Curriculum Change Process Toward Adventure Physical Education

Background/Purpose: Many curriculum models have been developed and proposed to improve students’ learning outcomes in physical education (PE; Lund & Tannehill, 2010). Adventure education (AE) is one of the suggested curriculum models due to its distinctive educational benefits, such that adventure activities provide students with opportunities to overcome self-imposed perception of their limitations into abilities and, as a result, students learn a great deal about themselves and how they relate to others (Gehris, Kress, & Swalm, 2011). However, not many physical educators have employed this promising curriculum model. One of possible reasons may be that adopting a new curriculum model is not an easy process (Reeves, 2009). Supporting this notion, Moreri (2011) found that PE teachers experienced challenges when they utilized adventure activities. Therefore, understanding physical educators’ curriculum change process toward AE would be an important prerequisite before encouraging physical educators to utilize the AE programs. The purpose of this study was to explore PE teachers’ decision-making process to adopt AE model in their PE classes.

Method: Participants were four PE teachers who taught AE for many years at urban high schools in the Midwest region. An open-ended semi-structured interview (Patton, 2002) and a naturalistic inquiry approach (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) were used to collect data. To systematically explore the teachers’ curriculum change, interview questions were developed in four categories modified from Teacher Change Model (Ni, 2009): a) teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about curriculum, b) teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about students, c) teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about self (the teacher) and d) professional relationships and interactions that affect the teachers’ change.

Analysis/Results: Using analytic induction and constant comparison, eight major themes emerged: a curriculum that is incomplete; curricular focus on the socio-emotional; the student as a motivational factor; developing life skills; administrative support; relationship to a university program; adventure education as an ongoing process; and being self-confident. Key findings were that physical educators should consider all students’ needs and should not neglect socio-emotional aspects of PE. In addition, it was found that the positive role of school administrators and support of university faculty were necessary to successfully implement the AE model.

Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that if physical educators passionately involve in curricular change without losing sight of students’ needs and educational objectives, they are more likely to enhance their programs and engage more students in relevant PE experiences through the AE curriculum model.