Quest
ISSN: 0033-6297 (Print) 1543-2750 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20
Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks: Past, Present,
and Future Priorities For Higher Education Physical
Activity Programs
Drue T. Stapleton, Andrea R. Taliaferro & Sean M. Bulger
To cite this article: Drue T. Stapleton, Andrea R. Taliaferro & Sean M. Bulger (2017) Teaching an
Old Dog New Tricks: Past, Present, and Future Priorities For Higher Education Physical Activity
Programs, Quest, 69:3, 401-418, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2016.1256825
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1256825
Published online: 17 Jan 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 673
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uqst20
QUEST
2017, VOL. 69, NO. 3, 401–418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1256825
Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks: Past, Present, and Future
Priorities For Higher Education Physical Activity Programs
Drue T. Stapletona, Andrea R. Taliaferrob and Sean M. Bulgerc
a
Department of Biology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Rider University, Lawrenceville, New Jersey;
Department of Coaching and Teaching Studies, College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, West Virginia; cCollege of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, West Virginia
b
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
Physical education programs in colleges/universities have been called
on to provide students with opportunities to develop an appreciation
for, and increase participation in, lifetime physical activity. Higher
Education Physical Activity Programs (HEPAPs) have evolved over
the past 100 years in response to changing societal and institutional
expectations. The purpose of this article is to celebrate the long
history of HEPAPs and recommend innovative strategies for program
development that will maintain their position as a valued aspect of
campus life. After tracing the historical roots and trends of HEPAPs,
the authors suggest (a) adopting a public health perspective, (b)
applying theoretical models as a framework for program development, (c) focusing on meaningful learner engagement, and (d)
employing learner-centered instructional approaches. Within these
overall themes, specific recommendations for program improvement
are provided, including the use of alternative content areas, modelbased instruction, universal design, instructional technology, and
professional development for faculty/staff.
Basic instruction program;
college/university physical
education; higher education
physical activity program
“He muste teche his dogge to barke whan he wolde haue hym, to ronne whan he wold haue
hym, and to leue ronning whan he wolde haue gym; or els he is not a cunninge shepeherd. The
dogge must lerne it, whan he is a whelpe, or els it wyl not be: for it is harde to make an olde
dogge to stoupe.”
Quote from Fitzherbert’s Book of Husbandry (Skeat, 1882, p. 45)
The previously referenced quote is thought to represent the origin of the widely used
phrase “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” which describes how difficult it is for an
individual to learn a novel approach when a person has been doing something a particular
way for an extended period. The purpose of this article is to challenge that commonly held
assumption by celebrating the long history of a very “old dog,” the college/university Basic
Instruction Program (BIP) or Higher Education Physical Activity Program (HEPAP), and
to recommend some “new tricks” that, if mastered, will help to maintain its position as a
valued part of campus life.
CONTACT Drue T. Stapleton
dstapleton@rider.edu
2083 Lawrenceville Road, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648.
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Department of Biology,
© 2017 National Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education (NAKHE)
402
D. T. STAPLETON ET AL.
The mythology of dog years
While tradition suggests that one “human” year equates to seven “dog” years, researchers
in the veterinarian sciences have questioned the validity of this underlying assumption to
learn that reality is more complicated, with a number of factors interacting to determine
the actual life expectancy of “man’s best friend” (Crockett, 2014). Keeping with that
analogy, a multitude of contextual variables have also contributed to the longevity of the
HEPAP in its various configurations through the decades. While the clock had seemingly
“run out” at several points in its long history, the HEPAP has proven to be remarkably
adaptable and remains a fixture on many college and university campuses.
In one form or another, the HEPAP has existed since the late 1800s, when faculty
established the first physical education (PE) program at Amherst College in Massachusetts
(Considine, 1985; Oxendine, 1985). The initial purpose of the HEPAP was to provide
students with a coping mechanism to help “deal with the rigors of their academic work”
(Lumpkin & Jenkins, 1993, p. 33). Through the use of European gymnastic elements,
instructors attempted to increase strength, endurance, and the overall health of their
students. The University of Pennsylvania became the first major institution of higher
education to require PE for all students for four years as well as passing a swimming
competency to graduate (Oxendine, 1985). World War I served as an influential force on
required PE at the college level. Military leaders argued that low fitness levels diminished
the ability of American men to serve and reduced their ability to survive “the hardships of
a war” (Oxendine, 1985, p. 32). Consequently, the period from 1900–1930 observed an
increase in the number of required programs. The overall emphasis of HEPAPs during
this time was away from overall health and fitness, toward “psychomotor, character and
intellectual objectives of the whole person” (Oxendine, 1985, p. 33).
The time from 1930–1950 was marked by significant growth for HEPAPs (Hensley,
2000). Athletic departments and academic departments merged, PE’s role in general
education was linked via educational objectives, and the HEPAP was again used as an
avenue to develop fitness, strength, and endurance of future soldiers to prepare them for
war. Following the conclusion of World War II, athletic departments separated from PE
programs, primarily for financial reasons. An increased emphasis on the doctoral degree
in PE contributed to the use of graduate assistants teaching within the HEPAP. Men’s
programs were dominated by competitive team sports, while women’s programs focused
on skill instruction and recreational activities (Hensley, 2000).
The HEPAP of the 1960s and 1970s looked much more like today’s programs. Lifetime
sports became popular, administrators relied on graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) for
instruction, fewer coaches taught, and team sports orientation continued as competition
among females gained increased acceptance. From 1970–1980, the overall number of
institutions requiring PE decreased; students demanding new freedom and control over
their educational experience forced remaining programs to shift curricular offerings
toward fitness, outdoor activities, and lifetime sports (Trimble & Hensley, 1990). The
overall purpose of the HEPAP again shifted from personal development to the development of lifetime skills and fitness.
From 1980 until the 1990s, the emphasis continued to shift in response to changing
societal beliefs toward the development and maintenance of fitness and the inherent
value of participation in physical activity (PA) in any form throughout the lifespan.
QUEST
403
“Health-related outcomes again became the primary purpose” (Oxendine, 1985, p. 36)
of the HEPAP. Administratively, HEPAPs faced an upward trend of using GTAs,
reduced faculty involvement, increased adjunct faculty usage, and increased budgetary
pressure to be cost effective. Trimble and Hensley (1990) and Hensley (2000) investigated changes within the HEPAP, revealing consistent trends with earlier investigations. While it is likely that programmatic changes have continued to take place,
limited research has focused on HEPAPs since Hensley (2000). A summary of the
key points throughout the historical progression of HEPAPs and their associated
references can be found in Table 1.
Teaching an old dog new tricks
Despite its advanced age and the widely held belief that “you can’t teach an old dog new
tricks,” the authors contend that the HEPAP has demonstrated a capacity to reinvent itself
to meet changing expectations in higher education. As the rate of change continues to
escalate, HEPAP personnel find themselves in a competitive environment characterized by
decreased public funding for colleges and universities, rising tuition costs and concerns
with student retention, emphasis on student recruitment and enrollment management,
and increased calls for accountability in higher education (Hemelt & Marcote, 2016;
Lemoine, Hackett, & Richardson, 2016; Mitchell & Leachman, 2015; Pike & Robbins,
2016). Faced with these institutional challenges and the resultant on-campus competition
for a limited pool of resources, it is critical that administrators learn some “new tricks” to
better position the HEPAP as a sustainable component of the academic mission moving
forward. These recommendations include (a) rebranding from a public health perspective,
(b) use of the socio-ecological model as a conceptual framework, (c) innovation of course
content, modes of delivery, and inclusive environments, and (d) renewed focus on learnercentered approaches.
New trick 1: Rebranding from a public health perspective
Healthy Campus 2010 (American College Health Association [ACHA], 2002) identified
physical inactivity as one of the six priority health-risk behaviors requiring immediate
action. Dinger (1999) reported that 50% of students fail to meet American College of
Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines for adequate PA. More recently, data from the ACHA
(2011) National College Health Assessment—II indicate that 58% of college students
reported no moderate or vigorous PA. Additional evidence highlighting the PA levels of
college students indicates 48.3% did not meet ACSM and American Heart Association
recommendations of 30 minutes of moderate PA on 5 or more days per week, or
20 minutes of vigorous PA on 3 or more days per week. A 15% decline in vigorous
activity and 10% decline in moderate PA was seen from 18–19-year-old adults to 25–29year-old adults (Leslie, Sparling, & Owen, 2001). Gender differences in PA observed in
other age populations are similar in college-aged individuals, with men reporting greater
PA rates than women (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996) and higher
vigorous PA rates. However, the decline in vigorous PA is observed earlier in females
(around age 12) than males (around age 14), with the lowest levels at age 21 for males and
age 20 for females (Caspersen, Pereira, & Curran, 2000).
404
D. T. STAPLETON ET AL.
Table 1. Summary of historical trends in HEPAP.
Theme
Graduation requirement
Assessment
Personnel and staffing
Program purposes and
outcomes
Curricular offerings
Summary
Overall, from 1954 to 1972, percentages of
institutions requiring PE for graduation
remained fairly high (80–95%). Percentages
decreased steadily until 1978, rising slightly
until 1990, then decreasing at the start of the
21st century.
Larger, public institutions more likely to
eliminate PE requirement; smaller, private
institutions more likely to maintain a
requirement.
There has been little change in assessment
and grading procedures since inception.
Letter grades or pass/fail dominate.
Larger institutions more likely to utilize letter
grading; smaller more likely to use pass/fail
system.
Smaller institutions likely to administer
knowledge, fitness, and skill tests.
Competency and proficiency testing more
likely at larger institutions.
Use of tenure track faculty teaching in
HEPAPs initially reported at 42%, has declined
steadily to date.
Larger institutions report fewer tenure track
faculty teaching, but higher percentages of
non-tenure track faculty, adjuncts, activity
specialists, or GTAs.
Smaller institutions more likely to use coaches
and dual role.
Adjunct and activity specialists continue to
rise as course offerings shift.
Most commonly reported purposes:
commitment to lifelong participation, fitness
and health development, help students enjoy
participation in PA.
Outcome assessment focused on student
perceptions, reasons for enrollment, and
student evaluation. Outcome assessments
revealed similar results: fitness development,
enjoyment, and skill development.
Students are satisfied with program/
coursework; course content and the instructor
are significant influencing variables.
Individual and team sports dominated
curricula.
Fitness oriented courses, outdoor adventure
activities.
Course offerings reflect student interest; team
sports continue to decline.
Multi-dimension CBFW courses have grown in
use/popularity since 1990s.
References
Fornia, 1959; Green, 1955; Hensley, 2000;
Hunsicker, 1954; Miller, Dowell, & Pender,
1989; Oxendine, 1961, 1969, 1972; Oxendine
& Roberts, 1978; Trimble & Hensley, 1984,
1990
DeKnop, 1986; Hensley, 2000; Hunsicker,
1954; Miller et al., 1989; Poole, 1993;
Oxendine, 1961, 1969, 1972; Trimble &
Hensley, 1984, 1990
Evaul & Hilsendanger, 1993; Hensley, 2000;
Miller et al., 1989; Oxendine, 1969; Oxendine
& Roberts, 1978; Russel, 2008a; Trimble &
Hensley, 1984
Boyce, Lehr, & Baumgartner, 1986; Crawford,
Greenwell, & Andrew, 2007; Hardin, Andrew,
Koo, & Bemiller, 2009, Hensley, 2000;
Kisabeth, 1986; Lumpkin & Avery, 1986;
Russell, 2008b; Savage, 1998; Trimble &
Hensley, 1990
Hensley, 2000; Hunsicker, 1954; Miller et al.,
1989; Oxendine, 1961, 1969, 1972; Oxendine
& Roberts, 1978; Trimble & Hensley, 1984,
1990
Public health perspective
These findings regarding college student PA levels support that this issue represents
both an immediate and long-term public health concern because behaviors established
during the college years have been shown to persist into adulthood (Sparling & Snow,
2002). Related concerns regarding school-aged populations have prompted a major
paradigm shift focused on childhood and adolescent PA and the benefits from a public
QUEST
405
health perspective as the primary focus of preK–12 PE programs (Sallis & McKenzie,
1991; Sallis et al., 2012). As recommended by Sallis and McKenzie (1991), healthoriented (or health-optimizing) PE (HOPE) focuses on the overarching public health
goal of facilitating development of the knowledge, behavioral capabilities and skills,
and dispositions needed for optimal health benefits and to remain physically active
across the lifespan (Metzler, McKenzie, van der Mars, Barrett-Williams, & Ellis,
2013a). The HOPE curriculum challenges physical educators and PA specialists to
provide opportunities to engage in developmentally and instructionally appropriate
forms of PA before, during, and after school through increased content expertise and
engagement of school personnel, families, and community-based organizations
(Metzler, McKenzie, van der Mars, Barrett-Williams, & Ellis, 2013b; Webster et al.,
2015).
HEPAP rebranding efforts
These vital educational goals apply to college-aged learners as well. It follows that department and executive-level administrators may need to collaborate to identify opportunities
to rebrand HEPAPs through this lens as an approach to increasing student enrollment in
the program, maintaining visibility on campus, and program justification. These rebranding efforts should focus on the signature features of the involved HEPAP, including its
value from a public health perspective. A first step in any rebranding effort involves time
spent reflecting on the unique selling points of the particular program and responding to
main questions like “Who are we?” and “What do we do best?” (Teichler, 2003; Veloutsou,
Lewis, & Paton, 2004). The answers to these questions may reflect the historical traditions
of the HEPAP and/or institution. Alternatively, the results may indicate a need to
eliminate or reduce program offerings based on multiple variables. Regardless of the
outcomes of the assessment, the results are likely to vary considerably based on
Carnegie Classification, which accounts for various institutional demographics like type,
size and setting, and enrollment profile.
As a second step, administrators should develop plans for strategic communication targeting internal and external key stakeholders. The related key messaging
should emphasize the program’s unique mission, vision, values, and signature features (Gray, 2003; Teichler, 2003). Internal stakeholders include current university
students, faculty/researchers, staff, and administrators across a range of academic and
administrative units as potential participants, collaborators, or supporters. External
stakeholders include prospective students and their families, alumni, potential community partners, and policy decision-makers who might also be able to contribute in
different capacities. It is critical, however, that this key messaging also find its way
into all aspects of HEPAP planning, implementation, management, and evaluation.
Therefore, the final step of the rebranding process focuses on the personalization of
the new brand through all service transactions, person-to-person interactions, teaching–learning processes, and educational experiences associated with the particular
academic program (Gupta & Singh, 2010). This degree of personalization is likely to
require a significant investment in staff training and continuing professional
development.
406
D. T. STAPLETON ET AL.
New trick 2: Using socio-ecological model as a program framework
As reflected in the previously described steps for program rebranding, it is critical that
HEPAP administrators understand how their programs and respective course offerings fit
within the broader ecology of the campus community. Furthermore, a common criticism
of physical activity intervention research across settings remains the limited use of sound
theoretical models in facilitating health-related behavior change. One conceptual framework that is appropriate for use in colleges and universities is the social ecological model.
While certain theoretical models address only personal determinants, and other models
only environmental determinants, the social ecological model addresses determinants and
barriers of PA from multiple levels, making it appropriate for discussion concerning
promotion and the influence of the HEPAP on college student PA.
Social ecological model
The social ecological model focuses on “the nature of people’s transactions with their physical
and sociocultural surroundings” (Stokols, 1992, p. 7). The model suggests multiple levels of
interaction of behaviors and behavior settings, the “social and physical situations in which
behaviors take place” (Sallis & Owen, 2002, p. 463). The model has its roots in the work of
Brofenbrenner (1979), who viewed behavior as being influenced by both individual and
environmental determinants. McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, and Glanz (1988) expanded on
Brofenbrenner’s model, providing more in-depth analysis, suggesting that patterned behavior
is the focus, and that behavior influences and is impacted by five factors: (a) intrapersonal
factors, (b) interpersonal factors, (c) institutional factors, (d) community factors, and (e)
public policy (McLeroy et al., 1988). Ecological approaches have been suggested to “provide
environmental resources and interventions that promote enhanced well-being among occupants of an area” (Stokols, 1992, p. 6). The five core principles of the social ecological
perspective emphasize the role of the environment and personal attributes on health behaviors, the relationships between and among layers, the interaction between people and their
environments, and the interdependence and interconnectedness “between multiple setting
and life domains” (Stokols, 1996, p. 286). The final core principle stresses the “inherently
interdisciplinary” approach (p. 286), providing the opportunity for integration of public
health and epidemiological prevention strategies, individual-level strategies of the medical
model, and community-wide interventions (Stokols, 1996).
Multi-component approaches
In order to maximize their potential from a public health perspective, curriculum organizers
would be well-advised to consider the implications of these core principles for HEPAP
development and implementation. Current calls for whole-of-school or comprehensive
school physical activity programs in preK–12 settings highlight the critical role of educational settings as an intersection point for multiple behavioral influences (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2013; Institute of Medicine, 2013; Society of Health and
Physical Educators, 2013). There is an emerging body of evidence supporting the use of
multi-component approaches for the promotion of physical activity in PreK–12 schools
(Erwin, Beighle, Carson, & Castelli, 2013; McMullen, Ní Chróinín, Tammelin, Pogorzelska,
& van der Mars, 2015), and these findings have relevance for HEPAPs.
QUEST
407
As an environment for PA promotion, HEPAPs often afford PA promotion specialists a
number of advantages, including ready access to students, spaces and equipment, qualified
staff, supportive policies, transportation to and from, and multiple settings for intervention before, during, and after regular school hours (Pate et al., 2006). It is critical that
instructional personnel look beyond the intrapersonal and interpersonal determinants of
behavior that are readily evident within PA courses to reconceptualize HEPAPs across all
levels of influence. Societal influences, such as political decisions, policy development, and
cultural shifts or movements, influence and may be affected by HEPAPs (Wang, Castelli,
Liu, Bian, & Tan, 2010). For example, by enacting and/or enforcing an existent policy (e.g.,
sidewalk maintenance, bicycle lanes, and/or helmet laws), engaging local community
contacts as guest instructors or lecturers, lobbying for and developing new policies on
campus, through faculty governance, and/or off campus legislative efforts, HEPAP professionals can advocate for health-based initiatives and policies specifically related to PA.
Furthermore, HEPAP leaders have an opportunity to expand these advocacy efforts by
engaging community members and stakeholders in educational opportunities and collaborating to develop strategies to promote PA on the community level.
Allowing non-students (i.e., community members, faculty, staff, etc.) to participate in
HEPAP courses may provide an opportunity for the HEPAP to share information, develop
skills, and increase awareness of the negative health outcomes associated with physical
inactivity. Forming alliances with public health agencies, public health professionals, and
other medical professionals (i.e., the American College of Sports Medicine’s Exercise is
Medicine program) may also provide additional opportunities for HEPAPs to influence
cultural and societal norms. Expanding offerings and exposure to student recreation
departments/centers, outdoor recreation and wilderness centers, student health and wellness centers, and community venues may provide access to additional PA opportunities
for students to develop skills and supportive relationships. The development of new or
enhancement of existing relationships with other wellness-oriented programs on and off
campus could result in the mutually beneficial sharing of resources.
New trick 3: Moving past introducing, informing, and entertaining
Kretchmar (2006) argued that the effectiveness of school-based PE is limited by the
tendency for practitioners to take the path of least resistance by focusing on introducing,
informing, and entertaining. Rather than inviting students to experience the richness of its
disciplinary content, PE rarely provides the types of challenging experiences that facilitate
the level of learning and competence development needed for the individual to make more
permanent lifestyle changes. This criticism is easily extended to college and university PE
programs that are also characterized by a custodial orientation at times. Custodial
orientations reflect a focus on maintenance of the status quo through dependence on
traditional approaches to teaching PE (McPhail & Hartley, 2016). By contrast, HEPAPs
are advised to demonstrate a more innovative orientation that “reflects an individual or
context that is open to change and encourages new approaches to teaching physical
education” (p. 170). MacPhail and Hartley (2016) proposed that innovation in teaching
settings is facilitated through the use of new teaching methods, action research, reflective
practice, and change agency. A number of the recommendations for program innovation
408
D. T. STAPLETON ET AL.
in the following subsections are adopted from the literature on school-based PE, and it is
important to note that their applicability to HEPAPs is somewhat dependent on context.
Course content
Team sports continue to dominate the PE curriculum; however, the most popular activities among adults are mostly individual and non-competitive in nature (Ham, Kruger, &
Tudor-Locke, 2009). Rather than an exclusive focus on traditional sports, HEPAPs must
continue to adapt to current trends by applying the concept of “cool PE.” The term “cool
PE” refers to those activities that “move” and provide ownership to students, giving those
who are not well-served by current PE approaches’ reasons to participate (McCaughtry,
2009). As opposed to the “uncool” team-sports orientation that favors the skilled and fit
and sometimes lacks focus on meaningful engagement, “cool PE” activities deliver personally relevant content to students and mirror current trends, allowing students to
explore a wider variety of options. Considering that HEPAPs are often the most visible
component of PE departments on college campuses, it is important that instructors don’t
perpetuate the “typical PE” that individuals may not fondly recall from their PreK–
12 years and instead identify trends to engage students in activities that have personal
relevance, increase positive perspectives, and promote health-enhancing levels of PA.
Student voices obtained through formal and informal needs assessment processes like
student interest questionnaires, focus groups, and course completer surveys can prove
helpful when making these types of curricular decisions. Examples of “cool PE” activities
might include yoga, orienteering, martial arts, Pilates, strength and conditioning, stand-up
paddle boarding, paddleboard yoga, archery tag, and triathlons, and may also focus on
activities that are geographically and culturally relevant.
With respect to the issue of geographical and cultural relevance, administrators and
instructors must demonstrate some measure of intentionality in aligning their course
offerings with the other recreational opportunities available on campus and in the
surrounding community/region. A high degree of alignment can result in enhanced
opportunities for the shared use of facilities and equipment, greater continuum of
services and programs across a developmental perspective, and increased likelihood of
transference of learned behaviors from university-based to community-based programs. Community asset mapping is an alternative information-gathering approach
that HEPAP developers can use to identify the complementary resources available on
campus and in the surrounding area that present opportunities for university–community partnership: local residents with related skills (including family members),
experiences, and interests; local voluntary associations, clubs, and networks which
could contribute to the project; local public and private institutions with a related
mission; physical assets like parks and recreation facilities; and economic resources,
including potential business partners (Kretzmann, McKnight, Dobrowolski, &
Puntenney, 2005). Asset mapping is an inherently flexible process that uses a participatory framework and involves a combination of information collection approaches
including windshield/walking tours of communities, key stakeholder interviews, focus
group discussions, resource inventories, and so forth (Baker et al., 2007; Dorfman,
1998; Goldman & Schmalz, 2005). Engaging in asset mapping may serve a twofold
objective: aligning HEPAP offerings with communities and reducing barriers to PA by
QUEST
409
highlighting community resources/access, providing opportunities for social support,
and increasing individual skill level and confidence.
Models of delivery
The previous recommendations regarding the selection of course content should not be
misinterpreted as a call to remove competitive team and individual sports from college
and university PE programs entirely. Those competitive forms of movement continue to
resonate with many college-aged learners, as supported by the popularity of intercollegiate, intramural, and extramural club sports on many college and university campuses.
Course instructors in both traditional and non-traditional content areas should be challenged, however, to consider the use of research-supported pedagogical models to better
engage learners across levels of readiness and proficiency (beginning, intermediate, and
advanced). As in the past, HEPAPs must continue to evolve and explore new ways of
delivering content focused on learning and skill competence.
Once such consideration would be moving away from the traditional teacher-focused
models of instruction in favor of more learner-focused orientations that have been proven
effective in the PE setting. These models might include, but are not limited to, the Sport
Education Model and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU). The Sport Education
Model was developed with the intent of providing developmentally appropriate sport
experiences so that students can develop as competent, literate, and enthusiastic sportspersons (Siedentop, Hastie, & van der Mars, 2011). In one version of this model, students
rotate through diverse roles during the sport season, including coach, captain, scorekeeper, statistician, publicist, fitness trainer, equipment manager, sport-council member,
and broadcaster. The Sport Education Model has been found to be one of the most
frequently used curriculum and instruction models in undergraduate PETE programs in
the United States (Ayers & Housner, 2008) and has been recommended as a potential
curricular model in HEPAP to promote inclusive and developmentally appropriate PA
(Braga, Tracy, & Taliaferro, 2015).
The concept of TGFU is an approach in which games are classified by similar conditions, goals, and tactics. This approach focuses on developing an understanding of the
concepts and emphasizes the tactics central to similar games, enabling learners to transfer
this understanding among games within the same conceptual category while developing a
repertoire of strategies which may be useful in games in other categories (Kirk &
MacPhail, 2002). While these models of instruction have been researched in the PreK–
12 PE setting, there have been relatively few studies on their effectiveness in HEPAP
settings. Limited research on the Sport Education Model in the university setting found
that students were favorable to the Sport Education Model and made progress regarding
course objectives (Mohr, Sibley, & Townsend, 2012). Similarly, Layne and Yli-Piipari
(2015) found that the use of the Sport Education Model in a university PA course was
more effective in teaching offensive game performance and content knowledge than a
traditional model of teaching, suggesting the Sport Education Model as an effective
pedagogical approach in HEPAPs.
Inclusive approaches
Furthermore, HEPAPs must expand and address the audience of diverse learners whose
individualized needs and interests have not been met to date by existing models.
410
D. T. STAPLETON ET AL.
Considering the increase in the numbers of students with disabilities pursuing higher
education (Barfield, Bennett, Folio, & Killman, 2007), progress is needed to establish
appropriate support, services, and accommodations for students with disabilities within
HEPAP courses (Braga et al., 2015; Higbee, Katz, & Schultz, 2010; U.S. Government
Accountability Office, 2010). Students with disabilities have traditionally faced barriers,
including inaccessible facilities and equipment, inadequately trained personnel/instructors, and inadequate or non-compliant programs and curricula that limit their participation (Braga et al., 2015; Russell, 2011; Russell & Chepyator-Thomson, 2004; U.S.
Department of Education, 2011).
Following similar patterns to individuals without disabilities, 56% of individuals
with disabilities are sedentary and do not participate in the recommended levels of PA
per week (Lakowski & Long, 2011; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2010). HEPAPs may be best positioned to provide appropriate opportunities for
students of all ability levels, including those with disabilities, to participate in and
meet recommended levels of PA. Suggestions to increase opportunities within HEPAPs
include consideration of accessibility, principles of universal design, provision of
appropriate equipment (modified or specialized if necessary), support personnel, inclusive teaching styles, program options, and modifications to assessments and grading
policies as needed. Expanding HEPAP offerings to include disability sport or adapted
sport options, such as wheelchair basketball, goalball, or beep baseball, could meet the
differentiated needs of students with disabilities and could also expand the knowledge
and skill base of participants without disabilities who enroll in these courses. Also,
allied or unified sport opportunities, in which students with and without disabilities
participate on teams together, could be explored, further promoting inclusive PA
opportunities.
New trick 4: Learner-centered approaches
As with any educational setting, student learning needs to remain the primary focus of
HEPAP personnel. This recommendation includes the use of alternative course structures,
instructional technologies, and evidence-based practice related to HEPAP administration
and instruction.
Concepts-based courses
In concepts based fitness and wellness (CBFW) courses that are offered by higher education institutions (Hodges-Kulinna, Warfield, Jonaitis, Dean, & Corbin, 2009), conceptual
information related to health, wellness, fitness, behavior change strategies, and self-management skills are developed in the lecture component, and engagement in a variety of
activities is emphasized in the PA laboratory. These types of HEPAP offerings have
showed positive impacts on college students’ health-related behaviors and habits, knowledge, and attitude toward fitness and PA (Adams & Brynteson, 1995; Beck et al., 2007;
Brynteson & Adams, 1993; Cardinal & Spaziani, 2007; Pearman et al., 1997; Slava, Laurie,
& Corbin, 1984; Sparling, 2003) compared to traditional sport-based offerings. The longterm impact of CBFW courses has yet to be explored; however, the combination of
increased CBFW offerings and the ability of CBFW courses to have a significant impact
on knowledge and attitude toward and increased PA levels suggests that CBFW courses
QUEST
411
may play a meaningful role in the transition of HEPAPs to promote PA and serve college
students’ needs (Corbin & Cardinal, 2008).
Given the push for health-optimizing, PA centered approaches in HEPAPs, the
current practice of devoting a large percentage of classroom time to lecture in some
concepts-based courses, thereby reducing the time available for activity participation,
is questionable. Moving forward, CBFW course instructors might consider how to
maximize opportunities for PA through instructional technologies and inventive
teaching approaches. The flipped classroom approach, in which “events that have
traditionally taken place inside the classroom now take place outside the classroom
and vice versa” (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000, p. 32), might be ideal in CBFW courses.
The flipped approach can be used to enhance or replace face-to-face lectures and might
employ online asynchronous video lectures, interactive lectures, videos, online assignments, readings, discussions, and/or exams completed by students outside of class
time, freeing up class time for structured group activity. This is not to say the flipped
approach would benefit only CBFW courses; other pedagogical models, such as the
Sport Education Model or TGFU, may benefit from flipping for teaching rules, concepts, and historical background.
Instructional technology application
Additionally, rapidly developing instructional technology options, including a variety of
PA measurement technologies, continue to become a more affordable and accessible
means for tracking student activity levels (e.g., digital pedometers, accelerometers, heart
rate monitors). Greater application of these types of technology within HEPAP offerings
would better enable instructors to assess student activity and track their achievements
(Stapleton & Bulger, 2015). These technologies allow instructors to track asynchronous
activity participation in online or blended course options. Exploring the use of web-based
technologies, fitness applications, and other technologies enables instructors to expand
beyond in-person meetings and would allow students to engage in learner-centered, selfpaced PA within their environments. A related recommendation includes the use of
electronic learning management systems (LMS) to promote improved teaching effectiveness within HEPAPs through increased instructor training capability, student assessment,
and program evaluation (Melton & Burdette, 2011).
Use of evidence-based practice
Researchers have called for further program evaluation of college/university PE to provide
better evidence supporting its impact on health-related behaviors (Evaul & Hilsendanger,
1993; Housner, 1993; Leslie et al., 2001; Lumpkin & Avery, 1986; Sparling, 2003; Stapleton
& Bulger, 2015; Sweeney, 2011). Evidence-based practice (EBP) involves the integration of
the best available evidence from research, the expertise of the clinician (or in this case
instructor), and the values of the patient or learner (Sackett, Rosenburg, Gray, Haynes, &
Richardson, 1996). In 2000, it was estimated that only 15–40% of clinical decisions by
physicians were based on research evidence, leading to a call for reform (Amonette,
English, & Ottenbacher, 2012). The emphasis on adoption of an evidence-based approach
has since spread to a number of allied health professions, including athletic training,
nursing, physical therapy, exercise physiology, and now PE. At the present time, it does
412
D. T. STAPLETON ET AL.
Table 2. Summary of recommendations for HEPAP.
Theme
Recommendations
Rebranding from a public health
perspective
Adopt important public health goals as program focus: (1) facilitating
development of the knowledge, behavioral capabilities and skills, and dispositions
needed to remain physically active across the lifespan, and (2) providing
opportunities to engage in developmentally and instructionally appropriate forms
of PA.
Rebrand programs using a structured process: (1) reflect on unique program
selling points as basis for rebranding, (2) develop plans for communicating with
key internal and external stakeholders, and (3) work to make new brand evident
in all program processes and client interactions.
Using the socioecological model
Use of an ecological framework for program development, implementation,
management, and evaluation.
Employ multi-component approaches to physical activity promotion on colleges
and university campuses.
Coordinate programming with other groups or organizations on campus and in
the surrounding community.
Advocate for policy initiatives on campus and off campus that support healthbased initiatives.
Moving past introducing, informing, Continue to diversify course offerings to include “cool” and alternative forms of
and entertaining
physical activity.
Engage college-aged learners in the needs assessment and curriculum
development process.
Use evidence-based instructional models to actively engage learners in different
content areas.
Apply principals of universal design to meet the unique needs of all learners in all
courses.
Expand course offerings to include a variety of disability sport or adapted sport
options.
Conduct periodic asset mapping efforts to determine opportunities for
community partnership.
Align course offerings with the recreational activities available in the surrounding
community and region.
Establish shared-use agreements with other providers to increase access to
equipment and facilities.
Promote transference of learned behaviors from campus to community-based
settings and programs.
Learner-centered approaches
Demonstrate the effectiveness of concepts-based courses and continue to refine
modes of delivery.
Use emerging technologies to implement flipped learning experiences and
maximize in-class activity.
Explore application of activity monitors and related technologies during in-class
and out-of-class activities.
Provide better in-service training, instructional supervision, and continuing
professional development for program personnel, graduate assistants, and
adjunct faculty.
Increase use of evidence-based approaches to increase program effectiveness and
document impact on learner activity levels, physical fitness, health, and quality of
life.
not appear that evidence-based approaches are being employed within HEPAPs on a
larger scale.
The balance, integration, and continual re-evaluation of existing research, the experience of the administrators and faculty, and the values of the students provide a framework
for the implementation of evidence-based PE (EBPE). Knowledge of the existing literature
investigating HEPAPs and effective PE, what motivates college students and how they
learn, the impact of HEPAP offerings on the individuals and environmental variables (and
vice versa), and the experience of the instructor and/or administrator must be considered
in EBPE. Furthermore, HEPAP administrators and instructors are advised to invest
QUEST
413
sufficient resources in the assessment of student learning and program evaluation as a
basis for data-informed decision making. The gap between the recommendations for best
practice in assessment/evaluation and actual implementation remains a long-standing
concern that may contribute to the lack of teaching effectiveness observed in HEPAPs
(Housner, 1993; Stapleton & Bulger, 2015). This perceived gap also reinforces the need for
adequate in-service training, instructional supervision, and continuing professional development for HEPAP personnel.
The adoption of EBPE requires HEPAP personnel to reflect on their experience(s) and
education, the established body of knowledge, and the values of the students in order to
inform future practices and development of HEPAPs. Decision-making, policy formulation, the training of instructors, and course offerings should be examined from an
evidence-based perspective to maximize the potential influence on PA behavior. The
HEPAP personnel engaging in EBPE are likely to enhance their programs while simultaneously reducing the barriers to activity among college students, thereby increasing their
ability to adapt to the needs of their learners, institutions, and society.
Summary
Historically, HEPAPs have demonstrated the capacity to transform themselves when
confronted with changing institutional expectations. On many college/university campuses, HEPAPs continue to engage large numbers of young adults, an important target
group for PA promotion efforts from a public health perspective. Faced with this emerging
challenge, HEPAP leaders must continue to evolve their programs and prove their value to
the academic communities they serve. Those programs that are responsive and capable of
learning a few “new tricks” will generate new opportunities and quite possibly contribute
to the more ambitious goal of healthier campuses and communities. Those “old dogs” who
are too tired to change or adopt new approaches may just “roll over and play dead.” The
HEPAP represents one of the final opportunities to directly influence the perceptions of
young adults, who will become our next generation of parents, teachers, school administrators and board members, and policy-makers, regarding the benefits associated with a
quality PE experience. The recommendations provided in this article are summarized in
Table 2 and are expected to provide HEPAP personnel with some ideas to facilitate
discussions about the past, present, and future priorities for this very visible and important
component of our college and university programs.
References
Adams, T. M., & Brynteson, P. (1995). The effects of two types of required physical education. The
Physical Educator, 52, 203–211.
American College Health Association [ACHA]. (2002). Healthy campus 2010: manual. Baltimore,
MD: Author.
American College Health Association [ACHA]. (2011). American College Health Association—
National College Health Assessment II: Reference group executive summary spring 2011.
Hanover, MD: Author.
Amonette, W. E., English, K. L., & Ottenbacher, K. J. (2012). Nullius in verba: A call for the
incorporation of evidence-based practice into the discipline of exercise science. Sports Medicine,
40, 449–457. doi:10.2165/11531970-000000000-00000
414
D. T. STAPLETON ET AL.
Ayers, S. F., & Housner, L. D. (2008). A descriptive analysis of undergraduate PETE programs.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(1), 51–67. doi:10.1123/jtpe.27.1.51
Baker, I. R., Dennison, B. A., Boyer, P. S., Sellers, K. F., Russo, T. J., & Sherwood, N. A. (2007). An
asset-based community initiative to reduce television viewing in New York state. Preventive
Medicine, 44, 437–441. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.11.013
Barfield, J. P., Bennett, J., Folio, M. R., & Killman, C. (2007). Disability rights in higher education:
Ensuring kinesiology program and accreditation standards do not discriminate. Quest, 59, 384–
397. doi:10.1080/00336297.2007.10483560
Beck, J., Collins, M., Goldfine, B., Barros, M., Nahas, M., & Lanier, A. (2007). Effect of a required
health-related fitness course on physical activity. International Journal of Fitness, 3(1), 69–80.
Boyce, B. A., Lehr, C., & Baumgartner, T. (1986). Outcomes of selected physical education activity
courses as perceived by university students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 280–
292. doi:10.1123/jtpe.5.4.280
Braga, L., Tracy, J., & Taliaferro, A. R. (2015). Physical activity programs in higher education:
Modifying net/wall games to include individuals with disabilities. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 86(1), 16–22. doi:10.1080/07303084.2014.978417
Brofenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Brynteson, P., & Adams, T. M. (1993). The effects of conceptually based physical education
programs on attitudes and exercise habits of college alumni after 2 to 11 years of follow up.
Research Quarterly For Exercise & Sport, 64, 208–212. doi:10.1080/02701367.1993.10608798
Cardinal, B. J., & Spaziani, M. D. (2007). Effects of classroom and virtual “Lifetime Fitness for
Health” instruction on college students’ exercise behavior. The Physical Educator, 64, 205–
212.
Caspersen, C. J., Pereira, M. A., & Curran, K. M. (2000). Changes in physical activity patterns in the
United States, by sex and cross-sectional age. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32, 1601–
1609. doi:10.1097/00005768-200009000-00013
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2013). Comprehensive school physical activity
programs: A guide for schools. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Considine, W. J. (1985). Basic instruction programs: A continuing journey. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 56(7), 31–31. doi:10.1080/07303084.1985.10604268
Corbin, C. B., & Cardinal, B. J. (2008). Conceptual physical education: The anatomy of an
innovation. Quest, 60, 467–487. doi:10.1080/00336297.2008.10483593
Crawford, S. Z., Greenwell, T. C., & Andrew, D. P. (2007). Exploring the relationship between
perceptions of quality in basic instruction programs and repeat participation. Physical Educator,
64(2), 65–73.
Crockett, Z. (2014, October 1). The mythology of dog years [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://
priceonomics.com/the-mythology-of-dog-years/
DeKnop, P. (1986). Relationship of specified instructional teacher behaviors to student gain on
tennis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 71–78. doi:10.1123/jtpe.5.2.71
Dinger, M. K. (1999). Physical activity and dietary intake among college students. American Journal
of Health Studies, 15(3), 139–148.
Dorfman, D. (1998). Mapping community assets workbook. In Strengthening community education:
The basis for sustainable renewal. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=eric&AN=ED426499&site=ehost-live
Erwin, H., Beighle, A., Carson, R. L., & Castelli, D. M. (2013). Comprehensive school-based physical
activity promotion: A review. Quest, 65, 412–428. doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.791872
Evaul, T., & Hilsendanger, D. (1993). Basic instruction programs: Issues and answers. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 64(6), 37–40. doi:10.1080/07303084.1993.10610000
Fornia, D. L. (1959). Coedcuational physical education in institutions of higher learning. The
Research Quarterly of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, & Recreation,
30, 423–429.
Goldman, K. D., & Schmalz, K. J. (2005). Tools of the trade. “Accentuate the positive!” Using an assetmapping tool as part of a community-health needs assessment. Health Promotion Practice, 6(2),
125–128. doi:10.1177/1524839904273344
QUEST
415
Gray, B. J. (2003). Branding universities in Asian markets. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
12(2), 108–120. doi:10.1108/10610420310469797
Greene, M. M. (1955). Physical education as a college graduation requirement. Journal of Health,
Physical Education, & Recreation, 26(9), 25–26.
Gupta, M., & Singh, P. B. (2010). Marketing and branding in higher education: Issues and
challenges. Review of Business Research, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.freepatentsonline.
com/article/Review-Business-Research/237533606.html
Ham, S. A., Kruger, J., & Tudor-Locke, C. (2009). Participation by US adults in sports, exercise, and
recreational physical activities. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 6(1), 6–14. doi:10.1123/
jpah.6.1.6
Hardin, R., Andrew, D. P., Koo, G., & Bemiller, J. (2009). Motivational factors for participating in
basic instruction programs. The Physical Educator, 66(2), 71–85.
Hemelt, S. W., & Marcotte, D. E. (2016). The changing landscape of tuition and enrollment in
American public higher education. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social
Sciences, 2(1), 42–68. doi:10.1353/rus.2016.0002
Hensley, L. D. (2000). Current status of basic instruction programs in physical education at
American colleges and universities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 71(9),
30–36. doi:10.1080/07303084.2000.10605719
Higbee, J. L., Katz, R. E., & Schultz, J. L. (2010). Disability in higher education: Redefining
mainstreaming. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2), 7–16.
Hodges-Kulinna, P., Warfield, W. W., Jonaitis, S., Dean, M., & Corbin, C. (2009). The progression
and characteristics of conceptually based fitness/wellness courses at American universities and
colleges. Journal of American College Health, 58(2), 127–131. doi:10.1080/07448480903221327
Housner, L. D. (1993). Research in basic instruction programs. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 64(6), 53–61. doi:10.1080/07303084.1993.10610004
Hunsicker, P. A. (1954). A survey of service physical education programs in American colleges and
universities. Annual Proceedings of the College Physical Education Association, 57, 29–30.
Institute of Medicine. (2013). Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and physical
education to school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
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.
doi:10.1123/jtpe.21.2.177
Kisabeth, K. L. (1986). Basic instruction programs: A search for personal meaning. The Physical
Educator, 43, 150–154.
Kretchmar, R. S. (2006). Life on easy street: The persistent need for embodied hopes and down-toearth games. Quest, 58, 344–354. doi:10.1080/00336297.2006.10491888
Kretzmann, J. P., McKnight, J., Dobrowolski, S., & Puntenney, D. (2005). Discovering community
power: A guide to mobilizing local assets and your organization’s capacity. Asset-Based
Community Development Institute, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL.
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an
inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43. doi:10.1080/
00220480009596759
Lakowski, T., & Long, T. (2011). Proceedings: Physical Activity and Sport for People with Disabilities.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development.
Layne, T. E., & Yli-Piipari, S. (2015). Effects of the sport education model on university students’
game performance and content knowledge in basketball. Journal of Sports Research, 2(2), 24–36.
doi:10.18488/journal.90
Lemoine, P. A., Hackett, T., & Richardson, M. D. (2016). Higher education at a crossroads:
Accountability, globalism and technology. In W. Nuninger & J.-M. Châtelet (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on Quality Assurance and Value Management in Higher Education (pp. 27–57).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
416
D. T. STAPLETON ET AL.
Leslie, E., Sparling, P. B., & Owen, N. (2001). University campus settings and the promotion of
physical activity in young adults: Lessons from research in Australia and the USA. Health
Education, 101(3), 116–125. doi:10.1108/09654280110387880
Lumpkin, A., & Avery, M. (1986). Physical education activity program survey. Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 5, 185–197. doi:10.1123/jtpe.5.3.185
Lumpkin, A., & Jenkins, J. (1993). Basic instruction programs: A brief history. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 64(6), 33–36. doi:10.1080/07303084.1993.10609999
MacPhail, A., & Hartley, T. (2016). Linking teacher socialization research with a PETE program:
Insights from beginning and experienced teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35,
169–180. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2014-0179
McCaughtry, N. (2009). The child and the curriculum: Implications of Deweyan philosophy in the
pursuit of “cool” physical education for children. In L. Housner, M. Metzler, P. Schempp, & T.
Templin (Eds.), Historic traditions and future directions of research on teaching and teacher
education. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, West Virginia University.
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health
promotion programs. Health Education & Behavior, 15, 351–377. doi:10.1177/
109019818801500401
McMullen, J., Ní Chróinín, D., Tammelin, T., Pogorzelska, M., & van der Mars, H. (2015).
International approaches to whole-of-school physical activity promotion. Quest, 67, 384–399.
doi:10.1080/00336297.2015.1082920
Melton, B., & Burdette, T. (2011). Utilizing Technology to Improve the Administration of
Instructional Physical Activity Programs in Higher Education. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 82(4), 27–32. doi:10.1080/07303084.2011.10598611
Metzler, M. W., McKenzie, T. L., van der Mars, H., Barrett-Williams, S. L., & Ellis, R. (2013a).
Health OPTIMIZING PHYSICAL EDUCATION (HOPE): A new curriculum for school programs—Part 1: Establishing the need and describing the model. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 84(4), 41–47. doi:10.1080/07303084.2013.773826
Metzler, M. W., McKenzie, T. L., van der Mars, H., Barrett-Williams, S. L., & Ellis, R. (2013b).
Health optimizing physical education (HOPE): A new curriculum for school programs—Part 2:
Teacher knowledge and collaboration. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(5),
25–34. doi:10.1080/07303084.2013.779531
Miller, G. A., Dowell, L. J., & Pender, R. H. (1989). Physical activity programs in colleges and
universities: A status report. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 60(6), 20–23.
doi:10.1080/07303084.1989.10604474
Mitchell, M., & Leachman, M. (2015). Years of cuts threaten to put college out of reach for more
students. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Mohr, D., Sibley, B., & Townsend, J. (2012). Student perceptions of university physical activity
instruction courses taught utilizing sport education. Physical Educator, 69, 289–307.
Oxendine, J. B. (1961). The service program in 1960–1961. Journal of Health, Physical Education, &
Recreation, 32(6), 37–38.
Oxendine, J. B. (1969). Status of required physical education programs in colleges and universities.
Journal of Health, Physical Education, & Recreation, 40(1), 32–35.
Oxendine, J. B. (1972). Status of general instruction programs of physical education in four-year
colleges and universities: 1971–72. Journal of Health, Physical Education, & Recreation, 43(3), 26–28.
Oxendine, J. B. (1985). 100 years of basic instruction. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, &
Dance, 56(7), 32–36. doi:10.1080/07303084.1985.10604269
Oxendine, J. B., & Roberts, J. E. (1978). The general instruction program in physical education at
four-year colleges and universities: 1977. Journal of Physical Education & Recreation, 49(1), 21–
23.
Pate, R. R., Davis, M. G., Robinson, T. N., Stone, E. J., McKenzie, T. L., & Young, J. C. (2006).
Promoting physical activity in children and youth: A leadership role for schools [AHA Scientific
Statement]. Circulation, 114, 1214–1224. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.177052
QUEST
417
Pearman, S. N., Valois, R. F., Sargent, R. G., Saunders, R. P., Drane, J. W., & Macera, C. A. (1997).
The impact of a required college health and physical education course on the health status of
alumni. Journal of American College Health, 46(2), 77–85. doi:10.1080/07448489709595591
Pike, G. R., & Robbins, K. (2016). The relationships among individual characteristics, high school
characteristics, and college enrollment: Using enrollment propensity as a baseline for evaluating
strategic enrollment management efforts. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 3, 282–
304. doi:10.1002/sem3.20075
Poole, J. R. (1993). The search for effective teaching in basic instruction programs. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 64(6), 41–58. doi:10.1080/07303084.1993.10610001
Russell, J., & Chepyator-Thomson, J. R. (2004). Help wanted! Perspectives of physical education
graduate teaching assistants on their instructional environment, preparation and needs. The
Educational Research Journal, 19, 251–280.
Russell, J. A. (2008a). An examination of kinesiology GTAs’ perceptions of an instructional
development and evaluation model. The Physical Educator, 65(1), 2–20.
Russell, J. A. (2008b). Utilizing qualitative feedback to investigate student perceptions of a basic
instruction program. The Physical Educator, 65(2), 68–82.
Russell, J. A. (2011). Graduate teaching-assistant development in college and university instructional physical activity programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 82(4), 22–
32. doi:10.1080/07303084.2011.10598610
Sackett, D. L., Rosenburg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence
based-medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72.
doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
Sallis, J. F., & McKenzie, T. L. (1991). Physical education’s role in public health. Research Quarterly
for Exercise & Sport, 62, 124–137. doi:10.1080/02701367.1991.10608701
Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Beets, M. W., Beighle, A., Erwin, H., & Lee, S. (2012). Physical
education’s role in public health: Steps forward and backward over 20 years and HOPE for the
future. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 83(2), 125–135.
Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (2002). Ecological models of health behavior. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & F.
Marcus-Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education (3rd ed., pp. 462–470). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Savage, M. P. (1998). University students’ motivation for participation in a basic instruction
program. College Student Journal, 32(1), 58–66.
Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A., & van der Mars, H. (2011). Complete guide to sport education (2nd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Skeat, W.W. (1882). The Book of Husbandry by Master Fitzherbert. London, UK: Trubner & Co.
Slava, S., Laurie, D. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1984). Long-term effects of a conceptual physical education
program. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 55, 161–168. doi:10.1080/
02701367.1984.10608393
Society for Health and Physical Educators. (2013). Comprehensive school physical activity programs:
Helping students achieve 60 minutes of physical activity each day [Position statement]. Reston, VA:
Author.
Sparling, P. B. (2003). College physical education: An unrecognized agent of change in combating
inactivity-related diseases. Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 46, 579–587. doi:10.1353/
pbm.2003.0091
Sparling, P. B., & Snow, T. K. (2002). Physical activity patterns in recent college alumni. Research
Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 73, 200–205. doi:10.1080/02701367.2002.10609009
Stapleton, D., & Bulger, S. M. (2015). Adherence to appropriate instructional practice guidelines in
U.S. colleges’ and universities’ physical activity programs. Journal of Physical Education and Sport
Management, 6(7), 47–59.
Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: Toward a social ecology of
health promotion. American Psychologist, 47(1), 6–22. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.1.6
Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health
promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10, 282–298. doi:10.4278/0890-117110.4.282
418
D. T. STAPLETON ET AL.
Sweeney, M. M. (2011). Initiating and strengthening college and university physical activity
programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 82(4), 17–21. doi:10.1080/
07303084.2011.10598609
Teichler, U. (2003). The future of higher education and the future of higher education research,
Tertiary Education and Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tertiary Education and
Management, 9, 171–185. doi:10.1080/13583883.2003.9967102
Trimble, R. T., & Hensley, L. D. (1984). The general instruction program in physical education at
four-year colleges and universities: 1982. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 55
(5), 82–89. doi:10.1080/07303084.1984.10629778
Trimble, R. T., & Hensley, L. D. (1990). Basic instruction programs at four-year colleges and
universities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 61(6), 64–73. doi:10.1080/
07303084.1990.10604555
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of
Special Education Programs. (2011). Creating equal opportunities for children and youth with
disabilities to participate in physical education and extracurricular athletics. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education..
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the
Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Healthy People 2020. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hpdata2010/hp2010_final_review.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010). Students with disabilities: More information and
guidance could improve opportunities in physical education and athletics. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/305770.pdf
Veloutsou, C., Lewis, J. W., & Paton, R. A. (2004). University selection: Information requirements
and importance. The International Journal of Educational Management, 18, 160–171.
doi:10.1108/09513540410527158
Wang, J., Castelli, D. M., Liu, W., Bian, W., & Tan, J. (2010). Re-conceptualizing physical education
programs from an ecological perspective. Asian Journal of Exercise & Sports Science, 7(1), 43–53.
Webster, C. A., Webster, L., Russ, L., Molina, S., Lee, H., & Cribbs, J. (2015). A systematic review of
public health-aligned recommendations for preparing physical education teacher candidates.
Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 86(1), 30–39. doi:10.1080/02701367.2014.980939