Theses and Dissertations

Advisor

Twietmeyer, Gregg

Committee Member

Johnson, Tyler

Committee Member

Thompson, Robert

Committee Member

Agiovlasitis, Stamatis

Date of Degree

8-13-2024

Original embargo terms

Immediate Worldwide Access

Document Type

Dissertation - Open Access

Major

Kinesiology (Sport Studies)

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)

College

College of Education

Department

Department of Kinesiology

Abstract

At both the theoretical and applied levels of analysis, the field of physical education is all too often completely incoherent. There appears to be little agreement as to how school-based programs ought to be implemented or what the goals of such programs really are. No two physical educators run their programs exactly the same and, chances are, those physical educators likely have wildly different understandings of their field and its proper place within the education of our youth. Borrowing from the title of moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre’s (1990) book, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, I’ve chosen to describe the current predicament as the three rival versions of physical education. By no means is it being asserted that there are only three ways in which physical education is taught or that there are only three different curricula being administered in our schools. The disagreements and differences among the three rival versions of physical education are not simply a matter of curriculum design or pedagogy, but rather a matter of the nature and scope of physical education. This is a problem of identity. It is a problem which is both metaphysical and ethical in nature. The field simply lacks any kind of coherent answer to the question, “what is the nature and purpose of physical education?” MacIntyre identified his three versions of moral enquiry by the titles Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Craft Tradition; the corresponding versions of contemporary physical education that I wish to articulate are Health-PE, Therapeutic-PE, and Liberal Arts-PE. I firmly believe that every school-based program is a reflection of one of these three conceptions. Until an exhaustive philosophical analysis on the merits and demerits of each is completed, physical education will remain in its current state of incoherence, lacking a philosophically sound understanding of itself. Utilizing the work of Alasdair MacIntyre, I will articulate these three rival versions of physical education and argue that 1) the field must embrace a liberal arts paradigm, 2) that elements of the health-centered version can be integrated into this liberal arts conception, and 3) that the therapeutic model ought to be outright rejected.

Download

Share

COinS