PLACEK, J. (2003). INTERDISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM IN PHYSICAL 
EDUCATION: POSSIBILITIES AND PROBLEMS. IN S. SILVERMAN AND C. 
ENNIS (EDS.), STUDENT LEARNING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION: APPLYING 
RESEARCH TO ENHANCE INSTRUCTION. CHAMPAIGN, IL: HUMAN 
KINETICS. (PP. 255-274) 
Renee Brown 
Adam Keath
Purpose 
• What? 
– Book chapter 
• Why? 
– The chapter explored how integrated and interdisciplinary curriculums 
are being used in physical education. 
– What constitutes integrated vs. interdisciplinary 
• How? 
– Integration 
• Concept driven curriculum (e.g., focus on big ideas without regard for subject 
area boundaries) 
– Interdisciplinary 
• Curriculum that correlates multiple subject’s across an activity or lesson 
framework but stays within the bounds of the subject matter (e.g., Theme 
lesson that incorporates physical activity and dinosaurs contains content from 
multiple subject areas).
Background 
• Eight Year Study (1933-1941) 
– Positive results for integration 
• Post World War II (1950s & 1960s) 
– Back to Basics 
• Vietnam War (1960s) 
– Called for Curriculum “Relevance” 
– Basic curriculums stayed the same
Background 
• Japanese Challenge (1980s-90s) 
– Isolation of disciplines 
• High Stakes Testing (90s-present) 
– Preparation programs emphasize integration and 
interdisciplinary education. 
– Political reality of subject matter is that test drive 
curriculum.
Significance 
• NASPE- national content standards 
– Emphasis of the NASPE standards on a variety of 
objectives besides sports and games, was 
influential in promoting interdisciplinary 
PE(PLACEK, 2003). 
• Research 
– Literature and resources for interdisciplinary 
teaching are now readily available and research in 
the area is still increasing.
Methods 
• Literature review 
– Focused primarily on useful resources for teachers 
as practical text for application. 
• Internal vs. external 
– Internal - combining multiple topics within the 
same subject matter 
– External- Combining physical education content 
with other subject area content knowledge.
Analysis Methods 
Literature review by NASPE standard 
• Standard 2 Movement concepts and principles 
– Physiology and fitness(most common) 
– Wide base of research, however not geared towards how 
to teach the sub disciplines. 
• Standard 5 Responsible personal and social behavior 
– Wide research base with useful practitioner suggestions in 
JOPERD 
– Hellison’s TPSR (best known model) 
– Character education has a muddy definition
Analysis Methods 
• Standard 7 Enjoyment, challenge, self 
expression and social interaction 
– Best known model Adventure education 
– Five concepts of adventure education 
• Risk 
• Trust 
• Problem solving 
• cooperation 
• challenge 
– Individual and group activities
Findings/Main arguments 
• Three possible Outcomes 
– Integrated curriculum should “condense” the subject 
matter 
– Traditional curriculum does not match real life 
– Make school relevant to students lives 
• Potential Problems 
– TE Disagreements can be seen as personality conflicts 
– TE fear subject wash-out (not covered) 
– SI Students expectations of PE as a non-academic 
subject may be the most difficult barrier to overcome
Conclusions/implications for practice 
and/or future research 
• Interdisciplinary education has been proven to 
be effective , however potential problems 
such as high stake testing and teacher 
specialization have limited its use in schools 
• You don’t need to re-invent the wheel 
• Interdisciplinary curricula, make natural 
connections between subject—don’t force a 
relationship
Questions? 
• When the words interdisciplinary curriculum 
in PE are used, what type of curriculum is 
envisioned? Please come up with an example 
• You can work in pairs =) 
• Ex. Teaching a Korean folk dance in a fifth-grade 
social studies unit on other cultures

Pet 735 presentation interdisciplinary curriculum

  • 1.
    PLACEK, J. (2003).INTERDISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION: POSSIBILITIES AND PROBLEMS. IN S. SILVERMAN AND C. ENNIS (EDS.), STUDENT LEARNING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION: APPLYING RESEARCH TO ENHANCE INSTRUCTION. CHAMPAIGN, IL: HUMAN KINETICS. (PP. 255-274) Renee Brown Adam Keath
  • 2.
    Purpose • What? – Book chapter • Why? – The chapter explored how integrated and interdisciplinary curriculums are being used in physical education. – What constitutes integrated vs. interdisciplinary • How? – Integration • Concept driven curriculum (e.g., focus on big ideas without regard for subject area boundaries) – Interdisciplinary • Curriculum that correlates multiple subject’s across an activity or lesson framework but stays within the bounds of the subject matter (e.g., Theme lesson that incorporates physical activity and dinosaurs contains content from multiple subject areas).
  • 3.
    Background • EightYear Study (1933-1941) – Positive results for integration • Post World War II (1950s & 1960s) – Back to Basics • Vietnam War (1960s) – Called for Curriculum “Relevance” – Basic curriculums stayed the same
  • 4.
    Background • JapaneseChallenge (1980s-90s) – Isolation of disciplines • High Stakes Testing (90s-present) – Preparation programs emphasize integration and interdisciplinary education. – Political reality of subject matter is that test drive curriculum.
  • 5.
    Significance • NASPE-national content standards – Emphasis of the NASPE standards on a variety of objectives besides sports and games, was influential in promoting interdisciplinary PE(PLACEK, 2003). • Research – Literature and resources for interdisciplinary teaching are now readily available and research in the area is still increasing.
  • 6.
    Methods • Literaturereview – Focused primarily on useful resources for teachers as practical text for application. • Internal vs. external – Internal - combining multiple topics within the same subject matter – External- Combining physical education content with other subject area content knowledge.
  • 7.
    Analysis Methods Literaturereview by NASPE standard • Standard 2 Movement concepts and principles – Physiology and fitness(most common) – Wide base of research, however not geared towards how to teach the sub disciplines. • Standard 5 Responsible personal and social behavior – Wide research base with useful practitioner suggestions in JOPERD – Hellison’s TPSR (best known model) – Character education has a muddy definition
  • 8.
    Analysis Methods •Standard 7 Enjoyment, challenge, self expression and social interaction – Best known model Adventure education – Five concepts of adventure education • Risk • Trust • Problem solving • cooperation • challenge – Individual and group activities
  • 9.
    Findings/Main arguments •Three possible Outcomes – Integrated curriculum should “condense” the subject matter – Traditional curriculum does not match real life – Make school relevant to students lives • Potential Problems – TE Disagreements can be seen as personality conflicts – TE fear subject wash-out (not covered) – SI Students expectations of PE as a non-academic subject may be the most difficult barrier to overcome
  • 10.
    Conclusions/implications for practice and/or future research • Interdisciplinary education has been proven to be effective , however potential problems such as high stake testing and teacher specialization have limited its use in schools • You don’t need to re-invent the wheel • Interdisciplinary curricula, make natural connections between subject—don’t force a relationship
  • 11.
    Questions? • Whenthe words interdisciplinary curriculum in PE are used, what type of curriculum is envisioned? Please come up with an example • You can work in pairs =) • Ex. Teaching a Korean folk dance in a fifth-grade social studies unit on other cultures

Editor's Notes

  • #7 Internal- (e.g., psychomotor, cognitive and affective goals within the same lesson.) External- (e.g., Psychomotor, literacy. )
  • #8 Standard 2 Biomechanics Sports psychology Physiology Standard 5 Character development has 3 different definitions( solomen, gough and fisher) Character education in PE is as muddy as the Yellowstone river after a spring flood.
  • #9 Project adventure- Integrated curriculum at two magnet schools focused curriculum around a problem not individual subjects.