Quest 2007, 59, 100-110
© 2007 American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education
What Knowledge Is of Most Worth?
Perspectives on Kinesiology
from Pedagogy
Judith Rink
Historically, physical education “birthed” the discipline areas and was the umbrella
term for the studies now included in the term kinesiology. In many places, the
relationship between pedagogy and the disciplines grew uneasy with the desire
of the field to gain academic respectability. This paper explores the status of the
relationship between kinesiology and physical education at this point and time,
the value of discipline knowledge for the preparation of teachers in physical
education, and alternative perspectives on resolving some of the issues presented
in the relationship between the two areas of study.
I have been asked to present ideas related to the issues surrounding the relationship
between kinesiology and physical education—to define the issues so that collectively we may find some ways to deal with them. What I have most struggled with
is the title of this presentation and so I thought I would do a little set induction and
provide you with several. Perspectives On the Needs of the Learner, Application
IS Higher Order Thinking, and What Time Is It? were alternatives that I thought
were appropriate. The last one will become more meaningful as we get into the
presentation.
There was a time in our history together when our professional journals carried
the debate on the nature of the content of physical education programs arguing for
or against the disciplines being the content of physical education (Henry, 1964,
1976; Lawson, 1979; Locke, 1990; Newell, 1990; Parks, 1991; Siedentop, 1990).
These arguments were in part based on the assumption that physical education is the
umbrella term for our field and that the emerging discipline areas were webbed in
some way to physical education. Although some college and university programs,
particularly the smaller ones, still look at the term physical education as the umbrella
for many of the disciplines and professional programs associated with the study of
related sport and movement fields, clearly the field has moved beyond this.
In my career as a physical education teacher and pedagogy professor, like many
of you, I have watched physical education birth the disciplines. My first exercise
physiology book was a half inch thick and most of that was devoted to things like
the Harvard Step Test and how to use dynamometers. I put oil cloth muscles on
The author (AAKPE Fellow #459) is with the Dept of Physical Education, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail: [email protected]
100
Perspectives on Kinesiology from Pedagogy
101
real rather than plastic skeletons and as a young teacher I couldnʼt wait for my
first ever motor learning text to arrive in the mail. I also watched as faculties with
professional interests were marginalized by the fields they gave birth to, motivated
primarily by an effort to gain academic respectability. With time, calls to unite the
field under physical education became calls to unite the field under kinesiology. I
remember distinctly wanting to study teaching for my masterʼs thesis and having
to get permission to do so since it wasnʼt a “field of study.” I watched as the study
of teaching became a legitimate field of inquiry in some more enlightened circles
and struggled for a place at the table in major universities. I have felt a sense of
pride in knowing that pedagogy at least in the AAKPE has been welcomed into the
fold as an equal partner in our quest to understand human movement and physical
activity, its effects, its affects, and the delivery of programs targeting its use and
development.
The relationship of the professions and particularly teaching to the disciplines
is not a new concern for this group. Scholars of the academy with far more stature
than me have addressed this topic (Locke, 1977, 1990; Siedentop, 1990). In 1990,
Larry Locke as only Larry could do it, wondered about the value to anyone of
rehashing the issue (Locke, 1990). And yet, in 2006 we find ourselves doing just
that again. Revisiting the issue has value only if the passing of time has changed
the issues.
What Has Changed?
I would suggest that there have been significant changes that would warrant us
reconsidering the relationships between the professions and the subdisciplines.
Public awareness and support for work done in the name of increasing physical
activity and a recognition that the only real way to do this is through collaborative efforts between professionals in the fields related to physical activity and the
research base that guides us, has created an opportunity not heretofore present. The
fitness faction of the field and the physical education faction have found that they
can actually work together, however tenuously, under goals related to developing
a physically active lifestyle.
Our initial discussions revolved around issues related to the umbrella of
physical education, later replaced with kinesiology. Roberta Rikliʼs notion is that
the disciplines need the professional groups and that we should unite around the
umbrella of physical activity (Rikli, 2006). From a purely realistic perspective,
few comprehensive departments of kinesiology exist that include the professional
groups. Each academic unit has been forced to adapt to needed change brought
about largely by forces not in their control. What happened at South Carolina
is typical of many former departments of physical education. Exercise science
(exercise physiology and motor control which now has an emphasis on physical
therapy) are in the School of Public Health. Teacher certification, motor development, motor learning, and athletic training are in the College of Education. Sport
management is in Hotel and Tourism. Each of these units is healthy, supported,
and feels comfortable in their home.
Academic units have to be relevant, and in these terms a focus on physical
activity would in todayʼs climate provide a safe haven and would facilitate needed
102
Rink
collaboration for research. However, it is unlikely that these units could come back
together even if it made sense to do so. For most institutions the opportunity may
have passed and we may need to find other ways to be collaborative.
What Hasn’t Changed?
Leaving the purely political issues of structure behind, the more critical issue is
related to the question of whether the disciplines are or can be the academic core
for the professions. Although few would argue that there is some basic knowledge
and research in the disciplines that advances the practice of physical education,
most of the discussion is related to the role that the disciplines play in the professional preparation of teachers. There are really two areas that must be considered
in any discussion of the relevancy of the disciplines to professional preparation.
The first involves identifying the role the disciplines play in the curriculum of the
K-12 program. In other words, the teacher preparation program should be preparing people to teach what you think K-12 students should be learning. The second
is knowledge that teachers need in order to better teach the content.
The Content of the K-12 Program
Some of my colleagues still acknowledge the discipline areas as the content of
physical education. A few would support the idea that academic integrity lies in
the disciplines (Lee, 2001). And a few see the content of physical education K-12
programs as disciplinary content. From this perspective, much of the K-12 program
would focus on teaching students cognitive content, or using movement experiences to teach cognitive content from the disciplines. Some of the work done by
my colleagues, particularly the work of Cathy Ennis (Ennis, 2001) (science-based
physical education) and the early work of Hal Lawson and Judy Placek (1981) have
aspects of support for this notion. If you view the K-12 program from this perspective, the content of the K-12 program would be a selected group of concepts from
the disciplines and the teacher preparation program would need to give students a
broad background in the disciplines in order to teach this content effectively.
Most pedagogy professionals support the physical education national content
standards which acknowledge the role of discipline knowledge as a part of the
appropriate content for K-12 students in several standards. For some of these
standards the relationship to discipline content is a direct one and for others an
indirect one:
The National Content Standards for Physical Education
1. Standard 1: Demonstrates competency in motor skills and movement patterns to perform a variety of physical activities
2. Standard 2: Demonstrates understanding of movement concepts, principles,
strategies, and tactics as they apply to the learning and performance of
physical activities
3. Standard 3: Participates regularly in physical activity
4. Standard 4: Achieves and maintains a health-enhancing level of physical
fitness
Perspectives on Kinesiology from Pedagogy
103
5. Standard 5: Exhibits responsible personal and social behavior that respects
self and others in physical activity settings
6. Standard 6: Values physical activity for health, enjoyment, challenge, selfexpression, and or social interaction.
(National Association for Sport and Physical Education (2004).
In an attempt to identify what the essential cognitive content is for the school
program, NASPE published Concepts of Physical Education: What Every Student
Needs to Know (Mohnsen, 2003). This book is a selected group of concepts from
each of the disciplines organized by grade level developmentally. In other words,
the development of broad concepts can be traced from the kindergarten through
the 12th grade. Given the limited program time in the schools, it is probably the
cognitive content that receives the least attention in even the best of programs.
In practice, few K-12 curriculums are structured to do more than teach fitness
concepts and an occasional concept from one of the other disciplines to students.
With the emphasis on increasing the amount of physical activity students receive
in schools, cognitive learning is likely to receive less and less program time unless
program time is increased and we can do a better job of helping teachers to use
active experiences to teach that content.
Discipline Knowledge Teachers Need to Teach
It is my position that teachers need discipline knowledge not so much because they
are going to teach that knowledge to K-12 students but because the disciplines have
a contribution to make to the process of teaching physical education content. My
position is based on the assumption that the purpose of a K-12 physical education
program is the development of a physically active lifestyle. Giving students the
skills, knowledge, and dispositions they need to lead a physically active lifestyle
requires knowledge and understandings from a variety of knowledge bases including the kinesiology subdisciplines.
From the standpoint of the teacher-educator, issues related to the disciplines
are those related to the kind of knowledge students need in order to be an effective teacher. Several years ago I taught a class that I think goes to the heart of the
matter. It was supposed to be a course in movement analysis. Instead we designed
an experimental course that focused on a more holistic and integrated analysis of
student responses. I showed students clips of a teaching setting. We focused on a
K-12 student and their responses to what the teacher asked the students to do with
the question “Why did the student respond in that way?” With some prompting,
discussions ensued around issues such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The teacher wasnʼt clear.
The teacher gave too much information.
The information the teacher presented lacked organization.
The information the teacher presented was not accurate.
The equipment wasnʼt suitable.
The task was not meaningful or developmentally appropriate for that
student.
104
Rink
•
•
•
•
•
The task was too hard or too easy.
The student didnʼt have the strength or other physical abilities.
The student was more engaged socially with the students around him/her.
The conditions of the task did not support good performance.
The student wasnʼt engaged at a level that would produce health-related
fitness.
• The activity was not culturally relevant to African Americans.
Each of the discussions was an opportunity to connect the student back to
the theories they had learned in other classes. All of the issues identified above
are related to information derived from the disciplines either directly or indirectly
and are examples of the kind of information and understandings that students in
pedagogy need in order to be well prepared professionals. They need the knowledge
bases that would help them respond as an educator. The NASPE all-academy symposium at the last AAHPERD convention (National Convention of the American
Alliance for Health, Physical, Education, Recreation and Dance, Salt Lake City,
Utah, April 26-29, 2006) attempted to do the same thing with representatives from
the academies sharing their perspective on the same teaching episode.
Pedagogists who do not see the relevance of the disciplines to the teacher preparation program do not necessarily dismiss the knowledge base of the disciplines
for the practice of physical education, but would say that the role of pedagogy is to
transform applicable knowledge for the preservice teacher into principles of teaching. In other words, you can get to those principles of the disciplines applicable
to professional studies without taking course work in the disciplines (Siedentop,
1990). The student would learn principles of teaching not principles of the discipline. For instance, the student would need to know that increased opportunity to
learn produces more learning and therefore how to organize classes for high levels
of practice. They do not need to know all that we know about how moderate to
vigorous exercise increases the stroke volume of the heart, they just need to know
that it does and know how to achieve high levels of moderate to vigorous activity
in their classes. Using this orientation it is the role of pedagogy to keep up with
the knowledge base, select from it what is important to practice, and translate that
knowledge into appropriate practice for the preservice teacher. It is not essential
that students use valuable curriculum time in full courses in these areas.
There have been many discussions and arguments on the relevancy of the disciplines to the content of school physical education programs, (Siedentop, 1990).
Likewise my colleague Larry Locke as far back as 1977 questioned the value of
discipline knowledge to the preparation of teachers (Locke, 1977). Once we get
past the idea that the disciplines are not the content of K-12 physical education and
that the disciplines do have a contribution to make to the professional preparation
of the teacher, the issues revolve around the relevance of the discipline knowledge
students are getting in discipline classes for teaching. The potential of the disciplines
to contribute to the preparation of a teacher has been compromised by a failure to
select and deliver that knowledge in a way that is meaningful for the students who
are going to be asked to use it. The issue is, “How do we give preservice teachers
the knowledge base they need and the skill to apply it and use it effectively in their
Perspectives on Kinesiology from Pedagogy
105
work?” These are curriculum and instruction issues that involve making choices
about what is important to learn at what level for what students and how to teach
what is important to learn.
What Kind of Knowledge
Do Students Need?
Part of the issue that pedagogy professionals have with the disciplines is related
to the notion of inert knowledge. One of the best ways to describe this issue is
related to the analogy, “When someone asks you what time it is—do you tell
them how to make a watch?” Many of our professional preparation programs find
themselves in the position of being saddled with course work devoted to how to
make a watch—what educators refer to as inert knowledge, and what perhaps some
of the disciplines would refer to as core content. The problem is not unique to
higher education. A student was asked, “Can you name three islands?” The student
answered, “Hawaii, Long Island, and the Bahamas.” “Good, said the teacher, “that
is correct.” The student then asked, “What is an island?”
Inert knowledge in curriculums kind of creeps up on you. The cause of the
problem can be traced to several developments over the years, not the least of
which is the knowledge explosion which has led to overspecialization. We simply
know more. My half-inch thick exercise physiology text has been replaced with
some that are more than four inches thick. While I needed to know how to develop
strength and cardiovascular endurance and how to test for it, many recent exercise
physiology texts donʼt even cover those types of things. If they do the teacher of
the course often runs out of time and doesnʼt get to it. The scary thing is that I once
went to an exercise physiologist to ask about the best way to measure strength for
a study we were doing. He didnʼt know.
I think Polak (1977) was right when he said “We know more and more about
less and less.” As our knowledge about a field increases the size of the textbook
increases. The knowledge explosion creates two problems. First, basic knowledge
in a field is replaced with more and more specialized knowledge which means that
more and more information that has little relevancy for a person not specializing
in that field is added. Second, from a curricular perspective, the process of adding
content without taking any away leads to teaching to lower cognitive levels—students who can identify an island but donʼt know what an island is—students who
can define the Kreb cycle but canʼt tell you how to develop cardiovascular endurance—students who can analyze a movement using a digitizer but canʼt see that
a first grader is stepping with the wrong foot when they throw. Creating student
understanding and their ability to use knowledge takes time. One of the first
changes that would need to be made by all of us is to understand that sometimes
less is more.
A second development that has led to course work in the disciplines being
inappropriate for teacher preparation is the explosion of majors within departments. There was a time when the discipline courses were designed to service
teacher education majors. Most of the discipline courses are now serving students
of a variety of majors: exercise science, sport management, teacher preparation,
106
Rink
athletic training, and physical therapy, to name a few. Many of these courses are
designed for majors who will specialize in one of the disciplines and therefore go
on to graduate school or professions very unrelated to teaching in schools. What
do you teach in biomechanics to a class of students in both athletic training and
teacher preparation? The athletic trainer needs much more of a kinesiology approach
and the teacher education student needs a lot of time practicing and observing
movement and applying mechanical principles to real world settings. One course
cannot possibly meet the needs of all of these students and departments cannot
afford to teach separate courses for each of the majors they have added. Each has
unique needs and perhaps, for some, no need for the course except to make sure
that the class fills.
Textbook companies and authors writing textbooks have responded to the
increased number of different majors by attempting to identify the content generic
to all majors and eliminating a lot of what used to be included that was important
to teacher preparation. And so the knowledge base students get from these courses
becomes further and further removed from the needs of the students. Tests and
measurement books used to have a good representation of motor skill tests teachers
would need to assess student performance, but this is no longer the case. Motor
behavior texts used to focus on critical issues related to learning motor skills. More
and more space is now devoted to motor control issues—important to the field
but perhaps less important to a student who doesnʼt necessarily need an in-depth
understanding of the underlying mechanisms of motor control as much as they
need to understand how to provide the best practice conditions for learning for a
very diverse population of learners.
A major assumption of generic courses designed for a variety of majors is
that it is not the responsibility of these courses to apply knowledge. The role of
these courses is to give students the knowledge base. Students will have to get the
application somewhere else. That leads to two alternatives: First, that the student
will have to make their own application, and second that the professional preparation program, either discipline faculty or pedagogy faculty, will have to somehow
make those connections somewhere in the curriculum.
Advocates for leaving it to the student abdicate their responsibility for student
learning. Our experience and our knowledge of how people learn concepts and
transfer learning tells us that few students can take the knowledge of the disciplines
and independently make the application of that knowledge to complex contexts,
even our best and brightest. Most of the important learning in the disciplines that
we want our students to use are concepts—major ideas to be applied broadly
and contextually. Students learn concepts through many examples of both the
appropriate application of a concept as well as the inappropriate application of a
concept. For example, if you want a child to learn the concept of fruit and all of
your examples are red fruits, the child learns that fruit is red. Children learn fruit by
many examples of what a fruit is and is not. If the child is not helped to understand
that vegetables arenʼt fruits then they are likely to over-generalize the concept of
fruit to vegetables. If a student learns in motor learning the importance of extensive
good practice to learning motor skills there is no guarantee that the student will be
able to organize practice for maximum activity or chose curriculum options that
increase practice time without help in making the application. Concept learning
applied to complex settings takes time.
Perspectives on Kinesiology from Pedagogy
107
The problem of making applications is aggravated by changes in the preparation of faculty in the disciplines and in pedagogy. There was a time when exercise
physiologists and other professionals who specialized in the disciplines of kinesiology had their roots in physical education or sport. In many smaller institutions
this is still true but less true in larger institutions. Rikli (2006) also points out that
faculty whose roots and interest is not in physical activity and the broader issues of
kinesiology have been a major contributor to the fragmentation of the field. Many
of the instructors of the discipline courses do not have the experience to be able to
apply what they are doing to professional settings—leaving much of the content
at a low cognitive level.
Although educators are accustomed to looking at application as a higher level
of understanding of knowledge, the ability to apply discipline-based concepts to
professional settings may not be just a higher level of understanding, but rather a
different knowledge. I am reminded of Henryʼs arguments in 1978 that fields like
exercise physiology were not just applied physiology but an academic discipline in
their own right (1978). Perhaps pedagogical knowledge applying the disciplines is
in fact a different knowledge base and a discipline in its own right. Is the difference
between being able to knowing how to do a badminton smash, doing an overhead
smash in badminton, and using the overhead smash in a game just a knowledge
extension or is it different knowledge? Notions of procedural and declarative
knowledge are appropriate distinctions here.
I think there are professionals who want to study in the disciplines who are
motivated to understand the larger issues in physical activity and whose interest
in the discipline emerged from their experiences in physical activity. Unless we
are willing to be supportive of these people in departments of kinesiology we will
lose the opportunity to make physical activity central. I also think there are a lot
of smaller schools who look to hire discipline people who can make the connections to the professions. The problem is that doctoral institutions preparing people
for college and university faculty positions are preparing students to take jobs at
Research 1 institutions in spite of the fact that most will not teach there.
Not all professional preparation programs see the lack of appropriateness of
content or the lack of application in student course work as a problem. Advocates
of a broad preparation in the disciplines look at this course work as the “liberal
arts” of kinesiology (Lawson & Morford, 1979). These professionals feel it is good
for students to be broadly educated in the field and to understand the underlying
mechanisms and theories of each of the disciplines. It is not the job of the disciplines
to apply discipline knowledge to any profession and not a necessary condition for
knowledge to be relevant. What is a broad education is for some little more than
inert knowledge.
Alternatives
Many programs have recognized that students are not getting what they need
in the curriculum related to the disciplines and have sought alternatives. The
simple answer to the problem is that there should be two courses in each discipline, one that presents the theory and one that applies it. The realities of an
already credit hour heavy undergraduate curriculum make this impossible for
most programs.
108
Rink
In response to course work unresponsive to the needs of the preservice
teacher, many programs have just removed discipline courses from the curriculum. As accrediting agencies and universities exert more and more control over
professional preparation programs they increasingly usurp credit hours normally
devoted to other course work. As more and more professional preparation programs
are separated from the discipline areas and programs look for credit hours, this
may be too easy a choice.
In many programs, curriculum for teacher education is not controlled by teacher
educators and any initiatives to remove or request a change in a course to meet the
needs of students is met with colleague resistance or the fiscal realities of teaching
loads and needing to fill classes. In other words, there are many programs stuck
with course work that is not appropriate for students in a political environment for
which student needs is not necessarily the first priority.
Larger programs can offer multiple sections of course work designed to meet
the needs of students with different preparation needs. When professional units
are separated from the disciplines, special sections of course work fall under the
category of “service courses” and are not fully supported. Smaller programs that
educate primarily teachers can tailor their course work to the needs of students.
In this scenario, there is a selection of content most appropriate for different
student needs. The process of course design is one of selection. The assumption is that there is too much content to teach to the level students need. The
program selects those concepts that are most important and writes objectives
defining exactly what students are expected to do with that content (identify,
define, describe, apply it, use it in specific settings). These are decisions about
the desired level of learning.
Many of the faculty who teach the discipline courses at smaller universities
have remained with AAHPERD and NASPE. Recently, the NASPE academies
have identified the content that they think is appropriate for teacher preparation
programs from each of the discipline areas represented. These course outlines can
be downloaded from the AAHPERD/NASPE website (http://www.AAHPERD.org)
and represent the thoughts of professionals teaching these courses and concerned
about students getting the appropriate content. For example, the exercise physiology concepts for teacher preparation include a responsibility for the following
outcomes:
• Demonstrate proficiency in leading group exercises
• Utilize assessment data and apply basic training principles to enhance bioenergetics
• Understand thermoregulatory responses to hot and cold environments in children/adolescents and apply safety principles accordingly
• Tailor exercise programming to meet the individual needs of overweight and
obese students
These are important professional skills. Students at my institution are not being
prepared with the skills or knowledge to meet those objectives.
One of the problems that the academic areas have had in K-12 school programs
is that teachers have become too dependent on textbooks. Instead of choosing
Perspectives on Kinesiology from Pedagogy
109
content and the level of desired learning with that content, they are falling into the
trap of covering content. Many of the courses in professional preparation programs
are doing the same thing. Instead of opting for selection and depth they have opted
to cover a large amount of material.
Few programs include all of the disciplines included in this impressive organization. Separate course work in each of these areas would occupy at least 30 credit
hours of the program, not counting prerequisite course work, which in many cases
requires several advanced courses beyond the general education requirements of a
university. Many programs have experimented with combined courses, reducing the
content significantly but taking it to higher levels of understanding and application
to sport and physical education settings.
Some professional preparation programs have decided to teach the discipline
courses themselves. In this scenario, content is reduced to that which is perceived
to be essential for the student and it is taken to an application level. Half of the
exercise physiology course would be devoted to the essential concepts of the field
and half to their application, including fitness testing, exercise prescription, teaching fitness, and lifestyle issues. Biomechanics would focus on analysis of skill
through observation and the application of physical principles to multiple sport
and movement settings.
If the application of concepts from the disciplines is a different knowledge base,
then who has that knowledge? When instructors in the disciplines have their roots
in physical education they can make the application. When they do not, expertise
must be found elsewhere. The problem with asking pedagogy people to make the
applications is that at this point in our history many pedagogy faculty come from
programs where they had little if any preparation in many of the disciplines. Course
work in the disciplines that used to be in many undergraduate as well as masterslevel graduate programs is no longer required. Motor learning, motor development,
and biomechanics course work in particular have been removed from many undergraduate requirements. As sport psychology and sociology move further into the
study of elite athletes their relevancy for physical education programs that should
be focusing more broadly on physical activity decreases.
In order to do a good job preparing teachers with the knowledge they need in
the disciplines, either pedagogy people have to be prepared in the disciplines or discipline people have to be hired for their background in sport and physical education.
As professional preparation programs in teaching become divorced organizationally
from the disciplines, there is less and less incentive to service programs outside
your own department and college, making it unlikely that faculty would be hired
to meet the needs of one of many groups of students being serviced.
It is more likely that pedagogy faculty are going to have to make some decisions about how to resolve these issues. Doctoral programs in pedagogy usually
require a concentration of course work in an area of study. Perhaps students should
be encouraged to get that concentration in the knowledge base of a discipline. That
would be a real back to the future.
What I have tried to do is create some understanding of why pedagogy faculty
may feel as though course work in the disciplines may not be the best use of curriculum credit hours in the professional preparation of teachers. What knowledge
does the teacher need? What is inert and what is useful? Is this a new knowledge
base rather than just the application of an already existing one? Whose job is the
110
Rink
creation of this knowledge? Whose job is the delivery of this knowledge? And so,
what time is it?
References
Ennis, C. (2001). Addressing the high need low demand status of physical education. Physical
Education for the 21st Century. Dept of Health and Human Performance, University
of Nebraska-Lincoln, pp. 199-213.
Henry, F. (1976). The academic discipline of physical education. Quest, 13, 13-29.
Henry, F. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 35, 32-33.
Lawson, H. (1979). Paths to professionalization. Quest, 31, 231-243.
Lawson, H., & Morford, R. (1979). The cross-disciplinary structure of kinesiology and sports
studies: Distinctions, implications and advantages. Quest, 31, 222-230.
Lawson, H., & Placek, J. (1981). Physical education in the secondary schools: curricular
alternatives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lee, A. (2001). Teaching and learning in physical education. Physical Education in the 21st
Century. Dept of Health and Human Performance, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
p. 73-88.
Locke, L. (1977). From research and the disciplines to practice and the professions: One
more time. Proceedings of the NCPEAM/NAPECW National Conference, January
1977, 34-45.
Locke, L. (1990). Conjuring kinesiology and other parlor tricks. Quest, 42, 323-329.
Mohnsen, B. (Ed.). (2003). Concepts and principles of physical education: what every student
needs to know. Reston: VA. National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
Newell, K. (1990). Physical education in higher education: Chaos out of order. Quest, 42,
227-242.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2004). Moving into the Future:
National Physical Education Content Standards. Reston: VA, author.
Parks, R. (1991). On tilting at windmills while facing Armageddon. Quest, 43, 241-246.
Polak, F. (1977). Slow motion men. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rikli, R. (2006). Kinesiology—A homeless field: Addressing organization and leadership
needs. Quest, 58, 288-309.
Siedentop, D. (1990). Commentary: The World According to Newell. Quest, 42, 315-322.