A vision lost? (Re)articulating an Arnoldian conception of education ‘in’ movement in physical education

Author:
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In two seminal texts, Meaning in movement, sport and physical education and Education, movement and the curriculum, Arnold articulated ‘… the place of movement in the curriculum’. The concepts of ‘about’, ‘through’ and ‘in’ movement are in theory how Arnold holistically conceptualised the practice of physical education. The importance and desire to revisit Arnold's work reflects that (1) several international curriculum documents, at both junior and senior level, are premised on Arnoldian dimensions; (2) it possesses more currency in curriculum theory than ‘other’ holistic frameworks or models; (3) its use as a framework in physical education curriculum documents may not be as intended given the ways in which Arnold's work has variously been (re)interpreted and (re)presented over the years; and (4) not all dimensions (in particular education ‘in’ movement) are well understood nor fully conceptualised or contextualised. On the basis of the above rationales, the purpose is to examine and critique plausible shortcomings to the currently underemphasised and least understood concept of education ‘in’ movement as it primarily pertains to physical education curriculum theorisation, development and ultimately pedagogy. I contend that Arnold's education ‘in’ movement is more than mere participation in movement, physical activity and sport or as others have suggested education ‘through’ the physical. Drawing on the literature from diverse fields (e.g. philosophy, phenomenology), I will further develop the argument that engagement in these activities alone does not adequately reflect Arnold's conceptualisation of education ‘in’ movement and that opportunity for development of knowledge and understanding on multiple levels (pre-conscious, conscious) is a pre-requisite for individuals to develop deeper meaning and understanding about their engagement as agents within movement. This article, therefore, highlights how Arnold's vision has been ‘lost’, and proposes a re(articulated) and re(emphasised) vision that complements contemporary physical education curriculum theory.

This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit: