東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Three Rival Versions of Physical Edu...

Whalen, Clayton Michael,

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Three Rival Versions of Physical Education: A MacIntyrean Analysis of the Field /

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Three Rival Versions of Physical Education: A MacIntyrean Analysis of the Field // Clayton Michael Whalen.
Author:	Whalen, Clayton Michael,
Description:	1 electronic resource (244 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-02, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-02B.
Subject:	Kinesiology. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31337285
ISBN:	9798383703755

Three Rival Versions of Physical Education: A MacIntyrean Analysis of the Field /
Whalen, Clayton Michael,

Three Rival Versions of Physical Education: A MacIntyrean Analysis of the Field /Clayton Michael Whalen. - 1 electronic resource (244 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-02, Section: B.

At both the theoretical and applied levels of analysis, the field of physical education is all too often completely incoherent. There appears to be little agreement as to how school-based programs ought to be implemented or what the goals of such programs really are. No two physical educators run their programs exactly the same and, chances are, those physical educators likely have wildly different understandings of their field and its proper place within the education of our youth. Borrowing from the title of moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre's (1990) book, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, I've chosen to describe the current predicament as the three rival versions of physical education. By no means is it being asserted that there are only three ways in which physical education is taught or that there are only three different curricula being administered in our schools. The disagreements and differences among the three rival versions of physical education are not simply a matter of curriculum design or pedagogy, but rather a matter of the nature and scope of physical education. This is a problem of identity. It is a problem which is both metaphysical and ethical in nature. The field simply lacks any kind of coherent answer to the question, "what is the nature and purpose of physical education?" MacIntyre identified his three versions of moral enquiry by the titles Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Craft Tradition; the corresponding versions of contemporary physical education that I wish to articulate are Health-PE, Therapeutic-PE, and Liberal Arts-PE. I firmly believe that every school-based program is a reflection of one of these three conceptions. Until an exhaustive philosophical analysis on the merits and demerits of each is completed, physical education will remain in its current state of incoherence, lacking a philosophically sound understanding of itself. Utilizing the work of Alasdair MacIntyre, I will articulate these three rival versions of physical education and argue that 1) the field must embrace a liberal arts paradigm, 2) that elements of the health-centered version can be integrated into this liberal arts conception, and 3) that the therapeutic model ought to be outright rejected.

English

ISBN: 9798383703755Subjects--Topical Terms:

517627
Kinesiology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Moral enquiry

Three Rival Versions of Physical Education: A MacIntyrean Analysis of the Field /
LDR:03701nmm a22004333i 4500 001 2429766
005 20250430094125.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2024 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798383703755
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31337285
035 $a AAI31337285
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Whalen, Clayton Michael, $e author. $3 3817778
245 1 0 $a Three Rival Versions of Physical Education: A MacIntyrean Analysis of the Field / $c Clayton Michael Whalen.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 1 electronic resource (244 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-02, Section: B.
500 $a Advisors: Twietmeyer, Gregg Committee members: Johnson, Tyler; Agiovlasitis, Stamatis; Thompson, Robert.
502 $b Ph.D. $c Mississippi State University $d 2024.
520 $a At both the theoretical and applied levels of analysis, the field of physical education is all too often completely incoherent. There appears to be little agreement as to how school-based programs ought to be implemented or what the goals of such programs really are. No two physical educators run their programs exactly the same and, chances are, those physical educators likely have wildly different understandings of their field and its proper place within the education of our youth. Borrowing from the title of moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre's (1990) book, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, I've chosen to describe the current predicament as the three rival versions of physical education. By no means is it being asserted that there are only three ways in which physical education is taught or that there are only three different curricula being administered in our schools. The disagreements and differences among the three rival versions of physical education are not simply a matter of curriculum design or pedagogy, but rather a matter of the nature and scope of physical education. This is a problem of identity. It is a problem which is both metaphysical and ethical in nature. The field simply lacks any kind of coherent answer to the question, "what is the nature and purpose of physical education?" MacIntyre identified his three versions of moral enquiry by the titles Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Craft Tradition; the corresponding versions of contemporary physical education that I wish to articulate are Health-PE, Therapeutic-PE, and Liberal Arts-PE. I firmly believe that every school-based program is a reflection of one of these three conceptions. Until an exhaustive philosophical analysis on the merits and demerits of each is completed, physical education will remain in its current state of incoherence, lacking a philosophically sound understanding of itself. Utilizing the work of Alasdair MacIntyre, I will articulate these three rival versions of physical education and argue that 1) the field must embrace a liberal arts paradigm, 2) that elements of the health-centered version can be integrated into this liberal arts conception, and 3) that the therapeutic model ought to be outright rejected.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0132
650 4 $a Kinesiology. $3 517627
650 4 $a Sports management. $3 3423935
650 4 $a Metaphysics. $3 517082
653 $a Moral enquiry
653 $a Philosophy
653 $a Schools
653 $a MacIntyre, Alasdair
653 $a Physical education
690 $a 0575
690 $a 0430
690 $a 0396
710 2 $a Mississippi State University. $b Department of Kinesiology. $e degree granting institution. $3 3815819
720 1 $a Twietmeyer, Gregg $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-02B.
790 $a 0132
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31337285