| In
April's pelinks4u editorial
I raised questions and concerns about the impact of technology on
the teaching of physical education. This month, in response to my
editorial, middle school physical educator Phil Lawler relates the
positive impact that technology has had on his program. Phil's program,
as many readers will know, was featured on the "Super
Size Me" DVD as exemplary in its impact in getting kids
moving and countering the growing obesity trend.
The Naperville, Illinois PE Program has
been featured in many news articles about "New" PE, and
most recently Phil was invited to testify (see News column) to policy
makers in Washington DC about school wellness policies and childhood
obesity. pelinks4u readers are encouraged to reflect on
the points made in both editorials and share your thoughts in the
NASPE
Forum.
Steve Jefferies, Publisher
pelinks4u
 I
have the utmost respect for pelinks4u and its publisher
Steve Jefferies, however my experiences and perceptions of technology
in physical education has drawn me to a completely different conclusion
than Jefferies reached in his recent April editorial, "Technology
in Physical Education: Help or Handicap."
Before directly addressing Jefferies
points, I think it's important to take a quick look at the traditional
delivery of PE (without technology).
If physical education was a business,
we would've gone bankrupt about 15 years ago. One very important
rule of business is, "the customer is always right." We
need to ask a very important question, "Why is physical education
not valued in the American school system?"
As professional leaders in physical education,
we need to take a serious look at the delivery of our product. Albert
Einstein defined insanity as, "doing the same things you have
always done and expecting different results."
At one time, I was one of the staunchest
supporters of the "old PE." Then one day I was introduced
to technology and the impact it can have on physical education.
My first experience with technology in physical education was using
a heart rate monitor over 15 years ago. At that time, our school
district had one heart rate monitor.
The first day I ever used the heart rate
monitor, a little 6th grade girl wore it during a mile run. She
was not over weight, and she did not suffer from asthma, but we
discovered she was not very fit. That day she ran over a 13-minute
mile. In the old days, (without technology) I used a stop watch,
time, distance, national norms, and observation to evaluate my students.
According to these "old" methods, this girl had failed.
Yet, when I downloaded data from the heart monitor, I discovered
the young girl's heart rate average for over 13 minutes was 187.
She peaked at the finish line at 207. Without technology, I would've
failed this young girl. With technology, I learned she had worked
too hard. I did not have an athlete in class that worked that hard.
What scares me is we still have thousands
of PE teachers today who are evaluating the effort of millions of
children based on inaccurate observations.
Jefferies points out in his editorial
that "we are in a technologically dominated society."
If that is the case, why should we fight it? We better embrace it,
because this is the technological world our students are going to
be living in. We can't afford to be like the horseback riders who
fought to keep the first cars off the road.
Jefferies would like to turn all of our
students into intrinsically-motivated movers - a worthy goal but
a bit of a pipedream. Punished
by Rewards by Alfie Kohn is an interesting book on this
subject. Kohn points out that our educational system starts training
students to be motivated by extrinsic motivation (i.e. putting stars
on papers, etc.) in kindergarten. Our society is driven by extrinsic
motivation.
Another interesting book on this subject
is The
Gamer Generation by John Beck. I am not sure as adults
that we totally understand "gamer" culture. Teachers will
say students have a very short attention span, but those same students
will play video games for hours. Why not take this video game interest
and get students to move?
I have never seen so many non-athletic,
couch potato students get motivated to exercise as I have since
we introduced them to ""exer-gaming." We have found
these same students getting more active in their overall daily routine
once they discover the feeling of being more fit. Linda Carson's
work with the game Dance, Dance, Revolution (DDR) in West Virginia
is an excellent example of an "exer-gaming" success story.
There are countless success stories across
the nation in which exer-gaming is successfully motivating students
to exercise. For example, the work of Judy Shasek's "generation-fit"
can not be ignored. Judy has been making a major impact with students
learning using the games DDR and Guitar Hero. You can read more
about Judy’s work at her website www.generation-fit.com.
I am also not sure how Jefferie's attack
on fitness centers in schools falls under technology unless one
includes the many new options of cardio equipment. His editorial
made reference to sterile and artificial moves on machines. Do you
really believe schools that are using fitness centers to promote
fitness are only using fitness centers for their entire physical
education curriculum?
Students are not going to fitness centers
every day. The fitness center is being used as one tool to introduce
students to different fitness options. It was Dr Kenneth Cooper,
"the father of aerobics," who first introduced me to the
importance of incorporating resistive strength training as a part
of a well-rounded fitness plan. If a student is stronger, they will
become more efficient and affective movers. We know muscles burn
more calories than fat, even at rest. Students that are stronger
will have fewer injuries. Young females build bone density lifting
weights, and lifting weights is a life-long skill.
The biggest fear of the elderly is losing
their independence. The reason they lose their independence is that
as they age, the loss of muscle tissue causes their bodies to lose
functionality. Core strength also improves their balance, helping
eliminate injuries from falling. Today's generation will find retirement
homes built around fitness facilities in their future.
Furthermore, I found Jefferies' attack
on PEP grant funding especially puzzling and troubling. According
to Jefferies, "pressure was absent when the PE budget was a
few hundred dollars." I would much rather deal with the pressure
of spending large sums of money to improve the health of children.
To be critical of funds "jump starting" physical education
programs around the nation just doesn't make sense. If our profession
knew how to package their product, there would be larger budgets
for PE in all schools. In our society, people will pay for what
they value.
Could we teach physical education without
technology? Sure, but we could also use typewriters instead of computers.
Technology is not the heart and soul of our PE4life
physical education program in Naperville, IL. It is just a tool,
albeit a very effective tool. Successful physical education programs
still need caring, inspiring teachers that make all students feel
important.
My rebuttal to this
editorial is based on a program that has been developed over
15 years in Naperville, IL. We have data that proves our "new
PE" delivery is working. In the past, our community did not
value our physical education program. In fact, until we made some
technological, health-and-wellness-based changes in our program,
our curriculum was the Rodney
Dangerfield of our district: ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT!
THE EDITORIAL
CONTINUES TOP OF NEXT COLUMN >>>
|
