Collin A. Webster*,1, Emily D’Agostino*,2, Mark Urtel*,3, Jaimie McMullen*,4, Brian Culp*,5, Cate A. Egan Loiacono*,6, and Chad Killian
The rapid and inexorable worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2—the coronavirus which causes the disease known as COVID-19—presents physical education professionals with new and unforeseen challenges related to program delivery. Campus closures due to the pandemic created an urgent need, in P–12 schools and institutions of higher education, to consider available alternatives to in-person programming. Most notably, online physical education (OLPE), which previously stood in the periphery of the field’s vision (Daum & Woods, 2015), is now a subject of central focus. OLPE has the ability to offer the swift response needed in the context of COVID-19. OLPE is not only a potential solution to a problem, but also part of a growing presence in education, marked by the increasing viability of virtual alternatives to brick and mortar classrooms and in-person instruction. Distance education and online learning have been gaining momentum in recent years (Digital Learning Collaborative, 2020; Evergreen Education Group, 2016; Kooiman, 2017), and technologies, such as virtual reality and artificial intelligence, offer new possibilities for education. The present pandemic has merely punctuated the need to explore integrating such innovations into 21st century teaching and learning.
At face value, OLPE conveys oxymoronic qualities (Buschner, 2006; Kooiman, 2017; Mohnsen, 2012) and, at first regard, may generate skepticism. Certainly, OLPE is not without issues, perhaps the most prominent of which is that it lacks evidence-based best practices (Kooiman, 2017). With the advent of the Internet and its implications for education, Locke (1997) warned physical educators to avoid technological determinism, which he defined as the “mental state in which one feels compelled to invest money, time, and emotional energy in a gadget on the basis of predictions about the benefits it will bring—in the absence of any empirical evidence that it reliably will do so” (p. 272). Similarly, Buschner (2006), cautioned that without good, evidence-based teaching practices, “OLPE is still only a box that includes sophisticated sound, lights, images, and words that purport to help students learn about and be physically active—but it is not physical education in its present form” (p. 5). The Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE) America (2018) asserts that physical education that is delivered online should share the same purpose and intended outcomes as traditional, in-person physical education. Daum (2020) further contends that OLPE bears the same responsibilities as traditional programs with respect to delivering equitable, developmentally appropriate, and equally accessible learning experiences.
While honorable, the high aspirations for OLPE should be viewed in light of what traditional, in-person physical education programs have been able to accomplish. It must be recognized that traditional programs struggle to meet the previously mentioned expectations for physical education. In the United States, the majority of students attending in-person physical education are likely not achieving the national content standards for K–12 learners (Hastie, 2017). In addition, although SHAPE America (2015) recommends that students engage in vigorous or moderate physical activity during at least 50% of physical education class time, this benchmark often eludes physical education programs that use conventional, face-to-face instruction (Hollis et al., 2016, 2017). Finally, traditional physical education has faced challenges related to equity and access, such as language barriers, funding limitations, and inadequate physical spaces for participation (Lawson, 2018). An important question at this critical juncture in the evolution of the profession is whether OLPE can be optimized in ways that leverage the efficacy and impact of in-person physical education programs for diverse communities and settings. Notably, a body of evidence already exists to suggest that, when supported with appropriate pedagogical practices, digital technologies, such as social media, blogs, video analysis, and video games, can be effectively integrated into physical education to enhance students’ learning (Bodsworth & Goodyear, 2017; Casey, Goodyear, & Armour, 2017). Moreover, findings from a recent study found that high school students enrolled in online health and physical education had more favorable perceptions of their learning experience (e.g., teacher feedback and responsiveness, understanding and interest related to the content, and perceived health gains) compared with students enrolled in in-person programs (Williams, Martinasek, Karone, & Sanders, 2020).
Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program Framework
The OLPE learning environments, both traditionally and in the current climate, expand beyond the walls of the school gym and are most likely to be circumscribed within home- and community-based settings (SHAPE America, 2018). A relevant framework for conceptualizing, researching, and applying best practices in expanding physical education to multiple school- and community-based settings is the comprehensive school physical activity program (CSPAP) model (Figure 1; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019). The CSPAP model is the CDC’s (2019) national framework for physical education and physical activity of school-aged youth in the United States. According to SHAPE America (2015), the purpose of a CSPAP is for school systems to identify and use available assets, through a coordinated and synergistic approach, to achieve three goals: (a) provide quality physical education for all students, (b) increase all students’ practice opportunities for skills learned in physical education, and (c) help all children and adolescents achieve the nationally recommended 60 min of physical activity each day for optimal health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). Thus, within an equity and inclusion lens, the intent of a CSPAP is to ensure both the physical education and physical activity needs of every student are addressed.
CSPAPs have gained significant traction across the globe in research and professional recommendations related to youth physical activity promotion (Carson & Webster, 2020). Yet, the evidence base for CSPAPs is still young, and existing CSPAP research is mostly devoted to investigating the effectiveness of individual CSPAP components in increasing youth physical activity engagement (Goal c). Even though physical education is conceptualized as the cornerstone of a CSPAP (CDC, 2019; SHAPE America, 2015), little CSPAP research has investigated how a CSPAP or its various components can be used to help physical education meet national recommendations (Goal a) or to promote expanded physical education learning opportunities (Goal b). Furthermore, the family and community engagement component of the model remains one of the least studied in terms of addressing any of the previously mentioned goals of a CSPAP (Chen & Gu, 2018). This is surprising, given that the noted importance of families and communities in affecting the education of the youth traces back more than a century ago to the work of Dewey (1916), who first made clear the impact of human association, in the form of family and society, on the education, socialization, and development of children.
Research on the use of online instruction in physical education is in its nascent stages despite consistent calls for comprehensive study (Daum & Buschner, 2014; 2018; Killian, Kinder, & Woods, 2019). As a result, current understanding related to the ability of OLPE to promote physical education and physical activity through family and community engagement is limited. In the present article, the authors link OLPE to the conceptual basis for CSPAP-driven efforts that directly support a school’s physical education program and its intended learning outcomes. Specifically, a schematic is introduced to elucidate the interconnectedness between the school, the digital divide, physical education, the family, the community, and the student to highlight factors that might warrant consideration in OLPE research and practice. This article is intended to guide the efforts of physical education teacher educators and researchers to optimally prepare a wide range of end users (e.g., preservice teachers, P–12 school professionals, parents, and community leaders) for the new reality in which OLPE is a necessary tool for physical education program effectiveness.
Using OLPE to Support the Goals of a CSPAP
Based on the idea that OLPE can meaningfully contribute to both the physical education- and public health-aligned goals of a CSPAP, it is important to clearly illustrate how OLPE might be used to support these goals. In particular, teacher educators and researchers can benefit from conceptualizations of OLPE as an integrated part of the CSPAP framework. Such conceptualizations can help teacher educators organize professional preparation experiences for preservice and in-service teachers and guide researchers’ lines of inquiry and intervention programming. The schematic in Figure 2 was designed with these purposes in mind, based on literature spanning (a) issues of equity and inclusion in online learning (e.g., Basham, Stahl, Ortiz, Rice, & Smith, 2015; Centeio, 2017; Huerta, Shafer, Barbour, Miron, & Gulosino, 2015), (b) OLPE (e.g., Harris & Metzler, 2019; Killian et al., 2019; Mosier & Lynn, 2012), (c) family and community engagement to support physical education and physical activity for school-aged youth (e.g., Brown, Atkin, Wong, Chinapaw, & van Sluijs, 2016; Cipriani, Richardson, & Roberts, 2012; Egan & Miller, 2019), and (d) recommendations related to family and community partnerships (e.g., Allar et al., 2017; Epstein, 2010; Kruger et al., 2012). The schematic is divided into four parts: the CSPAP conceptual framework, the digital divide, the OLPE support system, and the CSPAP outcomes framework. Within each part, factors that may be influential in efforts to support the goals of a CSPAP through OLPE are listed. Each part of the schematic is discussed in detail within the following sections of this article.
The CSPAP Conceptual Framework
As previously stated, the goals of a CSPAP are to (a) provide quality physical education for all students, (b) increase all student’s physical education skills through additional practice opportunities, and (c) help all students accumulate at least 60 min of physical activity each day (SHAPE America, 2015). Two CSPAP components—physical education and family and community engagement—are highlighted in the schematic to suggest that each of these components has an essential role to play in delivering OLPE that extends and reinforces students’ physical education learning and physical activity engagement. Given that OLPE is contextualized within the family and community settings, family and community engagement is an important lever for physical education programs to succeed in reaching their educational goals. Likewise, bringing physical education to students’ homes and communities can provide an outlet for physical activity participation. Webster, Rink et al. (2020) underscore the idea that the different CSPAP components should work synergistically in mutually reinforcing ways such that physical activity opportunities across a CSPAP enhance students’ physical education learning, while physical education learning concurrently enhances students’ physical activity participation. This proposition embraces the possibility that meaningful connections can be established between physical education, the broader school environment, and what Kirk (1999) refers to as “physical culture,” which he defines as “a range of practices concerned with the maintenance, representation and regulation of the body centred on three highly codified, institutionalized forms of physical activity—sport, physical recreation and exercise” (p. 65). The link between physical education learning and wider physical activity participation may not always be clear to students or made explicit by teachers (Parker, MacPhail, O’Sullivan, Ní Chróinín, & McEvoy, 2018). Therefore, highlighting the potential for CSPAPs to synergistically bolster students’ physical activity levels and physical education learning is important to informing the way OLPE is designed and implemented as part of broader CSPAP initiatives.
In Figure 2, the factors identified for consideration within the CSPAP conceptual framework are those related to the school in general, as other factors specific to physical education, the family, and the community are identified within the OLPE support system, which focuses on these CSPAP components. School-based factors that could be influential in the extent to which a CSPAP, or any of its components, are successfully implemented include a supportive administration, a supportive staff, an actively engaged CSPAP committee, an actively engaged CSPAP champion, and strong ties with the family and the community. Carson, Castelli, Beighle, & Erwin (2014) proposed a conceptual model for CSPAP research and practice in which they considered school administrators, a CSPAP committee, and a CSPAP champion to be leaders in the implementation of CSPAPs. Although limited research exists on the influence of these potential change agents in CSPAP adoption or sustainability, Webster, Glascoe et al. (2020) discussed three themes in the recommendations for school administrators’ involvement in school-based health promotion programs. These included collaboration (e.g., involvement in planning and programming); advocacy (e.g., policy involvement); and support (e.g., professional development and technical assistance). In addition, researchers (Orendorff et al., 2020) found that intrapersonal variables, such as expected outcomes of a CSPAP, directly predicted school principals’ self-reported CSPAP involvement, while interpersonal (e.g., parent and teacher support for CSPAPs) and environmental variables (e.g., overall school, community, and policy support for CSPAPs) indirectly predicted such involvement. These findings highlight not only the importance of administrative support in promoting a CSPAP, but also the importance of strong working relationships among school professionals and also between the school, families, and the local community in bringing a CSPAP to fruition.
Full article:
https://journals.humankinetics.com/configurable/content/journals$002fjtpe$002f40$002f2$002farticle-p327.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fjtpe%24002f40%24002f2%24002farticle-p327.xml#r21
