculum. Bulletin of Physical Education, 20(2), 5-15.

Tainton, B., Hacker, W., & Peckam, G. (1984). Evaluation ofphysical education programs in Queensland state primary schools. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Education.

Tindall, B.A. (1975). Ethnography and the hidden curriculum in sport. Behavioral and Social Science Teacher, 2(2), 5-28.

Tinning, R. (1985). Physical education and the cult of slenderness. ACHPER National Journal, 107, 10- 13.

Turner, G. (1983). The social world of the comprehensive school. London: Croom Helm.

Underwood, G. (1988). Teaching and learning in physical education. Lewes, England: Falmer.

'11 1-56 '(z)g '8uly3ua~ .ioJ ~0!1~3npjl JO luu.inof xa3uauadxa pasvq-play JOJ wnln~pn:, jo luawdo~ahap aql 01 saq3voldde OM$ jo s!sAlvuv uv :uo!]v3npa .1aq3sa] pa~uayo-hi!nbu! puv paz!leuoslad '(2861) 'x 'wneqall!a~ 78 "pq'x '1auq3taz

~U~?~~!UI~~~-I~!~~O~ :uopuo? '(9~-61 .dd) uoyusnpa Jo X8olo!3os ay1 noJ suopa.ip M~N :lo.i1uo3 puu a8palmou~ '('m) gunoh 'a'd'w UI 'a8pal~ouy paz!uv%~o Allv!3os se vln3pn3 jo Apnls aql 01 q3vo1ddv uv '(1~61) 'a'd'm 'gunoh

'ssaq Al!s.xa~!un u!yeaa :e!leasny 'Zuolaaf) '(LL-£9 .dd) uo!lu3npa ~u3!sXydpuu rapua3 '(.pa) uollv.13~ 'S UI 'uo!lv3npa 1v3!sdqd u! IapuaS JO uo!ln~psuo:, aqA :, , jstr!ys asoql Jaqwawaa,, '(0661) '3.1 'lqs!.~~

'Invd w8ax 7 a8palmoa :uopuo~ '(SEI-LI 1 .dd) iC801oap! puu 'a.inqn3 'j.iods '('~3) sa~eaS3.m~ 'r UI -dZoloap! u! pods u! uauroM '(2861) 'S!II!M

.ssaq Al!s~a~!un p~ojxo :y~oh MaN .a~nlu.iarTI puu ws!xru~ '(1161) '8 'su"!ll!~ 'POI-96 '(2)~ '~a~~ag uoyu3npg lus!sXyd 'wnln3yn3

uoqmnpa 1~3!sAqd 1ooq3s ~o!unr aqA :uo!~~~szI~?.I; snsIaa uo!]ua~u~ '(0861) 'v.2 'su"!l~!~ .snda? :uopuo? .s!sXluuu puu uo!ldp3saa

--puul8ujl u! uo!1u3npa lu3!sdyd 8uy3ua~ '(9~61) '8'1 'hpua~ 78 "I'N 'pvaqal!qM -oIoqsuaaq 1-e

vu!lo~3 qpo~ JO Al!sxa~;run 'uo!lvpass!p ~vxol~op paqs!~qndun .8u?n!y pa1u.i8alu! u! luaw!.iadxa uv :SSU~ uogu3npa ~m!sXyd u Jo Xydu.180uy1a uy '(~~61) '~8 'guv~

physical education, discourse, and ideology - bringing the hidden curriculum into view

Documents