4.4 Article

Lifelong participation, physical education and the work of Ken Roberts

期刊

SPORT EDUCATION AND SOCIETY
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 167-182

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1357332022000018850

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A broad consensus has emerged in recent years in relation to the desirability of one particular purpose for physical education (PE); namely, the promotion of lifelong participation in sport and physical activity. This paper represents an attempt to rectify what is taken to be the relative failure of those investigating (whilst typically advocating) lifelong participation through PE to make use of a sociologica l perspective on leisure, youth cultures and sport. More specifically, it brings the seminal work of someone often referred to as a 'founding father' of the field, Ken Roberts, to bear on the topic, on the premise that any study of young people's propensity towards ongoing involvement in sport and physical activity needs to be viewed as an aspect of their lives 'in the round' and that, in this regard, Roberts' contribution is especially important. The paper argues that among a number of lessons to be learned from Roberts' work over the last decade or so is that sports participation-contrary to the common-sense views of teachers, government and other interested parties-has become part of present-day youth cultures and that this is, in no small measure, a consequence of a trend over the last 25 or so years towards a broadening of PE curricula in a manner that mutually reinforces broader trends in young people's leisure styles. The paper concludes that if lifelong participation is to be a primary aim of PE, then there needs to be a shift in policy towards the development of wide sporting repertoires, during the crucial secondary school years by, amongst other things, incorporating a significant element of choice on the part of pupils from a broad range of curricula and extracurricular activities, including so-called 'lifestyle' activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据