Fitness Testing in Physical Education, Teacher Education (PETE) Programs

Background/Purpose: Fitness testing of PETE students is a controversial topic. Although accreditation requires programs to demonstrate that their students achieve and maintain a health-enhancing level of physical activity and fitness, it is unclear how this is achieved. Thus, the purposes of this study were to investigate how and why collegiate PETE programs assess the fitness levels of their students and determine opinions of fitness testing in general.

Method: Participants were 158 PETE decision makers representing four-year institutions nationwide that had a program in which students could become certified physical education teachers. Participants were invited via e-mail to complete a mixed-method survey that contained demographic information about their PETE program, rationale and methodology regarding fitness testing, and six opinion statements about fitness testing.

Analysis/Results: Participants were asked several open-ended questions. With respect to fitness test used, FitnessGram was the predominant choice, although some used self-developed or less common tests. When asked why participants fitness tested, that it was a NCATE/NASPE requirement was the primary reason, although role modeling fitness and health, and learning the protocol were other reasons given. The timing of fitness testing varied and appeared to depend on student class choice, but in general a pre-post assessment to achieve NCATE/NASPE standards was the given response. Passing requirements were varied even within those who used FitnessGram. Some did not have any passing requirements beyond participation or completion. If a student failed, some programs required a test or class retake, some received remediation, but some could not fail or were encouraged to leave the program. Participants were highly supportive of the belief that elementary/middle school (97.53%), high school (97.53%), and university (95.68%) educators should be physically fit. However, participants were less supportive of fitness testing in PETE programs (59.25%) and fitness testing of physical education teachers (45.68%). These statements were significantly impacted by whether the participant’s program fitness tested or did not [(F 1,160 = 14.52, p < .05); (F, 1,160 = 4.78, p < .05)].

Conclusions: Fitness testing in PETE programs, although considered a requirement for NCATE/NASPE accreditation, is reported to be inconsistently assessed through choice of fitness test, timing of administration, and perceived value. Furthermore, plans for those that fail are varied. Although fitness is a valued characteristic, opinions regarding testing are divided. Given the diversity of responses, accrediting and governing bodies as well as PETE programs need to re-evaluate whether fitness testing is achieving its intended goal.