If physical education is going to be responsive to the needs of each child, it should reflect the culture in which it is practiced. Students come to our classrooms with various backgrounds, reflecting differences in social, ethnic, and economic environments; individual and family values; demands and responsibilities placed on them; and exposure to physical education and sports programs. Children learn and respond to different values about the place of sport in society and their own role within that setting (Greendorfer, 1983). While learners experience these personal changes, so do our schools. Our communities are marked for major changes in the coming century (Smith, 1991) as American society becomes more culturally diverse with an ever-increasing ethnic population. The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 1995 the school age population will be composed of 30% ethnic minorities (Cooper, 1988). Physical education programs are challenged by the needs of youth in a changing environment. Traditional curricula must integrate social change while discovering ways to motivate youth to develop lifelong physical activity habits. Before this goal can be achieved we, as physical educators, must be conscious of how young people within various cultures perceive physical education and sport. This study was conducted to provide some insight into the attitudes of middle and high school youth toward physical education and sport from a multicultural perspective. Procedures Students in physical education classes in three urban communities known to have a high minority student population were surveyed in autumn of 1991. A 22-item questionnaire, which took approximately 15 minutes to complete, was administered during physical education class by teachers.

No abstract

This study determined and compared the planning models taught in preservice physical education (theoretical) with those practiced in junior high school physical education (reality). Empirical and ethnographic data were collected through a survey of college professors (n = 59), close-ended (n = 36) and open-ended surveys of teachers (n = 28), and a nonparticipant observation study (n = 4). The results indicated that the theoretical model focused on planning for student learning whereas the reality model focused on planning for teaching. The personal philosophy of the teachers, coaching commitments, the teachers’ routines of planning and teaching, and the students’ reactions were major influences on how teachers planned and why they planned. Reasons for lack of transfer of the planning model from theory into practice are discussed and suggestions for further investigation are made.

Education majors clearly display learning style preferences, say these researchers, who discuss the results of their work at the University of Idaho.

This commentary responds to an invitation to discuss sport management from the viewpoint of an administrator. My thoughts are segmented into two streams: (a) the interface of a sports-minded public and sport management and (b) the listing of a few issues and concerns confronting sport management today. The first recognizes the high profile of sport in American society and the rising gross national sport product (GNSP), which have placed sport management programs in the enviable position of visibility and attention. The second plays on several themes: continuing to improve the knowledge and research base, establishing an independent identity while sharing technology within HPER programs, and being sensitive to a growing trend toward more graduate students entering from fields outside sport, leisure, and Wellness.