Physical education has been an integral part of the school curriculum for more than 100
years. Although the focus during the last century has changed, the major objectives have
remained relatively constant: to provide students with the knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors,
and confidence to be physically active throughout their lifetime (Sallis et al., 2012). A quality
physical education program has the potential to make (at least) four unique contributions to the
lives of students: (1) daily physical activity, (2) a personalized level of physical fitness, (3)
development of competency in a variety of physical and sport skills, and (4) acquiring the
requisite knowledge for living an active and healthy lifestyle (Darst, Pangrazi, Sariscsany, &
Brusseau, 2012). Students should leave high school with the knowledge and perceived
competence to participate in physical activities and sports with other adults. Unfortunately,
according to Darst et al. (2012), many people will not join community clubs, gyms, or
organizations because they lack the physical competence or fear embarrassment. Te purpose of
this article is to discuss the relationships among three health related physical education models:
(1) conceptual physical education (CPE) or fitness education (FE), (2) public health approach
(PHA), and (3) the health-ftness club approach (Bycura & Darst, 2001; Darst et al., 2012). Te
article also presents an example of an established program using the health fitness club model to
help prospective and current teachers of physical education.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2010), mapping out
for teachers what students should be taught and how their acquisition of knowledge and skills
should be assessed is what shapes a well-designed physical education curriculum, as in any other
academic subject. A physical education curriculum then should be based on national, state,
and/or local standards. Tis curriculum should maximize physical activity during lessons and keep
students moderately to vigorously active for at least 50% of the class time. Curricula must
include student assessment criteria to determine whether or not students are accumulating
enough moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during physical education, as well as
whether they are meeting lesson objectives.
School physical education programs are the ideal setting for teaching youth the benefts of
leading a healthy lifestyle.
Education, in general, has undergone signifcant reform to meet new challenges
encountered in modern society. Physical education programs are also greatly infuenced by
current social and professional perspectives (Darst et al., 2012). Since the turn of the century, the
development and appreciation of sport skills have been the emphasis of most physical education
programs. In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, concerned about the results of a test comparing
the ftness levels of American and European students, established the President’s Council on
Physical Fitness and Sports. Tis started a ftness phenomenon that has continued to this day.
However, with the current obesity rates in the United States, several public health organizations
(e.g., World Health Organization, CDC, American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance [AAHPERD]) are calling for the use of physical education as a public
health tool as a way to increase the amount of physical activity in which youth engage each day
(National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE], 2004a).
School physical education programs are the ideal setting for teaching youth the benefts of
leading a healthy lifestyle. Physical education models such as PHA (Sallis et al., 2012) and CPE
(e.g.,
Fitness for Life; Corbin & Lindsey, 2007) are just two examples that have been popular
with physical educators who understand the importance of not only teaching sports and games,
but also providing physically active classes that lead to ftness as well as teach the knowledge
aspects of health and wellness in K–12 programs. Tese models are largely driven by public
health concerns over the growing negative health trends of overweight, obesity, and diabetes in
children and adults. PHA and CPE often include technology, such as pedometers or heart rate
monitors, to track physical activity behaviors as an outcome of programs. With so many
curricular choices on the market and all the demands put on a teacher’s time, the physical
educator is hard-pressed to study all the available information. As more physical education
programs become interested in providing students with a curriculum based on developing active
and healthy behaviors for life, this article will empower teachers
in their curricular choices and ability to understand the diferences among the three
models, and will provide an example program that combines them (i.e., a health-club approach).
Conceptual Physical Education/Fitness Education Programs
CPE or FE programs merge the practice and science of the feld through a lecture
laboratory approach (Corbin & Cardinal, 2008) and have been implemented during the past 50
years. Te CPE classes involve the teaching of conceptual material and often have a physical
activity and/or laboratory component (Corbin & Cardinal,2008). Tese programs, which
emphasize cognitive understanding of the subject matter, are widely used at the secondary and
college levels (Corbin & Lindsey, 2007). Tere are also conceptually based programs used at the
elementary level, such as the Physical Best elementary curriculum (NASPE, 2004b) and the
Fitness for Life elementary curriculum targeting classroom teachers and other elementary staf
(Corbin, LeMasurier, Lambdin, & Greiner, 2010), which can be used in concert with another
physical education curricular model. Few data, however, are available to support the efectiveness
of conceptually based elementary physical education programs at this time.
Dr. Charles B. Corbin developed the frst college-level personal ftness text at Texas A&M
in the 1970s. In 1979, he published the frst high school personal text entitled Fitness for Life. To
date, his books are the most widely adopted college and secondary school texts in the area of
ftness and wellness (Arizona State University
[ASU], 2012). Te frst edition of the Fitness for Life high school text was published
before the development of national physical education standards. Terefore, the authors consulted
with teachers and experts in the feld to develop appropriate program objectives for physical
education students in grades 9 through 12. In addition, the authors of the Fitness for Life texts
then served as consultants to many diferent states as they developed their own physical education
standards (ASU, 2012).
Te frst set of national physical education standards was published in 1995 (NASPE,
2004a). Although the fourth and ffth editions of the Fitness for Life texts were designed to meet
selected national standards, it should be noted that the three previ-
ous editions of the text (1979, 1985, and 1990) would have met most of these standards
before they were available (ftnessforlife.org) (C.B. Corbin, personal communication, August 12,
2012). In 2007, Dr. Corbin, along with his coauthors Guy LeMasurier and Dolly Lambdin, later
introduced the middle school version of the Fitness for Life text. Ten, in 2011, Meg Greiner, an
awardwinning elementary physical education teacher, was added to the team, and the elementary
version, which targets all elementary classroom teachers, physical education teachers, and other
school personnel for a comprehensive school-based approach to wellness, was also launched. Te
Fitness for Life lesson may include ftness and a skill
component with activities that are developmentally appropriate and that reinforce
physical activity, nutrition, and concepts from other academic areas. Tis program is
also designed to teach students facts about ftness and physical activity and how to
use self-management skills to incorporate healthy habits into their daily routine so
they are less likely to be sedentary later in life. At the elementary level, these concepts
can be taught in mini lessons throughout the day in the classroom. At the secondary level, when
students attend a daily physical education class, students might spend two days in the classroom
learning healthy behavior concepts and three days in the gymnasium doing cardiovascular and
weighttraining activities along with various sports and games.
A number of studies have been published showing positive student-learning
outcomes from the Fitness for Life physical education curriculum model, including a
study that showed that students who had the course in high school were more active in college
three years later compared with students from the same school who had a traditional physical
education program (Dale & Corbin, 2000).
Te Public Health Approach
Te PHA places a high priority on students developing physically active behaviors inside
and outside of class. It was designed to help PK–12 students acquire knowledge and skills for
lifelong participation in physical activity for optimal health benefts. For example, the Sports,
Play and Active Recreation for Kids! (SPARK)
curriculum is designed for both skill and physical activity behavior development (with a
skill and ftness activity component in each lesson). SPARK is both a curriculum for children’s
physical education and, as an integral component, a set of prescriptions
for teacher development. Te potency of that combination is attested to by research studies
that show an increase in physical activity for SPARK students (Locke & Lambdin, 2003).
Specifcally, elementary school students involved in a SPARK physical education program
showed signifcant increases in MVPA and energy expenditure during elementary school physical
education (Sallis et al., 1997). In addition, improvements in ftness, sport skills, academic
achievement, and teaching quality were also documented (Sallis et al., 2012). For example, one
study showed that students taught by teachers using the SPARK curriculum spent more minutes
per week being physically active and gained more cardiorespiratory ftness than did those in
control classes (Sallis et al., 1997). Te SPARK curriculum is perhaps the most comprehensively
evaluated curriculum in physical education.
A sample elementary lesson from the SPARK curriculum includes a ftness and skill
activity in a 30-minute lesson. Te lesson might begin with a chase-and-fee ftness activity focused
on increasing students’ heart rate. Te ftness activity would be followed by skill development
time in which students play modifed games that improve physical ability as well as provide
increased movement opportunities.
Morgan, Beighle, and Pangrazi (2007) also studied the dynamic physical education
(DPE) curricular model in relation to student physical activity levels using pedometers. Te
authors found that physical activity levels were comparable to those
found in the SPARK curricular model, with students engaged in physical activity for
more than 50% of the physical education class time. Te authors suggested that quality physical
education programs contribute to students’ physical activity levels throughout the school day.
Although there have been various studies on student outcomes, there are few studies addressing
teacher fdelity to curricular models (Morgan et al., 2007).
If secondary physical education is to survive, it may need to hange its fundamental focus,
as well as its delivery (Prusak et al., 2011). In his 2012 article, Sallis and others recommended
that the erm “health-related physical education,” which was introduced n 1991 by the same
author, be replaced with “health-optimizing physical education” or HOPE. In addition, HOPE is
defned as a physical education curriculum with lessons focused on healthelated physical activity
and ftness that keeps students active for at east 50% of class time, engages all students regardless
of physical ability, and contributes to students’ overall physical activity paricipation, thus
improving their health (Sallis et al., 2012). HOPE hen is another way of explaining the PHA
discussed earlier.
Te Health-Fitness Club Approach
Maria Corte at Mesa High School in Mesa, AZ already provides such a curriculum, and it
has been coined the health club or health promotion model (Bycura & Darst, 2001; Darst et al.,
2012; Prusak et al., 2011). By encompassing aspects of both CPE and HOPE, the students who
enroll in a physical education class that implements a health-ftness club approach may have the
opportunity to improve their personal ftness and health while they learn the joys and benefts of
leading a healthy lifestyle. Te health-ftness club approach may include diferent lifetime activity
classes ofered at several levels, and students can sign up for the activity and level that meets their
needs and abilities. When Ms. Corte frst started at Mesa High, she had just graduated from ASU
with a degree in physical education. Te physical education teacher education program at ASU
had efectively trained her to teach K–12 students in sports and activities based on the
multiactivity curriculum. Te Mesa School District,
however, wanted Ms. Corte to teach “aerobics” classes to high school students. Tey
provided her with a gym and that was it. Ms. Corte’s frst purchase was a quality stereo, and from
there, she slowly started integrating ftness trends that were popular at the time into physical
education.
Te health-ftness club approach of physical education is designed to help students become
familiar with the latest trends in lifelong physical ftness, leading to coordination, fexibility,
cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and improved body composition. In
addition, students will have the opportunity to learn about the physiological aspects of ftness as
they increase their ftness levels (M. Corte, personal communication, April 11, 2012). Goals of
the program should include educating the students on many diferent types of activities and giving
them the opportunity to set and monitor goals, as well as develop their own personal training
programs.Te healthftness club curriculum replaces games or activities that tend to provide lower
levels of physical activity (e.g., softball, volleyball) with activities that are naturally more active
(e.g., kickboxing, jumping rope, aerobic dance and aerobic games, and cardio team sports).
Workouts such as the “Zig Zag Circuit,” “XFactor Circuit,” “Rep-N-Run Circuit,” and “Cardio
Boxing” (M. Corte, personal communication, April 11, 2012) have been specially designed to
allow no downtime so that students are moving (at MVPA levels) and having fun during most of
the class session. Each lesson is designed using TARGET structures (Treasure &
Roberts, 1995) that have been shown to guide teaching behaviors,
curricular decisions, and instructional practices that create a favorable physical education
climate. Te components of TARGET are task, authority, reward, grouping, evaluation, and
timing (see Table 1).
Ms. Corte has been teaching at Mesa High in Arizona since 1994, and in that time, she
has accumulated enough equipment (by making the Elite Fitness class into a club and
fundraising) so that every student can have a body bar, a kettle bell, a medicine ball, a loop band,
and a heart rate monitor or pedometer during class. Every class includes music and is based on
current trends in society, whether it is Pilates, yoga, Parkour, kickboxing, the Insanity workout,
P90X, step aerobics, circuit/interval training, boot camp, the stability ball, HI2T (high-intensity
training), or a combination of many of these innovative workouts. Although all the
aforementioned activities have something diferent to ofer, Ms. Corte has worked very hard to
make ftness fun and manageable for all of her students. No matter what their ftness level, all
students participate together and everyone fnishes together.
One of the most signifcant aspects of the class is the fact that the students motivate one
another to perform at their best. Although Ms. Corte is constantly walking around supervising,
assessing, and connecting with her students, she rarely has to ask any student to “get moving.”
Students are highly motivated and want to participate, get ft, and feel healthy. Tis attitude comes
from the atmosphere created by Ms. Corte, other teachers at Mesa High, and the students
themselves. In addition, Ms. Corte keeps an open line of communication with the parents of her
students, as she believes that parents can have a signifcant level of infuence on a student’s level
of physical activity.
To fund the program, Ms. Corte took it upon herself to make one of her classes an actual
club on campus. Once you become a club (in the Mesa School District), you can fund-raise. She
used the club status to sell “candy grams,” local coupon books, and Tshirts, for example. By
fundraising, Ms. Corte has been able to raise up to $2,000 per year for her program.Tere are
three fitness classes taught at Mesa High School, and all have upwards of 60 students signed up
each semester. Te first two classes are called “Complete Fitness/Aerobics,” and the third is
“Advanced Fitness/Elite.” To participate in the complete fitness class, students need to register
for the class and hope they get in. In past years, there has been a waiting list. To be part of the
elite class, students must try out and be able to complete 60 pacer laps, 80 sit-ups, and 15 push-
ups.AssessmentsStudents in the health-ftness club approach, begin the semester with
FITNESSGRAM® ftness testing. Fitnessgram is a
complete battery of health-related ftness items that are scored using criterioreferenced
standards that are age and genderspecifc and have been established based on how ft children
need to be for good health (Meredith & Welk, 2007). For muscular strength and endurance, the
sit-up and push-up test is used, and
for cardiovascular endurance, the pacer test is used. Te students are tested every month,
or five times during the semester, to measure and document their progress. Pre- and post-test
assessments are also given to measure and document learning in the cognitive domain. An
introductory exam is given to assess students’ knowl edge before delving into any lectures on
physiology and nutrition. Periodic quizzes are also given to ensure all students are keeping up
with the material (from the Fitness for Life curriculum). At the end of the semester, a fnal exam
is given to measure students’ cognitive learning improvements. Assessments used with
healthrelated fitness curricula often include physical activity patterns and components of health-
re-
lated ftness. Te Fitness for Life program was created to be integrated with
Fitnessgram/Activitygram® and Physical Best so students can become profcient at
selfassessment. Te SPARK curricular model assesses students using something called Personal
Best Day designed for students to track their ftness progress over
time. Both programs involve individual goal setting, ftness tests consisting of
cardiovascular, muscular endurance and strength, and endurance components, as well as self-
assessments. Both the Fitness for Life program and SPARK curriculum also incorporate
cognitive assessments that ask students to demonstrate what
they have learned and how their behaviors have changed over the course of the program.
Conclusion
A well rounded physical education class can potentially provide students of all abilities
and interests with a foundation of movement experiences designed to help them lead active and
healthy lifestyles well after graduation from high school. In addition, efective physical education
can provide children with the tools for participating in safe and healthy activities throughout their
lives. In spite of physical education having been an integral part of the school curriculum for
more than 100 years, obesity rates in the United States continue to rise. Physical education
curricula such as CPE, PHA, and the health fitness club approach ofer physical education
teachers creative ways to instill the benefts of a healthy lifestyle in their students. Although all
three approaches share similar objectives, such as empowering students with the facts about
fitness, the benefts of healthy behaviors, and the enjoyment of physical activity, each has a
unique set of characteristics (see Table 2). Tough the roots of physical education actually lie in
health promotion, the feld has been sidetracked from this mission for several decades (Prusak et
al., 2011). Te curricular models discussed in this article focus on developing healthy physical
activity behaviors (PHA), the understanding of conceptual material along with participation on
ftness activities (CPE), and the students’
