An analysis of Canadian physical education curricula

Abstract

There has been much international concern about the present and future status of school physical education. Recent research has employed surveys or case studies to examine the status of physical education but there is a dearth of in-depth physical education curriculum document analysis. The aim of this study is to contribute to the international discussion about physical education curricula by expanding upon previous interpretations of Canada’s physical education curricula and addressing additional aspects that may have been overlooked. Results of an analysis of Canada’s 10 provincial physical education curricula reveal trends and themes related to instructional time allocations, curricular aim statements, curricular organizing categories and learning outcome statements. While the stated aim of physical education curricula in Canada is focused on healthy, active living, there is evidence that the specific content of the learning outcome statements are more focused on movement skills, games and sport technique. This contradiction sparks further discussion about the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of physical education curricula and the importance of understanding what has, is, and perhaps should be influencing decisions about curriculum development throughout the world.

Keywords

Physical education curriculum Canada international learning outcomes aim statements curriculum themes instructional time allocation

Introduction

School physical education across the globe has undergone significant developments over the past century; yet, for many years there has been much international concern about the status and future of this subject area (Dodds and Locke, 1984; Dunn, 2009; Hardman, 2013; Kirk, 2010; Lawson, 1998; Macdonald and Brooker, 1997; Onofre et al., 2012a, 2012b; Sanders and McCrum, 1999; Tinning and Fitzclarence, 1992; Stier et al., 1994). Researchers have investigated the status of physical education in particular regions, nations, and internationally, with many of these investigations taking the form of surveys or case studies (e.g. Hardman, 2008, 2013; Hickson et al., 2012; Luke, 2000; Onofre et al., 2012a, 2012b; Rivard and Beaudoin, 2005). Many of these investigations have included some form of examination of physical education curricula, yet there is a dearth of in-depth physical education curriculum document analysis. Thus, the aim of this research is to contribute to the international discussion of the status of physical education by expanding upon previous interpretations of Canada’s physical education curriculum, and addressing additional aspects that, in our view, may have been overlooked. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to provide a greater understanding of the landscape of grades 1 to 9 Canadian physical and health education curriculum by analysing curricular aim statements, organizers, and learning outcomes, as well as synthesizing contextual information about the publication dates of curriculum documents and the instructional time allocated to physical education. It is hoped that the results of this investigation will provide a comprehensive description of Canadian physical education curricula, by Canadian researchers, that will serve as a solid foundation for future curricular theorizing by both Canadian and international scholars.

This research begins with a brief review of relevant background information regarding Canada’s geography, demography, and governance of education, as well as a brief historical perspective of physical education in this nation. Important descriptive information about Canadian physical education curriculum documents is then described, including explanations of terminology use, and grade and subject level configurations. The methods and results of our in-depth analysis of Canadian physical education curriculum documents are presented, including: curriculum publication dates; instructional time allocation; aim statements; curriculum organizing categories; number of learning outcome statements; distribution of curriculum themes; and learning outcome codes common across Canada. A discussion of these results is then presented and focuses particularly on the conflict between the aim and content of Canadian physical education curricula, the marginalized status of physical education as a subject area, the politics of curriculum renewal, and the challenges of analysing physical education curricula in Canada. The article concludes by raising questions for future research on Canadian physical education curricula.

Investigating the status of physical education through curricular analysis is significant, as physical education scholars such as Penney (2008) have expressed concern about the subject area’s precarious curriculum position and have encouraged professionals and scholars to be ‘proactive in shaping that [policy] space’ (35). Curricular analysis provides us with an interesting lens through which we may examine the social, political, and cultural values of the time, as curricular elements presumably reflect the context of what is deemed significant by curriculum writers. It is our hope that a greater understanding of the present status of physical education in Canada will support much-needed continued discussion and theorizing on the future directions of physical education as a subject area in Canada and abroad.

Background

The geography and demography of Canada

Canada is divided into 10 provinces and three very large northern territories. The climate varies from more moderate west coast climates to the northern regions and inland provinces, which experience harsh winters. Since only 12% of Canada’s landmass is suitable for habitation, the majority of the population lives in the southernmost areas. Despite its large landmass, Canada’s population is relatively small, with approximately 35 million inhabitants (Statistics Canada, 2013). Canada’s residents are very ethnically diverse as a result of considerable immigration from across the world (Esses and Gardner, 1996). Canada is a bilingual country, with English and French as its two official languages.

Governance of education

Canada is a democratic constitutional monarchy with a federal parliamentary government with shared responsibilities between provincial, territorial and federal governments (Government of Canada, 2015a). There is no national department of education so all provinces and territories regulate and administer their own education systems (Government of Canada, 2015b). Curriculum development is the responsibility of each province and territory and all provinces have their own independent physical and health education curriculum. The three territories, however, have adopted the curricula of neighbouring provinces (e.g. Yukon utilizes the curriculum from British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories utilizes Alberta’s physical education curriculum) (Northwest Territories Education, Culture and Employment, 2004; Yukon Government, 2014). The Ministry of Education in each province develops its own curriculum according to its particular needs, resources and policies.

A brief historical perspective

Physical education in Canada has unique characteristics that have developed from a variety of geographical, historical, political and cultural influences. While these influences are only alluded to here briefly, the authors recommend Cosentino and Howell’s (1971) oft-cited text A History of Physical Education in Canada for a more comprehensive national history, and province-specific sources for more recent developments (e.g. Francis and Lathrop, 2011, for the Ontario context).

Before physical education became a school subject area in Canada, physical activity was recognized as an important factor for quality of life, and evidence of organized physical activity can be found as early as 1807 (Munro, 1965, as cited in Martens, 1986). Most of this early history included games and dances originating in France and England, and gymnastics forms from Europe. Throughout the 20^th century, physical education curricula in Canada were strongly influenced by that of England and the United States of America, which resulted in an array of military, gymnastics, play, fitness, and sport influences (Francis and Lathrop, 2014). The English influence was largely due to Canada’s membership in the British Empire and considerable English immigration to Canada (Forbes and Livingston, 2012; Lathrop and Francis, 2011). The American influence was largely due to the fact that the United States had physical education teacher training programmes 50 years before Canada, and thus many of the first Canadian physical educators were graduates of American programmes (Gurney, 1983).

Method

To achieve the descriptive aim of a greater understanding of the landscape of Canadian physical education curricula, the authors conducted an analysis of the aim statements, curriculum organizing categories, and the learning outcome statements of the grades 1 to 9 Anglophone physical education curricula that were provincially/territorially mandated for official use as of January 2014 (note that some provinces have separate Francophone physical education curricula that were not included in this study). To contextualize this analysis, the authors also synthesized information regarding these curriculum documents’ publication dates and the instructional time allocated to physical education. The following describes the curriculum documents used (and any methodological decision junctures) in further detail.

Canada’s provinces use an array of terms to describe the physical education curriculum documents that outline the learning outcome statements to be achieved by students. These terms include, for example: ‘curriculum framework’ (Manitoba); ‘integrated resource package’ (British Columbia); ‘program of study’ (Alberta); ‘learning outcomes framework’ (Nova Scotia); and ‘progression of learning’ (Quebec). In this study these documents will be referred to simply as ‘curriculum documents’ for consistency. Thus, this research was concerned with the ‘primary’ curriculum documents, that is, those documents that include the learning outcomes to be achieved by students. Many provinces also offer information regarding, for example, assessment, evaluation, and planning practices, which may be included within these primary documents or in separate secondary documents. These secondary documents were not included in this research.

Each province publishes their curriculum documents according to grade and subject area configurations. Grade configurations vary slightly from province to province but are generally grouped in the levels: primary/elementary (grades 1–5, 1–6, or 1–7), middle school/junior high (grades 6–8 or 7–9), and secondary/high school (grades 9–12 or 10–12). One exception is the province of Quebec, where the grade level system is configured as Cycle 1 (grades 1–6), Cycle 2 (grades 7–11), and Cegep (preparatory year for college or university). This research was limited to grades 1 through 9, as in the subsequent grades there is often more than one physical education course offering per grade that students may choose in order to meet the physical education requirements for graduation. In regards to subject area configurations, the physical and health education curriculum is presented in Canada in two different ways: three provinces, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, offer a combined health and physical education programme, while the remaining seven provinces offer physical education (as separate from health education). As such, this research included health and physical education curriculum documents from three provinces and physical education curriculum documents from seven provinces.

In sum, in light of the aforementioned grade level configurations, subject area configurations, and the fact that the three territories have adopted the curriculum of their neighbouring provinces, 10 sets of unique grades 1 to 9 physical education curricula exist in Canada and were analysed in this research. These 10 sets of curricula draw upon 13 documents in total – two from Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick, and one from each of the remaining seven provinces (see Appendix 1 for the citations of the documents used). Also, please note that where any necessary information was not available online, provincial government curriculum consultants were contacted to gather or confirm the information.

Data analysis

An analysis of the curricular aim statements was conducted using Microsoft Excel, where descriptive and interpretive codes were applied inductively to the aim statement for each province (Creswell, 2009; Miles and Huberman, 1994). Codes were used across the entire data set, with additional codes added when necessary. Co-investigators replicated this process independently, with results compared and combined. To analyse the curriculum organizing categories, the aforementioned process was repeated.

An analysis of the learning outcome statements was conducted by applying a coding key developed by the authors (see Appendix 2). The codes were generated inductively by conducting a close reading of the 3134 learning outcome statements for all provinces (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006). To be specific, after a preliminary reading of all learning outcome statements, the first learning outcome statement analysed was given a code to represent its interpreted meaning. After this, each subsequent learning outcome statement analysed was either assigned an existing code, or if no existing codes appropriately captured the interpreted meaning of the learning outcome statement, a new code was developed. Furthermore, in the case that a single code could not capture the entirety of the learning outcome statement, more than one code was applied. This inductive process resulted in codes falling into three curriculum themes: fitness, movement skills, and healthy living, with a total of 12 fitness codes, 28 movement skills codes, and 33 healthy living codes.

Basic descriptive statistics, that is, frequency tabulations, were calculated to describe the distribution of the coded learning outcomes (each calculation is described in detail in the following Results sections).

Data synthesis

The contextual information regarding curriculum publication dates and instructional time recommendations for the subject of physical education were recorded in Microsoft Excel or Word documents and compiled into summary tables and graphs (each synthesized table and graph are described in the following Results sections).

Results

Publication dates of provincial curricula

Each province in Canada publishes its physical education curriculum documents according to individual provincial governmental procedures for renewal. Through document analysis and discussion with provincial curriculum consultants, it appears that there are no established time frames for curriculum re-development and no evidence of a consistent trend for physical education curriculum revision timelines. For example, British Columbia revised their elementary curriculum after nine years; Alberta is currently revising their 2000 curriculum; Quebec updated their 2004 curriculum (grade 7–9) in 2010; and Prince Edward Island recently revised their elementary curriculum after 22 years. Thus, the current curriculum in each province has been in place for varying amounts of time, depending upon the resources available. Figure 1 outlines the various publication dates for current provincial curriculum documents.

Figure 1.

Publication dates of current provincial curriculum documents.

Instructional time allocations

All provinces and territories have recommended time allocations for physical education instruction in grades 1 to 9. Some provinces present their time allocations according to a percentage of total curricular requirements for all subject areas, and others list minutes per week or hours per year. Table 1 outlines the time allocations for physical education instruction in grades 1 to 9.

Table 1.

Recommended time allocations for physical education instruction.^a

Province	1	6	7	8	9
BC	10% (90–100 hr/year)			10% (90–100/yr)
AB	10% (PE & Health)		10% (PE & Health)
SK	150 min/wk	150 min/wk
MB	11% (75% PE, 25% HE)		9% (75% PE, 25% HE)
ON	At discretion of individual schools – no government guidelines				110 hr/yr
QC	120 min/wk		50 hr/year
NS	30 min/day		Unavailable
NB	100 min/wk		150 min/wk
PE	5% (75 min/wk)		4–6%
NL	6%		6% (50 hrs/yr)

AB: Alberta; BC: British Columbia; MB: Manitoba; NL: Newfoundland; NB: New Brunswick; NS: Nova Scotia; ON: Ontario; PEI: Prince Edward Island; QC: Quebec; SK: Saskatchewan; PE: physical education; HE: health education.

^aSee Appendix 1 for a complete list of government sources for each province.

Aim statements

Each province sets out its prescribed curriculum with the inclusion of an overall aim statement that provides a rationale for physical education in the school system. Table 2 presents a summary of how each province articulates its vision for physical education. A thematic analysis of all the aim statements from each province clearly identifies that acquiring the knowledge, skills, and attitudes for healthy active living (or lifestyle, or for life) through physical activity is the primary stated aim of physical education programmes in Canada.

Table 2.

Aim statements for physical education in each province.^a

Province	Grade	Aim
AB	1–9	To enable individuals to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to lead an active, healthy lifestyle.
BC	1–9	To provide opportunities for all students to develop knowledge, movement skills, and positive attitudes and behaviours that contribute to a healthy, active lifestyle.
MB	1–9	To provide students with planned and balanced programming to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes for physically active and healthy lifestyles.
NL	1–9	Physical education fosters personal and community wellness by empowering students to attain healthy, lifelong attitudes and behaviours through physical activity as part of the total educational experience.
NB	1–8	To attain healthy levels of physical activity and fitness for all students; to encourage the acquisition of motor skills; to develop knowledge and attitudes supportive of continuing active living habits throughout life; and to develop specific objectives designed to meet the physical growth and developmental needs of all children and youth.
NB	9	To promote healthy active living for life.
NS	1–9	Active, healthy living is shaped by the vision of learners experiencing purposeful physical activity and developing knowledge of, skills for, and attitudes towards the health benefits of a physically active lifestyle.
ON	1–8	Based on the vision that the knowledge and skills acquired in the programme will benefit students throughout their lives and help them to thrive in an ever-changing world by enabling them to acquire physical and health literacy and to develop the comprehension, capacity and commitment needed to lead healthy, active lives and to promote healthy, active living.
ON	9	Development of: an understanding of the importance of physical fitness, health and well-being and the factors that contribute to them; a personal commitment to daily vigorous physical activity and positive health behaviours; the skills and knowledge they require to participate in physical activities throughout their lives.
PE	1–9	To provide opportunities for students to develop knowledge, skills, and positive attitudes toward active living. The curriculum will support students in acquiring the understandings and skills to engage in movement activity and to develop a solid foundation for a balanced lifestyle.
QC	1–6	To help students gain a sense of self-responsibility for their fitness and health by allowing them to develop a repertoire of movement skills, a repertoire of cognitive strategies, a knowledge base in the subject, behaviours consistent with safety and ethical rules, the critical sense they need to manage their health wisely, and positive attitudes in their relationships with others when participating in physical activities.
QC	7–9	Students will have developed the tools they will use throughout their lives to feel physically and mentally healthy, to feel good about themselves and to live in harmony with others.
SK	1–9	To support students in becoming physically educated individuals who have the understandings and skills to engage in movement activity, and the confidence and disposition to live a healthy, active lifestyle.

AB: Alberta; BC: British Columbia; MB: Manitoba; NL: Newfoundland; NB: New Brunswick; NS: Nova Scotia; ON: Ontario; PEI: Prince Edward Island; QC: Quebec; SK: Saskatchewan.

^aSee Appendix 3 for a complete list of government sources for each province.

Curriculum organizing categories

Each province organizes its learning outcome statements into categories and provides descriptive headings to characterize the content of those categories. Some of the terms used to describe these categories include: ‘general outcomes’, ‘strands’, ‘curriculum organizers’, ‘goals’, and ‘competencies’. Careful analysis reveals that the provinces have similar content in their curricula, but their approach to grouping content varies. Table 3 summarizes the curriculum organizing categories for physical education curricula across Canada.

Table 3.

Summary of curriculum organizing categories.

Group	Provinces	Course delivery model	General organizing categories
1	Alberta British Columbia Saskatchewan Prince Edward Island	Physical education	Movement skills/activity Personal & social responsibility Active living/fitness
2	Newfoundland/Labrador New Brunswick Nova Scotia	Physical education	Psychomotor (doing/in movement) Cognitive (knowing/about movement) Affective (valuing/through movement)
3	Ontario Manitoba Quebec	Health & physical education	Movement skills/activity Personal & social responsibility Active living/fitness Healthy living/choices

Groups 1 and 3 provinces organize their learning outcome statements through taxonomic progressions of the three learning domains (psychomotor, cognitive, affective) within three categories: movement skills/activity, personal and social responsibility, and active living; whereas group 2 provinces cluster movement skills/activity with ‘doing’, active living/fitness with ‘knowing’, and personal and social responsibility outcomes with ‘valuing’. The key difference between group 1 and 3 provinces is the addition of personal health practices that include such topic areas as substance use and abuse prevention, human sexuality, making healthy choices, and healthy relationships.

It is important to note that all provinces state that the learning outcomes are best achieved through involvement in physical activity and movement skills and, in the case of group 3 provinces, by participating kinaesthetically.¹ All provinces except Quebec use learning outcome statements designed to communicate the knowledge, skills, and attitudes students need to demonstrate in each of the curriculum organizing categories. Quebec redesigned their curriculum in 2009 to focus on a competency-based approach where subject-specific competencies in physical education and health are connected to their overall provincial education system’s aims and broad areas of learning. Another variance is that Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province to first organize by physical activity dimension (i.e. games, rhythmic activities, gymnastics, sports lead-up activities, and fitness) and then list outcomes under the categories of ‘in movement’, ‘about movement’, and ‘through movement’ in their grade 1–6 document. Newfoundland and Labrador’s grade 7–9 curriculum is organized using ‘psychomotor, cognitive, and affective domains’.

Number of learning outcome statements

The curriculum documents in each province differ in the number of learning outcome statements prescribed. To illustrate this variation, Figure 2 compares the number of learning outcome statements prescribed in each province from grades 1 through 9.

Figure 2.

Number of learning outcome statements per province.

The variation in the number of learning outcome statements is related to how each province communicates its specific learning outcomes. For example, British Columbia has comparatively fewer learning outcome statements with minimal description. However, further details and clarification for each of those statements is provided in a supplementary section on student achievement. These achievement indicators are considered ‘descriptions of content that help determine the intended depth and breadth’ (British Columbia, 2006: 59). In contrast, other provinces have greater numbers of learning outcomes with detailed descriptions within the statement as opposed to in a separate section.

Distribution of curriculum themes

After all provincial learning outcome statements were coded, percentages were calculated to indicate the relative weight or distribution of each curriculum theme (fitness, movement skills, and healthy living) across all grades 1 through 9. More specifically, Figure 3 presents the distribution of curriculum themes in: (a) all 10 provinces; (b) in only those three provinces which offer health and physical education together; and (c) in only those seven provinces which offer physical education as a subject area separate from health. It can be observed from Figure 3 that when all 10 provinces are considered together the curriculum theme of movement skills is dominant, with the theme of healthy living taking a strong second place, and the theme of fitness having a much smaller tertiary role. When only health and physical education provinces are considered, the curriculum themes of healthy living and movement skills are nearly equally dominant, although healthy living takes precedence, and again the theme of fitness has a much smaller tertiary role. Finally, when only physical education provinces are considered, the curriculum theme of movement skills takes an overwhelmingly dominant role, with healthy living and fitness taking on much lesser roles respectively.

Figure 3.

Distribution of curriculum themes for grades 1 to 9: all provinces; health and physical education provinces only; and physical education provinces only.

Percentage distributions were also calculated for each curriculum theme by grade (see Figure 4). It is evident that in grade 1 the emphasis across Canada is primarily upon movement skills, with a strong secondary focus on healthy living, and a minimal focus on fitness. As grades progress, the emphasis shifts and the focus on movement skills steadily declines, while the promotion of healthy living skills and fitness skills increases. By grade 9, the trend towards healthy living outcomes is evident and surpasses movement skills as the dominant theme. Note that the percentage distributions for each curriculum theme by grade were also calculated for the three health and physical education provinces only, as well as for the seven physical education provinces only; however, they are not reported here as there was no apparent difference noted.

Figure 4.

Distribution of curriculum theme by grade.

Common learning outcome codes

Through examination of the learning outcome statements for all 10 provincial curricula, it became evident that many provinces prescribe similar learning outcome statements. To analyse this, the frequency of each code’s application per province was summed across all grades (1–9). The number of provinces that each code was applied in was then counted. A frequency distribution was then calculated for the 73 specific codes by the number of provinces in which each code was applied (See Figure 5). This data demonstrates that 24, or 32.9%, of the codes are common to (or appear in) all 10 provinces, with the majority of these falling within the curriculum theme of movement skills (58% movement skills; 38% healthy living; 4% fitness).

Figure 5.

Frequency distribution of learning outcome codes by number of provinces in which they were applied.

Discussion

The results of this study demonstrate that the current state of physical education in Canada is very similar to what is reported in Europe and other countries around the world (Hardman, 2013). There are mixed messages about the value and role of physical education in schools, concerns about curricular time allocations, questions about the relevancy of curriculum content and a perpetuation of skill-based (sport-focused) programming. Our findings suggest that there are many issues related to how physical education curricula are developed, interpreted, implemented and analysed. These issues include: the conflict between stated aims and specific content; the marginalization of physical education; political factors in curriculum renewal; and the challenges of curricular analysis in Canada.

Conflict between stated aims and specific content

Our analysis indicated that the overall aim statements of physical education curricula in Canada are clearly focused on health and active living. Hardman (2013) reports similar findings and highlights how the concepts of health, well-being and active lifestyles are the most common physical education curricular aims in many countries around the globe. Interestingly, while the overall vision may be healthy active living, our examination of the specific content of the curriculum (i.e. learning outcomes) reveals that movement skills remain the focus. This skill-based focus is oftentimes connected to an objective, performance-driven and competition-oriented delivery of the curriculum (Kirk, 2010). Thus, there seems to be confusion about what physical education means for students in today’s society. Hardman and Marshall (2005: 7) explain:

A major issue is that of the relevance and quality of physical education curricula around the globe. In some parts of the world physical education curricula are undergoing change with signs that its purpose and function are being redefined to accommodate broader life-long educational outcomes. Nevertheless, there remains an orientation towards sports-dominated competitive performance-related activity programmes.

Thus, it may be time to revisit the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of physical education curricula to achieve insights and understandings about what it means to teach and guide children towards ‘healthy active lifestyles’ or to be ‘healthy active citizens’. Perhaps one place to start is to review the meaning of the term ‘health’. Health (1550, O.E. hælþ) means ‘wholeness, a being whole, sound or well’ (Health, n.d.). As Kabat-Zinn (1990) explains, ‘whole implies integration, an interconnectedness of all parts…the nature of wholeness is that it is always present’ (162) and embedded in a larger whole. Health, then, is a ‘dynamic process, an inner balancing with our self and the universe’ (164). When we promote and support students to be healthy and active for life, the focus should be on a balance of the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the individual (Kilborn, 2014). Too often with a performance-driven, skill-based approach in physical education (Kirk, 2010), there is a focus on one aspect (physical), which is often to the detriment of the other dimensions (Hart, 2008).

There are researchers who have suggested different theoretical perspectives to underpin alternative physical education curricula. Some of these approaches include: a wellness-oriented curriculum (Kilborn, 2014); a salutogenic strength-based approach (McQuaig et al., 2013); physical literacy (Mandigo et al., 2009); and other holistic notions about physical education (Arnold, 1979; Whitehead, 1990). Kilborn (2014) advocates for a wellness-oriented health and physical education curriculum that considers body, mind and spirit – providing a perspective that is needed to embrace subjective knowledge in physical education and student health in a holistic way. McCuaig et al. (2013) suggest a move away from a deficit model for the promotion of and education for/about health towards a strength-based (salutogenic) approach. A salutogenic approach to the health and physical education curriculum focuses on the promotion of healthy living; encompasses physical, social, mental, spiritual, environmental and community dimensions; considers healthy living as dynamic; views humans as active agents; and understands healthy active living as a way of life instead of an end goal (McCuaig et al., 2013). Physical and health education curriculum development with a salutogenic approach would allow for more holistic pedagogies that better connect to the life-worlds of children and youth in contemporary society. The Australian curriculum is taking this holistic strength-based approach within their new health and physical education curriculum. Whitehead’s conception of physical literacy highlights how the intellectual, social and physical development of children are intertwined with a focus on their physical journeys so that they may ‘lead a fully-embodied life no matter their abilities or physique’ (Active for Life, 2015: para. 6). With the notion of physical literacy, Whitehead warns against society’s tendency to separate body and mind through the developmental process as this leads to pedagogies that ‘focus on the body as an instrument or machine’ and moves away from the ‘whole-body engagement that [children] tend to experience naturally’ (para. 8).

There are some jurisdictions in Canada that are considering different theoretical perspectives in their physical and health education curriculum development review processes. The two provinces of Prince Edward Island and Alberta are redesigning their health and physical education curricula with a wellness-oriented philosophical perspective. The province of Prince Edward Island has just piloted a new grade 10 health and physical education curriculum that is titled ‘Wellness’ (Government of Prince Edward Island, 2015). Alberta’s current health and physical education curriculum redesign is guided by their Framework for Kindergarten to Grade 12 Wellness Education (Kilborn, 2012) and results from a province-wide consultation on education (Alberta Education, 2015).

Another interesting finding in our analysis is the irony associated with the dominant theme of curriculum organizers. To review, our analysis of curricular organizers revealed three themes of content: movement skills/activity; personal and social responsibility; and healthy/active living. Movement skills/activity was noted to be the primary or dominant focus, with the other two themes being ‘by-products’ of participating in movement activities. It appears that the assumption for this emphasis on movement skills is that if students have better movement skills in a wider variety of physical activities then they are more likely to have healthy, active lifestyles – the overall goal of physical education. Ironically, many physical education scholars agree there is rarely enough class time for students’ skill acquisition to significantly improve in most physical education environments (Kirk, 2010; Lawson, 2009; Locke, 1992).

The marginalized status of physical education

It should be noted that the recommended time allocations for physical education in Canada are just that – recommended – and do not necessarily correspond with the actual time physical education is administered, which is typically less (Active Healthy Kids Canada, 2007; Hardman and Marshall, 2000). This discrepancy between recommended time allocation and actual instructional time appears to be an international reality for physical education as Hardman (2013) has also reported this phenomenon. The reasons for this discrepancy between recommended and actual instructional time point towards the marginalization of physical education as a subject area within schools. This low status issue is an ongoing discussion among physical education scholars (Barrosoet al., 2005; Curtner-Smith, 1999; Hardman and Marshall, 2005, Hardman, 2008), who recognize how physical education continues to be ‘pushed aside’ (Beddoes et al., 2014: 21). In a Canadian study, Chorney and Kilborn (2013) explain that the low status of physical education is a key barrier to implementing quality physical education in schools. Specifically, participants in their research (teachers, school and district administrators, government consultants, community partners) report that the factors contributing to this opinion include: lack of government and school board support; school administrators who do not value physical education (e.g. many do not schedule physical education in the timetable); lack of accountability measures to monitor whether physical education is being implemented; a significant focus on academics in high school and increasing numeracy/literacy scores in elementary schools; low staff interest and support; and limited parent and community support.

While the primary purpose of our study did not include an analysis of actual time devoted to physical education, the analysis of recommended time clearly indicates policy intentions that specifically target the inclusion of physical education as part of the formal curriculum. In other words, policy constructors’ vision for children’s overall education includes (health and) physical education. The barriers to implementing physical education that were mentioned previously provide a good example of ‘the “gaps” between what was intended by policy constructors and what ultimately translates into practice’ (Maclean et al., 2015: 82). The barriers describe what Maclean et al. (2015) term as the ‘context of influence’ – the circumstances that influence the role of physical education in schools – which includes research findings, other policies, political concerns (economic, community, national, global), and stakeholder engagement.

Politics of curriculum renewal

Curricula, as texts produced by governments, are inherently political and as such cannot be understood without an acknowledgement of the relevant political context (Rossi et al., 2009). Thus, any interpretations of the findings of this investigation are not exempt from political influence. For instance, an interpretation of our finding that there is no consistent time frame for the renewal of physical education curricula by Canadian provincial/territorial governments is enriched by a consideration of the political landscape in each province/territory. Using the recent political developments in the province of Ontario as a case-in-point, one can see an example of how genuine need for pedagogical reform was delayed five years by what can be argued to be a strategic political move. To be specific, in January of 2010, the replacement document for the then-current 1998 grades 1 to 8 Ontario health and physical education curriculum was released in advance of its planned September 2010 implementation date. This new 2010 curriculum document introduced pedagogical reform that included updates on the topics of ‘healthy relationships, consent, online safety, the risks of “sexting” and mental health’, among others (Government of Ontario, 2015: para. 2). Thus, this new curriculum iteration reflected the marked technological advances that had occurred since the last curriculum iteration in 1998, which was written before widespread access to the internet was the norm and before the mass adoption of social media and smart phones (Government of Ontario, 2015: para. 5). The 2010 curriculum document was the product of a three-year curriculum consultation process that the provincial government described as the ‘most extensive curriculum consultation process ever undertaken by the ministry and involved parents, students, teachers, faculties of education, universities, colleges and numerous stakeholder groups’ (Government of Ontario, 2015: para. 4). Despite this, by June of 2010, following protests by some religious groups regarding its sexual health content, the Ontario government announced that the new 2010 curriculum document would go forward as an interim document without the ‘Human development and sexual health’ portion, which would be replaced by the ‘Growth and development’ portion of the 1998 document until further notice (Government of Ontario, 2010: para. 2). It is of relevance to note that at the time of the curriculum withdrawal the Liberal party held a minority government in the province of Ontario, and had an election looming in the following year. Thus, if the argument of Rossi et al. (2009) is considered here, which is that ‘texts of this nature will only get sanctioned (given official approval) if they are constructed using uncontentious, political acceptable (sanitized) language’ (86), then one could argue that the withdrawal of the curriculum could be considered a strategic political move by the party to distance themselves from the now ‘controversial’ curriculum. Furthermore, in the months that followed the withdrawal of the grades 1 to 8 curriculum, it was also announced that the curriculum document that was to replace the then-current 1999 grades 9 to 12 Ontario health and physical education curriculum document was also shelved until further notice, but in this case, in its entirety. Thus, the efforts of curriculum writers to ‘deliver more radical agendas which promote social change and encourage a preparedness to engage in social action leading to a betterment of society’ (Rossi et al., 2009: 75) appear, in this case, to be stunted by political agendas, all of which ultimately results in a ‘more of the same’ situation (Kirk, 2010: 121).

Five years later, in February of 2015 (which, for perspective, is nearly half a student’s elementary school experience, or longer than their middle or secondary school experience), the Ontario government, with a new Liberal party majority as of June 2014, released both the new grades 1 to 8 and grades 9 to 12 health and physical education curriculum documents, with very minimal changes to those that were briefly released in 2010, and with an implementation target of September of 2015 (Government of Ontario, 2015). Thus, when the previously reported results regarding inconsistent time frames for curricular renewal are considered alongside Ontario’s political context, it begs the question recently raised by Lynch (2014: 1) regarding Australian curriculum renewal: ‘Why change at all in HPE [health and physical education] if not for reasons of overall political control of the curriculum and the political need to be seen to be reformist?’ Lynch (2014: 2) goes on to speculate about curriculum renewal being related to ‘accountability agenda[s], rather than the stated need for pedagogical reform’. While an in-depth political analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, this example is raised to highlight the necessity for future research that critically analyses the political context within which a curriculum is developed, released and endorsed.

The challenges of curricular analysis in Canada

There were many challenges in our quest to provide a more in-depth understanding of the curricular landscape in Canada. Sharing some of these challenges demonstrates the complexities of conducting this type of research, which is intended to paint a national picture from 13 distinctly different and autonomous provinces/territories.

As there is no consistency in how each province publishes, shares and stores their curriculum documents, obtaining the most current and accurate materials was an onerous task. Some documents were published by subject area, others were by grade, some were only in print, others were web-based, some were posted as ‘interim’ or drafts, and some were updated in the process of our analysis. Oftentimes there was no bibliographic information available so we had to speak with government consultants (retired and current) to verify authenticity and date of publication. Obtaining curriculum time allocations was also difficult and required extensive efforts to obtain reliable sources and verify information. On a more practical note, what does this mean for teachers in these provinces and territories who may be trying to gain access to such information, and who might not have the time, resources, and/or contacts to follow up with government officials as we did? Shouldn’t access to curricula be free of barriers?

Analysing the content of curricula presented a significant challenge because each province uses different teaching and learning language and required an understanding about the commonalities and differences of curricular descriptions. To do this, over 3100 learning outcomes and 8000 coding applications from nine grade levels were considered in order to analyse how each province characterizes instructional strategies, learning outcomes, and achievement expectations. The enormity of the data and variation in language within one country are significant challenges and important considerations for other curriculum researchers who are attempting to obtain a Canadian perspective.

Conclusion

Our intention in undertaking this research was to provide a clear, accurate descriptive analysis of the dominant themes from our (health and) physical education curricula across the country. Since Canada does not have a national physical education curriculum or standards, and to date most curricular analysis in Canada has taken a province-specific approach, it has been difficult to accurately describe the nature of physical education curricula in Canada to the rest of the world. We see this analysis as a first step to deeper discussions about curriculum reform and the complexities of curriculum development, such as what is happening in other countries like Scotland and Australia (Lynch, 2014; Maclean et al., 2015; Rossi et al., 2009). It opens the door, perhaps, for a more detailed analysis of curriculum documents similar to the critical discourse analysis that Rossi et al. (2009) conducted on the Queensland health and physical education curriculum. This would provide a better understanding about whether the language of the curriculum documents inadvertently contradicts the aims and underlying principles (Rossi et al., 2009).

As future directions for physical education in schools are considered, how we problematize Canadian curricula requires considerable reflective and reflexive thought. It will be important to understand what has, is, and should be influencing decisions in curriculum development processes and the situatedness of those involved. If healthy active living is the aim of physical education, then what theoretical perspectives underpin how we go about teaching children to be healthy and active for life? It may be time for those examining Canadian physical education curricula to heed the advice of Jewett and Bain (1985) and engage in curriculum theorizing so that physical educators are better able to examine individual beliefs, clarify philosophical understandings, and be open to alternative perceptions about curricula. We have suggested some alternative perspectives that include re-visiting the meaning of health, wellness-oriented curricula, a salutogenic strength-based approach and concepts from physical literacy. Perhaps a (re)view of these theoretical perspectives and ongoing conversations with students, parents, teachers, and community members will help clarify the direction of physical education curricula in the future.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Appendix 2. Coding key generated inductively by the authors and applied to the learning outcome statements

Fitness
F1	Strength
F2	Flexibility
F3	Endurance
F4	Participate daily/regularly
F5	Intensity (moderate to vigorous)
F6	Knowledge and principles of fitness/training (i.e. exercises, activities, strategies, factors, components)
F7	Engage in fitness activities (wide variety)
F8	Self-monitoring fitness (e.g. exertion measures, fitness level)
F9	Sustained activity (e.g. minimum of 20 minutes)
F10	Fitness planning and scheduling, activity selection
F11	Fitness achievements
F12	Skill-related fitness
Movement skills
M1	Stability
M2	Locomotor
M3	Manipulation
M4	Controlled movement
M5	Engaging in a variety of movement, alternative activities, and environments (e.g. outdoor, orienteering)
M6	Respond to stimuli (i.e. music, cues, signals)
M7	Rhythmic movement and dance
M8	Educational gymnastics
M9	Games
M10	Movement concept: space (i.e. directions, levels, pathways)
M11	Movement concept: effort (i.e. time, weight, flow)
M12	Movement concept: relationships (i.e. to objects/people: over, under, around, through)
M13	Movement concept: body (i.e. shapes, parts)
M14	Individual activity
M15	Partner and small group activity
M16	Group activity
M17	Understanding of movement (i.e. terminology, activity rules, concepts, principles)
M18	Use of equipment and apparatus
M19	Movement sequences
M20	Technique/technical movement
M21	Movement and activity problems and corresponding strategies, tactics and solutions
M22	Explorative, creative, and/or expressive movement
M23	Create, plan, and/or select movement
M24	Practices accompanying movement (e.g. warm-up, cool-down, stretching, ready position)
M25	Specialized movement skills (i.e. combination/complex skills, activity/sport-specific skills)
M26	Quality of movement (e.g. refining, practising, and developing movement)
M27	Transference of skills
M28	Open skills (i.e. performance of skill as appropriate to and/or as determined by the context)
Healthy living
L1	Cognitive processes (e.g. reasoning, problem-solving, critical thinking, analysis, and metacognition)
L2	Decision-making
L3	Physical activity behaviours and participation
L4	Attitudes towards physical activity
L5	Social interactions, relationships, cooperation, and/or teamwork
L6	Emotion, affect, and/or valuing
L7	Communication skills
L8	Knowledge of physical activity, movement and the body (i.e. terms, concepts, importance, benefits, factors, where to participate, injuries)
L9	Goals (i.e. set, work towards, achieve)
L10	Responsibility
L11	Independent thought, action, initiative and/or leadership
L12	Safety within movement in physical activity and physical education (i.e. knowledge, importance, practices)
L13	Safety outside the classroom (i.e. knowledge, importance, practices)
L14	Follow directions and rules
L15	Fair play, etiquette, and/or ethical participation
L16	Nutrition (i.e. knowledge, importance, practices)
L17	Self-assessment, introspection, and/or reflection (i.e. monitoring, self-concept, body image)
L18	Variety (i.e. activities, environments, roles)
L19	Conflict management and/or resolution
L20	Mental health (i.e. knowledge, strategies)
L21	Health (i.e. hygiene, habits, lifestyle practices, substance use and abuse, sexuality)
L22	Respect and/or inclusion
L23	Learning and cross-curricular or supplemental knowledge
L24	Environmental awareness
L25	Task behaviour and/or performance
L26	Creativity
L27	Planning and/or creating (i.e. activities, sequences, fitness/activity plans/programmes)
L28	Challenge, growth, and personal development
L29	Personal skills (e.g. self-management, control and/or regulation; coping skills; time management; organization)
L30	Help, aid, assist, and/or support
L31	Other physical activity and/or education roles (e.g. officiate, teach, lead, volunteer, potential careers)
L32	Behaviour and/or lifestyle outside the classroom (e.g. in the community)
L33	Risk management and reactionary skills (i.e. navigating difficult situations and choices, what to do in case of an emergency or accident, first aid)

Appendix 3 Funding

TThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Active for Life (2015) Margaret Whitehead on Physical Literacy, the Term she Invented. Available at: http://activeforlife.com/margaret-whitehead-interview/ (accessed 16 February 2015).

Active Healthy Kids Canada (2007) Older but not Wiser: Canada’s Future at Risk. Canada’s Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth–2007. Toronto: Active Healthy Kids Canada.

Alberta Education (2015) Program Update: Wellness Education. Available at: http://education.alberta.ca/teachers/program/pe/program-update.aspx (accessed 16 February 2015).

Arnold

(1979) Meaning in Movement, Sport and Physical Education. London: Heinemann.

Barroso

McCullum-Gomez

Hoelscher

(2005) Self-reported barriers to quality physical education by physical education specialists in Texas. Journal of School Health 75(8): 313–319.

Beddoes

Prusak

Hall

(2014) Overcoming marginalization of physical education in America’s schools. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance 85(4): 21–27.

British Columbia Ministry of Education (2006) Physical Education K to 7: Integrated Resource Package. Victoria, British Columbia: British Columbia Ministry of Education, p.11. Available at: www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/pdfs/physical_education/2006pek7.pdf (accessed 11 December 2013).

Chorney

Kilborn

(2 6, 2013) Exploring the landscape of quality physical education in Canada. Presentation at Canadian Society for the Study of Education Conference, Victoria, BC.

Cosentino

Howell

(1971) A History of Physical Education in Canada. Toronto: General Publishing Company.

10.

Creswell

(2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd Ed). Los Angeles: Sage.

11.

Curtner-Smith

(1999) The more things change the more they stay the same: Factors influencing teachers’ interpretations and delivery of national curriculum physical education. Sport, Education and Society 4(1): 75–97.

12.

Dodds

Locke

(1984) Is physical education in American schools worth saving? Evidence, alternatives, judgment. In: Struna

(ed) National Association of Physical Education in Higher Education Proceedings (Vol. 5). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp.76–90.

13.

Dunn

(2009) The times are a changing: Implications for kinesiology. Quest 61(3): 269–277.

14.

Esses

Gardner

(1996) Multiculturalism in Canada: Context and current status. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 28(3): 145–152.

15.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1): 1–11.

16.

Forbes

Livingston

(2012) Roots, rifts, and reorientations: Rediscovering our field’s common community of inquiry. In: Singleton

Varpalotai

(eds) Pedagogy in Motion. London, ON: The Althouse Press, pp.61–87.

17.

Francis

Lathrop

(2011) “Children who drill, seldom are ill.” Drill, movement and sport: The rise and fall of a female tradition in Ontario elementary physical education (1850s to 2000). Historical Studies in Education 23(1): 61–80.

18.

Francis

Lathrop

(2014) “Here we go round the Mulberry Bush”: Problematizing “progress” in Ontario’s elementary school dance curriculum: 1900 to 2000. Journal of Dance Education 14: 27–34.

19.

Gibbons

Wharf-Higgins

Gaul

. (1999) Listening to female students in high school physical education. Avante 5(2): 1–20.

20.

Government of Canada (2015a) How government works. Available at: www.canada.ca/en/gov/system/ (accessed 20 February 2015).

21.

Government of Canada (2015b) Education in Canada. Available at: www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/after-education.asp?_ga=1.194909869.1874446491.1423934168 (accessed 20 February 2015).

22.

Government of Ontario (2010) Release of interim curriculum policy document on health and physical education. Available at: http://news.ontario.ca/edu/en/2010/06/release-of-interim-curriculum-policy-document-on-health-and-physical-education.html (accessed 4 March 2015).

23.

Government of Ontario (2015) Ontario releases updated health & physical education curriculum, parent resources. Available at: http://news.ontario.ca/edu/en/2015/02/ontario-releases-updated-health-physical-education-curriculum-parent-resources.html (accessed 4 March 2015).

24.

Government of Prince Edward Island (2015) Department of Education and Early Childhood Development: Health and physical education. Available at: www.gov.pe.ca/eecd/index.php3?number=1051678& (accessed 20 February 2015).

25.

Gurney

(1983) The CAHPER story, 1933–1983. Ottawa, ON: The Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation.

26.

Hardman

(2008) The situation of physical education in schools: A European perspective. Human Movement 9(1): 5–18.

27.

Hardman

(2013) Global issues in physical education: Worldwide physical education survey III findings. International Journal of Physical Education 50(3): 15–28.

28.

Hardman

Marshall

(2000) The state and status of physical education in schools in international context. European Physical Education Review 6(3): 203–227.

29.

Hardman

Marshall

(2005) Update on the state and status of physical education world-wide. In: International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education 2nd world summit on physical education, Switzerland, 2–3 December 2005. Available at: www.icsspe.org/content/2nd-world-summit-physical-education-0 (accessed 23 January 2014).

30.

Hart

(2008) Critical reflections on an aboriginal approach to helping. In: Gray

Coates

Yellow Bird

(eds) Indigenous Social Work Around the World: Towards Culturally Relevant Education and Practice. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, pp.59–70.

31.

Hickson

Robinson

Berg

. (2012) Active in the North community physical activity programming in Canada. International Journal of Physical Education XLIX(2): 16–30.

32.

Jewett

Bain

(1985) The Curriculum Process in Physical Education. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.

33.

Kabat-Zinn

(1990) Full Catastrophe Living. New York: Random House.

34.

Kilborn

(2012) Kindergarten to grade 12 wellness education in Alberta: Health and physical education curriculum. Physical and Health Education Journal 78(1): 15–21.

35.

Kilborn

(2014) (Re)conceptualizing curriculum in (physical) education: Focused on wellness and guided by wisdom. PhD Thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.

36.

Kirk

(2010) Physical Education Futures. London: Routledge.

37.

Lathrop

Francis

(2011) Children who drill, seldom are ill: The rise and fall of the ‘female tradition’ in Ontario elementary school physical education curriculum; 1890–1990. Historical Studies in Education 23(1): 61–80.

38.

Lawson

(1998) Here today, gone tomorrow? A framework for analyzing the development, transformation, and disappearance of helping fields. Quest 50(2): 225–237.

39.

Lawson

(2009) Paradigms, exemplars and social change. Sport, Education and Society 14: 77–100.

40.

Locke

(1992) Changing secondary school physical education. Quest 44: 361–372.

41.

Luke

(2000) Physical and health education curriculum: Cross-Canada perspectives. CAHPERD Journal 66(2): 4–12.

42.

Lynch

(2014) Australian curriculum reform II: Health and physical education. European Physical Education Review 20(4): 508–524.

43.

McCuaig

Quennerstedt

Macdonald

(2013) A salutogenic, strengths-based approach as a theory to guide HPE curriculum change. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 4(2): 109–125.

44.

Macdonald

Brooker

(1997) Moving beyond the crises in secondary physical education: An Australian initiative. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 16(2): 155–175.

45.

Maclean

Mulholland

Gray

. (2015) Enabling curriculum change in physical education: The interplay between policy constructors and practitioners. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20(1): 79–96.

46.

Mandigo

Francis

Lodewyk

. (2009) Physical literacy for educators. Physical and Health Education Journal 75(3): 27–30.

47.

Martens

(1986) Basic Concepts of Physical Education: The Foundations in Canada. Champaign: Stipes.

48.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

49.

Northwest Territories Education, Culture and Employment (2004) Administrator’s Overview: K–12 Physical Education. Available at: www.ece.gov.nt.ca/files/K-12/Curriculum/physical-education/Administrators%20Handbook%20nov.pdf (accessed 28 April 2014).

50.

Online Etymology Dictionary (2015) Health. Available at: http://www.etymonlinecom/index.php?search=health&searchmode=none (accessed 20 January 2014).

51.

Onofre

Marques

Moreira

. (2012a) Physical education and sport in Europe: From individual reality to collective desirability (Part 1). International Journal of Physical Education 49(2): 31–35.

52.

Onofre

Marques

Moreira

. (2012b) Physical education and sport in Europe: From individual reality to collective desirability (Part 2). International Journal of Physical Education 49(3): 17–30.

53.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2010) The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Health and Physical Education. Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of Education, p.3. Available at: www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/healthcurr18.pdf (accessed 10 December 2013).

54.

Penney

(2008) Playing a political game and playing for position: Policy and curriculum development in health and physical education. European Physical Education Review 14(1): 33–49.

55.

Rivard

Beaudoin

(2005) Physical education in Canada. In: Puhse

Gerber

(eds) International Comparison of Physical Education. Concept – Problems – Prospects. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Verlag, pp.150–173.

56.

Rossi

Tinning

McCuaig

. (2009) With best intentions: A critical discourse analysis of physical education curriculum materials. Journal of Teaching Physical Education 28: 75–89.

57.

Sanders

McCrum

(1999) “Peaks of excellence, valleys of despair”: What is the future of physical education? Teaching Elementary Physical Education 10(1): 3–4.

58.

Statistics Canada (2013) Canada’s Total Population Estimates, 2013. Available at: www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130926/dq130926a-eng.pdf (accessed 10 February 2014).

59.

Stier

Kleinman

Milchrist

(1994) The future of physical education— Survival or extinction? Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED383644.pdf (accessed 5 May 2014).

60.

Tinning

Fitzclarence

(1992) Postmodern youth culture and the crisis in Australian secondary school physical education. Quest 44(3): 287–303.

61.

Whitehead

(1990) Meaningful existence, embodiment and physical education. Journal of Philosophy of Education 24(1): 3–13.

62.

Yukon Government (2014) Curriculum. Available at: www.education.gov.yk.ca/kto12/curriculum.html (accessed 28 April 2014).