Basic Information on the Basic Six Movement Patterns w/ basic activities and music

This is some basic info on the "Basic Six" fundamental movement patterns that i put together with small activities and music from a playlist I put together at 

http://www.playlist.com/playlist/20966056203    for my "Fundamentals of Movement" class. This will be helpful later-on in my project as I begin to put together basic activities and games for Elementary School-aged children to do.

“Total Body Connectivity: The whole body is connected, all parts are in relationship. Change in one part changes the whole. Acknowledging relationship between parts of the body brings the possibility for both differentiation of the parts and integration of the whole.”(Hackney, 52)

·   Breath

“…One with the life giving universe

…One with nature’s fluidity

…filling and emptying in an ever on-going cycle

…being nourished, getting rid of what is no longer needed

…feeling whole

…no aims, no goals

…simply BEING”

(Hackney, 54)

Ø Animal-ameba

Ø Activity-turn off the lights on the ground listen to breathe, or 3D breathing, tactile

Ø Song- Gravity Of Love

·   Core/distal

“Coming into my innermost core,

 all parts of me find relationship.

 I experience support within and

 life lines of connection through which

 I pulsate and radiate bright with internal energy.

 I can go out from my core,

because I know I can return.

I am centered, supported by my core.”

(Hackney, 71)

Ø  Animal-Starfish

Ø Activity- Groups of five or six, one person lies in the X and the others are each at a distal edge, opening and closing the core person.

Ø Song- Heavenly Divine-Instrumental

·   Head/tail

“I become differentiated

…I am an individual with my own spine

I ground myself in my own sphere through yielding and pushing

…I reach and pull, giving attention to my outer environment

…I follow my curiosity and my imagination

…enjoying my supportive, flexible, playful, sensuous spine.

…All things seem possible.”

(Hackney, 90)

Ø Animal-Snake

Ø Activity-snakes

Ø Song- Melodies Of Life

·   Upper/lower

“I want, I will.

I can’t, I can.

I struggle to claim my own power and use it.

I push away to make my space safe.

I reach out to go forward toward my goal.

I fail…I push through…I succeed.

I stand on my own two feet.

I am confident as I move into my world.”

(Hackney, 121)

Ø Animal-frog

Ø Activity-pushing partner thing

Ø Song-Instrumental

·   Body Half

“I am divided

On the one hand… On the other hand….

I listen to both sides of myself.

Issues clarify and delineate into black and white,

Stable and Mobile,

Inner and Outer,

Passionate and Plodding.

I move in polarities.”

(Hackney, 181)

Ø Animal-camel

Ø Activity-Army walks Pretend you are a toy soldier and move your right half, then your left half, repeat

Ø Song-Slow Jam (Piano Instrumental)

·   Cross lateral

“I am complex.

I am interconnected within myself…

messages travel diagonally,

connecting right, upper, front

with left, lower, back,

The spiraling universe invites my participation,

around back up,

forward around and down.

I refine and polish my skills,

reaching and running molding and creating,

ready to leap into the world.”

(Hackney, 193)

Ø Animal-humans

Ø Activity-big x or movement of proximal and distal diagonal

Ø Song-Celtic Moon Prelude

Hackney, Peggy. Making Connections Total Body Integration Through             
         Bartenieff Fundamentals. New York, NY: Gordon and Breach              
         Publishers, 1998. Print.

Interesting Article # 4: Learning games through understanding: New jobs for students!

Learning games through understanding: New jobs for students!

J.-F. Gréhaigne, P. Godbout & D. Caty (Besançon, France)

1 Introduction
2 Constructivist Approach Implies New Instructional Setting
2.1 A constructivist process
2.2 A new instructional setting
3 Debate-of-idea Process
3.1 A student-centered approach
3.2 Formative assessment / observation
3.3 Formative assessment and the teaching / learning process
3.3.1 Communication of expectancies
3.3.2 Collection of information
3.3.3 Regulation of learning
4 Teaching / Learning Process
5 Conclusion

1 Introduction

Over the past four decades, educational reform movements in many European countries have been pointing towards more authentic learning experiences for students across the curriculum, including physical education. Sport-related game teaching in physical education provides the primary content that teachers use in order to attain specific learning outcomes. In this article we shall discuss some concepts in the teaching of team sports from a dialectic perspective. Usually, in the teaching and learning of team sports, based on constructivist and cognitive approaches, we propose to students the construction of suitable personal tactical skills, i.e. skills that in relation with their assessment apply in situations encountered during a game. French teachers call this type of approach the 'Tactical-Decision Learning Model' (T-DLM) (Bouthier, 1988; Gréhaigne & Godbout, 1998; Gréhaigne, Billard & Laroche, 1999; Gréhaigne, Richard & Griffin, 2005).). This theoretical approach to teaching and learning research could be regarded as a radical constructivist approach (Cobb, 1986) which contends that the knowledge constructed by the students is the result of the interaction between their cognitive processes and the environment.
In team sports, we shall consider that students have truly learned if, faced with a problem which is new but compatible with the resources at their disposal (inner resources), they have transformed their initial behaviour and have identified and verbalized the action rules which made their success possible.
For an indirect teaching approach, 'Learning games through understanding' should be developed. Students strive to make sense of new input by relating it to their prior knowledge and by collaborating with others to construct shared understandings. Students collaborate by acting as a learning community that constructs shared understanding through sustained dialogue.
Finally, we wish to stress the fact that problem-solving learning and the construction of personal knowledge require reflection on the part of the students. Without it, learners can only sturable blindly from one trial to another hoping for random success, or waiting for an outside observer to tell them what to do next. There is no understanding in either case; whereas verbalization may facilitate reflection and observation will provide the basic data on which to reflect.

2 Constructivist Approach Implies New Instructional Setting

In the field of general education, Good and Brophy (1994) profiled some characteristics of a social construction view of teaching and learning. Among several characteristics, one finds:
• "Knowledge [is seen] as developing interpretations constructed through discussion, ...";
• Teacher acts as discussion leader who poses questions, seeks clarifications, promotes dialogue, helps group recognize areas of consensus and of continuing disagreement;
• Students strive to make sense of new input by relating it to their prior knowledge and by talking with others to construct shared understanding;
• Students collaborate by acting as a learning community that constructs shared understanding through sustained dialogue" (Good, 1996, p. 639).
We might say that what is sought is both reflection in action and reflection on action.

2.1. A constructivist process

Faced with whatever situation, learners know and know how to do certain things and their development rests upon former learning. This development occurs through a new coordination of blocks of knowledge under the influence of internal or external constraints forcing an adjustment of the learner's activity. In this sense, there is no novice at level 0.
Constructivism therefore admits the existence of a reality which puts in our way obstacles running counter to internal unfolding of mental activity. There is also assertion that reality allows the expression of regularities. So: "consciousness is first centred on the results of activities before reaching their mechanisms; consciousness therefore starts from the periphery, not from central mechanisms," (Piaget, 1971). This resort to consciousness appears at the time of misadaptations; otherwise when mechanisms operate normally by themselves, they do not provide such occasion for adaptation.

2.2 A new instructional setting

If we analyze the instructional setting presented by Gréhaigne & Godbout (1995), one must see a complex setting with many new jobs for the students.

Fig. 1. The instructional setting

One of the basic assumptions of qualitative research states that people develop various constructions of reality (Andreewsky, 1991; Bouthier, 1989; Gréhaigne, 1997; Gréhaigne & Godbout, 1995). While involved in the action and/or after its completion, each student is asked to collect or recollect information based on Personal observations. Eventually, additional information may be provided by the teacher and/or by other student observers. We stress the word additional because the prime observer should be the player involved in the action. This is all the more critical as each observer reads action according to a personal frame of reference. Thus it is doubtful that an outside observer can duplicate the performer's perception of action. One might argue that in many instances an outside observer stands a better chance to perceive a picture closer to reality. Whether this is true or not is, to a certain point, irrelevant. As stated earlier, the learning process from a constructivist perspective implies interaction between the subject and the environment. Augmented feedback is rather presented as additional information that can be processed differently by the learner depending upon their perception of the completed action and upon the learning stage exploited by the teacher (exploration, construction, consolidation). At first, the learner draws up a temporary mental representation which is an interpretation of reality (functional representation or operative image). This operative mode makes it possible to store information. When this model is no longer sufficient to solve problems, the subject experiences a conflict between a former explanatory system and the need to construct a new representation holding more explanatory power. Learning then operates from a restructuring of representations which works on a continuity / rupture mode
The quality of the pedagogical content knowledge relies heavily, although not entirely, on the quality of the subject matter knowledge itself. It seems that as teacher educators and researchers in physical education, we strive to develop a body of knowledge that will enable us to better understand the practice of physical activity and better educate future practitioners.

3 Debate-of-idea Process

Considering Tishman and Perkins' (1995) operational definition of critical thinking, we might add that it involves particularly causal and evaluative reasoning as well as planning and strategie thinking. These authors have stated that: "effective physical performance involves reasoning, reflecting, strategizing, and planning, all parts of the critical thinking process," (p. 24). It goes without saying that critical thinking is central to a constructivist view of learning (Good, 1996). But how is it to be used in the learning / teaching of team sports?
Let us consider four broad strategies that may be used by teachers at various stages of learning:
1. Letting students explore. At an early stage, students are put in play contexts, chosen in such a way that they will be faced with problems or difficultes. After some exposure to the play context, students may fail to perceive any problem and the teacher may then let them pursue further exploration with or without modification of the play context.
2. Asking open-ended questions. Once students have perceived and possibly identified a problem, the teacher may bring them to debate among themselves or with him or her by asking open-ended questions which do not direct them towards specifie and predetermined answers.
3. Taking part in the students' debate and asking specifie questions.
4. Having students reutilize suitable solutions. Once students have corne up with solutions that satisfy selected performance criteria, the teacher may then have them practice these solutions in order to stabilize their use.
While this last strategy is more routine-oriented, the first three strategies all imply critical thinking in one way or another.
Strategies two and three bear a significant importance in view of constructivism and teaching for understanding and even more so when applied to tactical learning in team sports. General discussions, debates within groups of students and debriefings (Plummer & Rougeau, 1997) may complement one another in enhancing critical thinking and learning.

Fig. 2. Debate-of-ideas setting (Gréhaigne, Godbout, & Bouthier, 2001)

Evidently, discussions and debates among students or between students and the teacher involve overt and shared verbalization. Caverni (1988) discussed verbalization as an observable source of information about cognitive processes.
Considering the degree of its occurrence with regard to task performance, he distinguishes three types of verbalization: prior verbalization (considering what will be or ought to be done), concurrent verbalization (considering what is being done), and consecutive verbalization (considering what has been done). But why involve verbalization? It appears that verbalization settings should provide information about obstacles encountered by students in their effort to solve the problem at hand; such information can be used by the teacher or can be shared among students while debating proper ways to perform a task at hand. As stated by Schunk (1986): "Studies demonstrate that verbalization can improve children's learning of information, modelled actions, and strategies, as well as their self-efficacy for performing tasks. Collectively, these findings support the notion that verbalization is a key process that can help develop self-regulated learning among children," (p. 362).
There may be a close relationship between verbalization settings and observation settings, the latter offering a unique frame of reference for a debate of ideas in the classroom. Globally, we propose the concurrent use of three types of settings to bring about the integration of verbalization to the teaching / learning process in physical education:
1. Action set-up: situations in which students are engaged in some form of physical activities;
2. Observation set-up: they allow the students who are not engaged in the action setting to collect information (usually with reference to performance criteria defined by the teacher);
3. Debate-of-ideas set-up: situations in which students express themselves (overt verbalization) and exchange facts and ideas, based on observation or on personal activity experienced. The debate may concern the results obtained during the action setting, the process involved, and so on.
Using verbalization in the teaching of team sports may help meet various needs: to put together a common frame of reference; to acknowledge, conceptually, action rules (Gréhaigne, 1996) and management rules for the organization of the game; to develop critical thinking skills that can be reinvested during the action in game settings.

3.1 A student-centred approach

The players construct knowledge from a strong subject / environment interaction. This game-centred perspective leads to a learner rather than content-based teaching style. Roughly summarized, one may identify two main teaching strategies while applying a student-centred approach:
• To propose to students the discovery of the tactical skill that applies in a specifie situation. Such an option would be associated with an indirect teaching approach, combining both a subject matter-centred and a student-centred perspective. It could be referred to as an empiricist constructivist approach to teaching (Cobb, 1986) which contends that knowledge is an external reality and exists independently of the student's cognitive activity.
• To propose to students the construction of suitable personal tactical skills that apply in a specifie situation (there may be more than one from the student's point of view). Such an option, also referred to as indirect teaching, would be associated with a radical constructivist approach (Cobb, 1986) which contends that the knowledge constructed by the student is the resuit of the interaction between his / her cognitive activity and reality (Gréhaigne & Godbout, 1995; Piaget, 1971, 1974a, 1974b).
This student-centred approach presumes that:
• The students be presented with problems to solve or that they be put into situations favouring the recognition of such problems;
• Following the students' trials, they be presented with the resuit of their actions;
• Given these results, the students be invited to appreciate them and decide whether they are satisfactory or not;
• Following unsatisfactory results, the students be given the opportunity to experiment further and search for a better answer.
For this type of learning / teaching System, assessment tools are essential. So, in the third part of this presentation, I intend to discuss innovative aspects of formative assessment in physical education, in light of qualitative data on player's activity.

3.2 Formative assessment

Formative and authentic assessment is very important to a player's construction of team sports knowledge and skills. In education as a whole, there is also this growing interest for authentic formative assessment. This does not mean that we are now dealing with a new kind of formative assessment; the connotation of authenticity is more intended to put the focus on the central nature and purpose of formative assessment (Allai, Cardinet, & Perrenoud, 1979). In 1992, Veal presented the main characteristics of authentic assessment in connection with physical education and sport:
• "... it is regular and ongoing ...
• ... [there is] a connection between daily instructional tasks and assessment ...
•... the teacher can 'see the skill' that is being evaluated, and there is a connection between skills and real-life situations as learning indicators ...
• ... it accounts for student effort, improvement, and participation," (p. 90).

3.3 Formative assessment and the teaching / learning process

In addition, formative assessment must be seen as a complement to teaching / coaching; it is and must be understood as an essential part of the teaching / learning process. Thus, if it is to be implemented, teachers must include the following steps in their teaching procedures.

3.3.1 Communication of expectancies

Before getting into practice, students should know what it is they are trying to achieve. At what point, expressed in concrete terms, can they consider that they have mastered the learning objective? This goes beyond stating the general objective and describing the learning task; for unless they are given some type of success criteria, students will never know by themselves whether they have succeeded or not.

3.3.2 Collection of information

At some point during practice, students should know whether they have succeeded or not. Thus, information regarding their performance must be collected either formally or informally. This can be done through observation by the teacher or by peers, through self-assessment with or without observational grids or through questionnaires, etc. The idea is to obtain information that can be interpreted in light of the expectancies or success criteria put forward by the teacher, or even initially selected by the students themselves.

3.3.3 Regulation of learning

Only gifted students succeed at their first trial and one wonders if they need teaching at all. Thus, the true challenge of teaching is the management of success and failure.
What is the use of telling students they have not succeeded if one then does not do anything about it? A regulation scenario often used by teachers consists of providing students with feedback and then having them resume practice. The teacher may also encourage the students to put forward hypotheses for solving some tactical or motor problem, either through teacher-guided discussions (Rauschenbach, 1996), free discussions within teams, individual questioning, etc. Other types of regulation scenarios may include an adaptation of the learning tasks, going over an earlier learning task not sufficiently mastered, etc...
The regulation of learning which is a process that teachers rightly associate with teaching, requires that some information be obtained to start with; but merely obtaining information is not sufficient. Indeed, any collected information which does not help the teacher and/or students to make decisions remains worthless as far as learning is concerned. This is why formative assessment cannot really be considered separately from teaching. It follows then that a discussion about formative assessment cannot ignore the underlying teaching / learning process.

4 Teaching / learning process

Kirk and MacPhail (2002) note that the notion of situated performance in teaching games for understanding (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986) provides one way of understanding the relationship between the game form and the player's prior and alternative conception of the game (see also Gréhaigne & Godbout, 1998). We agree with Houdé (1992) that it is important for students to grasp the meaning of a game. The term meaning refers to the implicit or explicit formalization, by the learner, of observations, instructions and the task before processing them. With regards to the teaching / learning of games in school, Table 1 illustrates the parts devoted to the teacher and to the students in a student-centred teaching / learning System focused on understanding. Whereas teaching games for understanding alone does not ensure a student-centred approach, Connecting it with learning games through understanding will create a more authentic and promising learning environment (Caty, & Gréhaigne, 2006).
Tab. 1. An integrated view of teaching/ learning games for / through understanding in a student-centred approach

Teaching / learning in process in a student centred-approach
Teaching games for understanding	Learning games through understanding
Small sided-game with a hidden problem	Action/observation
Situated PCK. (identification of prototypic configurations of play)	Awareness/recognition during actual game-play/verbalization
Debate-of-idea set-ups	Understanding/hypothesis/verification
Observational set-ups	Transformation

The left side of the table represents the role devoted to the teacher, whereas the right side represents the task devoted to the students.
In the teaching / learning process described here, we make a marked distinction between reproducing ready-made solutions and constructing new answers. For the player, reproducing solutions involves the learning of a programme of actions, which is composed of a series of play Systems. These Systems consist of pre-established sequences of action with specifie technical skills, linked in a specifie order, and set in motion when certain specifie game-play events occur. On the contrary, constructing new responses implies, for the student, a capacity for using both determinism and random occurrences. The knowledge and motor skills constructed during action alter the players' perception of information and their choices of responses according to the lessons they draw from the events of the game. Progressively, the player builds up the capacity of deciding, and deciding fast, and this capacity itself rests upon the ability to conceive movement / play responses.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, as stated by Paul Godbout in his Cagigal Lecture at 2002 AIESEP international conference in Madeira (Godbout, 2002): "I believe that in the coming years one of our challenges as sports pedagogy researchers and teacher educators is to expand the umbrella of scholarship. This includes our understanding of pedagogical content knowledge and its primary source, subject matter knowledge." However, we must not forget that two main questions seem to sum up quite adequately the problem of physical education content:
• What is effectively taught in team sports and games?
• What do students really learn, and how do they learn?

References

Allal, L., Cardinet, J, & Perrenoud, P. (1979). L'évaluation formative dans un enseignement differencié [Formative assessment in a differentiated teaching]. Berne: Peter Lang.
Andreewsky, E. (1991). Systémique & Cognition [Systemics & cognition]. Paris: Dunod.
Bouthier, D. (1988). Les conditions cognitives de la formation d'actions sportives collectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Paris V. EPHE.
Bouthier, D. (1989). Analyse des tâches et de l'activité en sport collectif; anticipation et décision [Task and activity analysis in team sport; Anticipation and decision]. In A. Vom Hofe (Ed.), Tâches, traitement de l'information et comportements en APS (pp. 193-219). Issy les Moulineaux, France: EAP.
Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1986). Is there a need to reflect on our games teaching? In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 25-33). Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology.
Caty, D. & Gréhaigne, J.F. (2006). Modélisations de l'attaque et didactique des sports collectifs en EPS [Modelling of the attack and didactics of team sports in physical education]. eJRIEPS, 8, 70-80. IUFM de Franche-Comté.
Caverni, J.P. (1988). La verbalisation comme source d'observables pour l'étude du fonctionnement cognitif [Verbalization as an observationable source of information about cognitive process]. In J.P. Caverni, C. Bastien, P. Mendelsohn, & G. Tiberghien (Eds.), Psychologie cognitive: modèles et méthodes_[Cognitive psychology: Models and methods] (pp. 253-273). Grenoble: Presses Universitaires.
Cobb, P. (1986). Making mathematics: Children's learning and the constructivist tradition. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 301-306.
Good, T. (1996). Teaching effects and teacher evaluation. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2^nd edition) (pp. 617-665). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1994). Looking in classroom (6th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Gréhaigne, J.F. (1997). Modélisation du jeu de football et traitement didactique des jeux sportifs collectifs [Modeling of play in soccer and didactic treatment of team sports}. Habilitation à diriger les recherches, Université de Paris 11, Orsay, France.
Gréhaigne, J.F., & Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. Quest, 47, 490-505.
Gréhaigne, J.F., & Godbout, P. (1998). Observation, critical thinking and transformation: three key elements for a constructivist perspective of the learning process in team sports. In R. Feingold, R. Rees, G. Barrette, L. Fiorentino, S. Virgilio & E. Kowalski (Eds.), Education for life (pp. 109118). New York: Adelphi University.
Gréhaigne, J.F., Billard, M., & Laroche, J.Y. (1999). L'enseignement des jeux sportifs collectifs à l'école. Conception, construction, évaluation [The teaching of team sports at school: Conception, construction, assessment]. Bruxelles : De Boeck.
Gréhaigne, J.F., Godbout, P. & Bouthier, D. (2001). The teaching and learning of decision making in team sports. Quest, 53, 59-76.
Gréhaigne, J.F., Richard, J.F., & Griffin, L. (2005). Teaching and Learning Team Sports and Games. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Houdé, O. (1992). Catégorisation et développement cognitif [Categorization and cognitive development]. Paris : P.U.F.
Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning : rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 177-192.
Paris, S.G., & Byrncs, J.P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and académie learning : Theory, research, and practice (169-200). New York: Springer.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes. (B. Walsh, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J. (1974a). La prise de conscience [Sudden awareness]. Paris: PUF.
Piaget, J. (1974b). Réussir et comprendre [Succeeding and understanding]. Paris: PUF.
Plummer, O.K., & Rougeau, D. (1997). Team building magie for all. Strategies, 10 (6), 22-24.
Rauschenbach, J. (1996). Charge! and catch coop. Two games for teaching game for play strategy. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67 (5), 49-51.
Schunk, D.H. (1986). Verbalization and children's self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 347-369.
Schwager, S., & Labate, C. (1993). Teaching for critical thinking in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 64 (5), 2426.
Tishman, S., & Perkins, D. (1995). Critical thinking and physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 66 (7), 24-30.
Veal, M.L. (1995). Assessment as an instructional tool. Strategies, 8 (6), 10-15.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Author: Title: Learning games through understanding: New jobs for students!  Gréhaigne, J.-F.; Godbout, P.; Caty, D. Source: Int J Phys Educ 46 no4 2009 p. 30-8

Interesting Article # 3: Why We Should Not Cut P.E.

AUTHOR:	Stewart G. Trost; Hans van der Mars
TITLE:	Why We Should Not Cut P.E.
SOURCE:	Educational Leadership 67 no4 60-5 D 2009/Ja 2010
COPYRIGHT:	The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.

    Thinking of cutting physical education? Think again. Even as we bemoan children's sedentary lifestyles, we often sacrifice school-based physical education in the name of providing more time for academics. In 2006, only 3.8 percent of elementary schools, 7.9 percent of middle schools, and 2.1 percent of high schools offered students daily physical education or its equivalent for the entire school year (Lee, Burgeson, Fulton, & Spain, 2007).
    We believe this marked reduction in school-based physical activity risks students' health and can't be justified on educational or ethical grounds. We'll get to the educational grounds in a moment. As to ethical reasons for keeping physical activity part of our young people's school days, consider the fact that childhood obesity is now one of the most serious health issues facing U.S. children (Ogden et al., 2006).
    School-based physical education programs engage students in regular physical activity and help them acquire skills and habits necessary to pursue an active lifestyle. Such programs are directly relevant to preventing obesity. Yet they are increasingly on the chopping block.

The Assumption: Time in the Gym Lowers Test Scores
    No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has contributed to this trend. By linking federal funding to schools' adequate yearly progress in reading and mathematics, NCLB has created an environment in which such classes as physical education, music, and art are viewed as nonessential and secondary to the academic mission of the school.
    According to a national study conducted by the Center on Education Policy in 2007, since the passing of NCLB in 2002, 62 percent of elementary schools and 20 percent of middle schools have significantly increased the instructional time they allocate to reading/language arts and math. To accommodate such increases, 44 percent of school districts reported cutting time in such areas as social studies, art, music, physical education, and recess. On average, schools reduced the time allotted to these subjects by more than 30 minutes per day.
    But is the assumption that eliminating physical education improves academic performance sound? Not according to the evidence. A comprehensive review of the research shows that academic performance remains unaffected by variations in time allocated to physical education. In fact, in studies that did show physical activity had an effect, increasing instructional time for physical education resulted in improvements in academic performance.

The Evidence: P.E. Does Not Hurt--and May Help
    In study after study, researchers have concluded that devoting more instructional time to physical education or another in-school physical activity program does not harm academics. Five prominent studies show that students' achievement levels remained unchanged when schools increased or reduced instructional time for physical education.
    * Researchers in Australia studied 350 5th graders in seven schools throughout the country. They increased instructional time for physical education for some students by 210 minutes per week. After 14 weeks, there were no significant differences in math or reading skills between students who received additional physical education instruction and those who completed the standard three 30-minute periods of physical education per week (Dwyer, Coonan, Leitch, Hetzel, & Baghurst, 1983).
    * A study in California investigated the effect on academic achievement of an intensive two-year program in seven schools that more than doubled the amount of time elementary students spent in physical education. Neither overall academic achievement nor achievement in language arts and reading were adversely affected (Sallis et al., 1999).
    * A study of 214 6th graders in Michigan found that students enrolled in physical education had grades and standardized test scores similar to those of students who were not taking physical education, despite receiving nearly an hour less of daily instruction in core academic subjects (Coe, Pivarnik, Womack, Reeves, & Malina, 2006).
    * A study involving 287 4th and 5th graders in British Columbia evaluated the effects of daily classroom physical activity sessions on academic performance. Ten elementary schools participated. Although students who attended schools implementing this program spent approximately 50 more minutes per week in physical activity, their standardized test scores in mathematics, reading, and language arts were equivalent to those of students in control schools (Ahamed et al., 2007).
    * A study involving more than 500 Virginia elementary schools examined the effect of decreasing time for physical education, music, and art on academic performance. Reducing or eliminating the time students spent in these content areas did not increase academic achievement (Wilkins et al., 2003).
    In addition, three major studies indicate that when students participate in physical education, achievement is positively affected for some groups.
    * A Canadian study examined the effects on 546 elementary students' academic performance of one additional hour per day of physical education. Students in grades 2 through 6 who received additional physical education earned better grades in French, mathematics, English, and science than did students who received the standard one period per week (Shephard, 1996).
    * Studying 311 4th grade students in two schools, Tremarche, Robinson, and Graham (2007) found that students who received 56 or more hours of physical education per school year scored significantly higher on Massachusetts' standardized tests in English and language arts than did comparable students who received 28 hours of physical education per year. There were no significant differences on mathematics scores.
    * A longitudinal study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention followed two national samples involving 5,316 students from kindergarten to 5th grade. Girls who participated in physical education for 70 or more minutes per week had significantly higher achievement scores in mathematics and reading than did girls who were enrolled in physical education for 35 or fewer minutes per week. Among boys, greater exposure to physical education was neither positively nor negatively associated with academic achievement (Carlson et al., 2008).
    The evidence is clear. Decreasing time for physical education does not significantly improve academic performance. Consequently, in an education climate that demands evidence-based instructional practices, the policy of reducing or eliminating school-based physical activity programs cannot be justified.

The Link Between Physical Fitness and Academic Performance
    The case for sacrificing physical education is further eroded by studies reporting a significant positive relationship between physical fitness and academic performance. In a nutshell, physically active, fit youth are more likely to have better grades and test scores than their inactive counterparts.
    National health surveys involving large representative samples of children and teens from the United States, Australia, Iceland, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom have reported statistically significant positive correlations between physical activity and academic performance (Trost, 2007). One study analyzed data from nearly 12,000 U.S. high school students. Students who reported participating in school-based physical activities or playing sports with their parents were 20 percent more likely than their sedentary peers to earn an A in math or English (Nelson & Gordon-Larsen, 2006).
    An analysis of fitness testing results From more than 800,000 students in California revealed a significant positive correlation between physical fitness achievement and performance on state achievement tests in reading and mathematics (Grissom, 2005). And in a study conducted in Illinois, children who performed well on two measures of physical fitness tended to score higher on state reading and math exams than low physical performers, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status (Castelli, Hillman, Buck, & Erwin, 2007).
    Although the relationship between physical activity and academic performance requires more research, available evidence suggests that the academic mission of schools may be better served by providing more opportunities for physical activity. In fact, controlled studies strongly suggest that engaging in physical activity throughout the school day makes students more focused and ready to learn.
    Research has shown that aerobic exercise can improve memory and executive functioning in school-age youth, especially those who are overweight (Buck, Hillman, & Castelli, 2008; Davis et al., 2007). Drawing on a meta-analysis of more than 40 studies that looked at how engaging in regular physical training affects cognition, Sibley and Etnier (2003) concluded that regular physical activity significantly improves multiple categories of cognitive function in children and adolescents. Researchers found improvements in perceptual skills, IQ, scores on verbal and mathematics tests, concentration, memory, achievement (as measured by a combination of standardized test scores and grades), and academic readiness.
    Giving students breaks for physical activity throughout the school day can significantly increase on-task behavior. A study conducted in North Carolina evaluated the effects of a classroom-based program that, for 12 weeks, gave students daily 10-minute breaks for organized physical activity Researchers observed students in grades K through 5 for 30 minutes before and after each break. On average, the activity breaks increased on-task behavior by 8 percent. Among students who tended to be least focused in class, the breaks improved on-task behavior by 20 percent (Mahar el al., 2006).
    Researchers don't understand well the physiological mechanisms responsible for enhancements in cognition related to physical activity. However, emerging evidence from neuroscience suggests that regular physical activity promotes the growth of new brain cells, stimulates formation of blood vessels in the brain, and enhances synaptic activity or communication among brain cells (Hillman, Erickson, & Kramer, 2008).

What We Can Safely Conclude
    The research on the relationship between physical education and academic performance does have limitations. For one, the majority of studies have been conducted at the elementary school level; we need additional studies in middle and high schools. In addition, most studies use the amount of time spent in physical education as the key independent variable, without considering the quality of instruction. Studies of the effects of in-school physical activity on cognitive functioning also often lack what researchers call ecological validity (transferability of findings). For example, research findings may not transfer to school physical education settings if a study was conducted in a lab or if the type, amount, or intensity of physical activity in the study differed greatly from a typical session in a school gymnasium
    Perhaps most important, we know too little about the effect of in-school physical education on academic performance among students at the highest risk for obesity, including low-income children and those from black, Latino, American Indian, and Pacific Islander backgrounds.
    Notwithstanding these limitations, we believe the evidence is sufficiently robust to enable us to draw the following conclusions:
    * Decreasing (or eliminating) the time allotted for physical education in favor of traditional academic subjects does not lead to improved academic performance.
    * Increasing the number of minutes students spend per week in physical education will not impede their academic achievement.
    * Increasing the amount of time students spend in physical education may make small positive contributions to academic achievement, particularly for girls.
    * Regular physical activity and physical fitness are associated with higher levels of academic performance.
    * Physical activity is beneficial to general cognitive functioning.

Implications for Policymakers
    Keeping in mind that overweight and obesity are compromising the health of one-third of U.S. students, we see three clear implications of these conclusions.

Conclusion 1: Policymakers must stop Irving to justify cuts to physical education on the grounds that such cuts will strengthen school achievement or, ultimately, the economy.
    To be sure, a strong academic education contributes to the future economic health of our society. However, the nation's economic and public health are linked in a delicate balance. It it indefensible to support an education system based primarily on promoting economic productivity in people who will likely be too unhealthy to enjoy whatever benefits come their way.

Conclusion 2: Policymakers, school administrators, and teachers should stop arguing over whether physical education is essential.
    Physical education is now crucial for promoting and increasing physical activity for children and youth. Considering the amount of time students spend in school and the generally accepted mandate of schools to model wholesome life choices, the negative effect of keeping students sedentary all day seems obvious. Although school physical education programs cannot single-handedly reverse the trend of weight gain in youth, they can create conditions that help students learn the importance of leading physically active lives--and encourage them to lead such lives.

Conclusion 3: School administrators must aggressively make room for physical education.
    Administrators may feel hamstrung because of the current climate, but they can promote healthier schools by recognizing the barriers to out-of-school physical activity that exist for many students, working with physical education staff to maximize opportunities for physical activity for all students, and monitoring what goes on in physical education classes.
    Those who help shape the education of children can no longer ignore the evidence about physical activity and academics, as well as the serious negative health consequences of further reducing physical education. Physical activity is crucial to shaping future generations of healthy people, it has a legitimate claim to part of the school day.

References
    Ahamed, Y., Macdonald, H., Reed, K., Naylor, P J., Liu-Ambrose, T., & McKay, H. (2007), School-based physical activity does not compromise children's academic performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39(2), 371-376.
    Buck, S. M., Hillman, C H., & Castelli, D. M. (2008). The relation of aerobic fitness to stroop task performance in preadolescent children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(1), 166-172.
    Carlson, S. A., Fulton, J. E., Lee, S. M., Maynard, M, Brown, D R., Kohl, Ill, H. W., & Dietz, W H. (2008). Physical education and academic achievement in elementary school: Data from the early childhood longitudinal study. American Journal of Public Health, 98(4), 721-727.
    Castelli, D. M., Hillman, C H., Buck, S. M., & Erwin, H. E (2007). Physical fitness and academic achievement in third- and fifth-grade students journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29(2), 239-252.
    Center on Education Policy (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Author.
    Coe, D. P., Pivarnik, J. M., Womack, C. J., Reeves, M. J., & Malina, R, M. (2006), Effect of physical education and activity levels on academic achievemcnt in children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, .38(8), 1515-1519.
    Davis, C. L., Tomporowski, P D., Boyle, C, A., Waller, J L., Miller, P. H., Naglieri, J. A., & Gregoski, M. (2007). Effects of aerobic exercise on overweight children's cognitive functioning: A randomized controlled trial. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(5), 510-519.
    Dwyer, T., Coonan, W E., Leitch, D. R., Hetzel, B. S., & Baghurst, R. A. (1983). An investigation of the effects of daily physical activity on the health of primary school students in South Australia. International Journal of Epidemiology, 12(3), 308-313.
    Grissom, J. B. (2005). Physical fitness and academic achievement Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 8(1), 11-25.
    Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. National Review of Neuroscience, 9(1), 58-65.
    Lee, S. M., Burgeson, C. R., Fulton, J. E., & Spain, C. G. (2007). Physical education and physical activity: Results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000. Journal of School Health, 77(8), 435-463.
    Mahar, M. T., Murphy, S. K., Rowe, D. A., Golden, J., Shields, A. T., & Raedeke, T. D. (2006). Effects of a classroom-based program on physical activity and on-task behavior. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38, 2086-2094.
    Nelson, M C., & Gordon-Larsen, P (2006). Physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns are associated with selected adolescent health risk behaviors. Pediatrics, 117, 1281-1290.
    Ogden, C. L., Carroll. M, D, Curtin, L R., McDowell, M. A., Tabak. C. J., & Flegal. K. M. (2006). Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999-2004. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(13). 1549-1555.
    Sallis, J. E, McKenzie, T. L, Kolody, B., Lewis, M., Marshall, S., &r Rosengard, R (1999). Effects of health-related physical education on academic achievement: Project SPARK. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(2), 127-134.
    Shephard, R.J. (1996). Habitual physical activity and academic performance. Nutrition Reviews, 54(4), S32-S36.
    Sibley, B. A., & Etnier J. L., (2003). The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: A meta-analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 243-256.
    Tremarche, P., Robinson, E., & Graham, L (2007). Physical education and its effects on elementary testing results. Physical Educator, 64(2), 58-64.
    Trost, S, G. (2007). Active education: Physical education, physical activity and academic performance (Research Brief). San Diego. CA: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Active Living Research. Available: www.activelivingresearch.com/alr/alr/files/Active_Ed.pdf
    Wilkins, J. L., Graham, G., Parker, S., West-fall, S., Fraser. R. G., &r Tembo, M. (2003), Time in the arts and physical education and school achievement. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 721-734.
ADDED MATERIAL
    Stewart G. Trost is Associate Professor in the Department of Nutrition and Exercise Sciences at Oregon State University in Corvallis; Stewart.trost@oregonstate.edu. Hans van der Mars is Professor in the College of Teacher Education and Leadership at Arizona State University in Mesa; hans.vandermars@asu.edu.
Physically active, fit youth are more likely to have better grades and test scores than their inactive counterparts.
The academic mission of schools may be better served by providing more opportunities for physical activity.
Is the assumption that eliminating physical education improves academic performance sound? Not according to the evidence.