The Passionate
Pursuit of Professionalism: A Critical Analysis
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP
Professor and Chair
Director, Exercise Physiology Laboratories
College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN
Challenges to the
Established Order
While thinking may be natural, critical
thinking is not (1), yet the need for critical thinking is linked to our
survival as exercise physiologists. As far as I know, only a few
exercise physiologists seem to understand the need to be thoughtful or
perceptive about the professional problems that confront our students.
Consider the strategy you are likely to follow when asked about whether
a person can financially make it in the exercise physiology profession.
Most PhDs work on the principle that “more is better”. In their minds,
financial security is linked to the PhD degree. For instance, when
asked, they generally say that, “Exercise physiologists who are undergraduate
or master-prepared can’t expect to make a living in exercise physiology.”
This thinking, which is common among PhDs, is no doubt one that guides
the belief that the doctorate degree is an absolute necessity for all exercise
physiologists. Because I, too, have practiced such thinking, I am
equally guilty of misthinking that arises when we fail to develop the ability
to think critically.
Should you be interested in the need to
think critically about exercise physiology, to find a good solution to
our problems, to make a good decision to think right in face of the sports
medicine view, or to understand the events that have led up to where we
are, then please continue reading this article. The consequence of
failing to think straight can be serious. Likewise, the failure to
seek the cause(s) of why the undergraduate or master’s degree isn’t enough
education to pay the bills correlates with the misthinking about exercise
physiology. We need to look for the causes to know what to do, as
well as when and how to do it (2). For example, if the decision
that the PhD is the only way to financially make it as an exercise physiologist,
is the decision based on good thinking and, if not, what are the consequences?
A short review of the distinction between
efficient (sufficient) causation and a necessary cause should help with
understanding the language of causal inference (1). A sufficient
cause is one that brings about a change (3). For example, a tennis
player can win the serve if he or she places the ball before the opponent
has a chance to reach it. In the right situation, the server can
place the serve away from the opponent, ace the serve with speed, or fool
the opponent into thinking something different from what actually happens
when the ball is served. Any of these events can be said to cause
the server to win the serve and, thus the game. A necessary cause
is one without which the effect cannot occur (1). For example, if
X is said to cause Y, then Y cannot occur unless X is present. If
it is possible for Y to occur without X, then X is not necessary.
An example of a necessary cause for coronary artery disease (CAD) is reported
to be an elevation in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Therefore,
when LDL-cholesterol is elevated, CAD should be a predictable end-result
(unless of course to have CAD there must be the presence of all the necessary
causes). If there is an elevated LDL-cholesterol and CAD is not present
in the coronary arteries, then “cholesterol” is not a necessary cause!
Likewise, if coronary disease is present and LDL-cholesterol is very low,
then again it is not a necessary cause. Only when the presence of
all necessary causes (or conditions) exist is it logical to conclude that
the condition is the sufficient cause for the occurrence of the disease.
Exercise physiologists would do well to
reconsider much of their thinking about the language of causal inference,
particularly as it relates to risk factors and the covariation of CAD (4).
Too often we have not eliminated all other plausible alternative causes
and, as a result, have been willing to make causal inferences that have
influenced how we teach. It is even possible that, although we realize
that covariation is only one condition for establishing causality, we have
closed our minds to the fact that covariation alone is not sufficient evidence
to demonstrate causation (1). In particular, we have frequently overlooked
the time-order principle of causation that states if X (such as cholesterol)
is to be the cause of Y (i.e., CAD), then X must come before Y. At
a practical level, the fact that many of us have worked with post-MI patients
with low levels of cholesterol further demonstrates our lack of understanding
of the importance of learning to think critically.
Sometimes our thinking about the relationship
between the PhD in exercise physiology and financial stability leads us
to the conclusion that the two events covary when in fact they do not,
or we judge that a relationship is stronger than it actually is, especially
when other plausible alternative causes have not been considered.
Chapman (5) refers to this error in thinking as an illusory correlation.
It is very likely that we have overestimated the covariation between the
doctorate degree and financial income. This illusory correlation
appears to be the result of exercise physiologists thinking that it isn’t
possible to financially survive without the PhD degree. The truth
is however that lots of things influence the salary at which exercise physiologists
are hired. Think for a minute about your non-PhD colleagues and their
salaries. You no doubt know of some with high salaries and, of course,
others with low salaries. Why? What is the cause? The
answer isn’t a simple one. Most situations like this are complex;
many factors are present. We may have failed to recognize the presence
of another factor, like professionalism. This factor, like credentials,
could be the true causal agent in realizing better salaries across the
board for all non-PhD exercise physiologists. Obviously, this is
not a statement of fact. “I could be wrong.”
As you might expect, ASEP members (like
members of other organizations) are prone to distortions when they explain
their own beliefs and behaviors. But, when compared to the history
of the movement towards professionalism by nurses, physical therapists,
and others, is the self-serving bias by the members of these organizations
inappropriate? If the ancient Greek dictum “Know thyself” is consistent
with as little personal deception as possible, then one’s behavior and
motives should be appropriate and beneficial in the long run. We
want to be competent and successful as exercise physiologists. Obviously,
while a few may suffer from the illusion of knowing (6), that is, the belief
that comprehension has been attained when in fact it has not been (1),
the proportion of exercise physiologists who comprehend the need for professionalism
is growing. They are becoming more mindful in their thinking about
exercise physiology as an emerging profession. They have come to
understand the perplexity, confusion, and mental difficulty that define
the non-PhD exercise physiologist; all three share in their efforts to
find a solution. They have, in effect, learned to think critically
about the problems that exercise physiologists face within the range of
their everyday experience. Only if we continue to actively engage
in reflective (critical) thinking can we find the solution of increased
financial stability for all exercise physiologists. It requires action
at the organizational level and active participation by all exercise physiologists.
Thinking Straight
Some have called this the “age of unreason”
(7); others have talked about the way things should be. We have all
witnessed rapid change in recent years. We are in an era when change
is common. Professions, in fact, must adapt to change if they are
to survive. People are important, and they must take precedent over
any organization and its work when the organization and the mission are
not meeting the needs of the members. Of course, having a good organization
is important, but it isn’t enough. Organizations per se can’t accomplish
anything. The members alone create and set the direction of the organization.
Their organization in the form of teams and committees, with the incentive
to work hard, with emphasis on speed, quality, and technology gets the
job done.
Change is inescapable. Exercise physiologists
who understand the need for change will survive, and why not? Isn’t
the critical thinker incline to change the old to the new, the complex
to the simple, and the general to the specific? It is natural to
re-think the exercise physiologist’s reason for existence, career options,
and routines and habits as a professional. It is only natural to
change and to expect that change is good. It simply isn’t logical
that we remain within the sports medicine fixed belief system. The
illusion of security in sports medicine will certainly continue to tantalize
exercise physiologists. But, we must prepare ourselves to live within
an exercise physiology model of professionalism; to be comfortable with
our vision, goals and objectives, and our emerging scope of practice; and
to expect that exercise physiologists will come to terms with their unfamiliarity
with professionalism, even, in fact, to create the recasting of who we
are by challenging our ideas of what we can become in the public sector.
To succeed, we must increase our abilities
to think straight and to evaluate the changing conditions and events that
we have in part created. Our PhDs in exercise physiology, unfortunately,
are totally unprepared for this kind of change. Their doctorate education
is lacking in stress on professionalism and critical thinking skills.
They have not learned the profound differences between sports medicine
and exercise physiology. Indeed, after 50 years of disciplined thought
and reasoning centered on sports medicine, they see no value in the benefits
of exercise physiologists having their own professional organization.
They are fixated on “what is” and not on “what can be” or “what should
be”. In fact, many PhDs at the college level have become unwitting
masters of the ability to live in a seemingly permanent state of delusion,
thus essentially unchanging their views and practices for decades.
Today this art of delusion is being used
to create the appearance of a shift to embrace exercise physiologists by
developing a registery. In effect, it is a new sports medicine certification
that embraces the shared sports medicine decision to continue the practice
of old ideas that have not shifted. It is of little value to talk
about a registery of exercise physiologists when it is not an integral
part of the academic college setting and the intellectual standards that
distinguish exercise physiologists from other professionals. In short,
neither sports medicine personalities nor most PhD academics have a workable
idea of what the professionalization of exercise physiology is. Neither
have a clear idea of what reasoning has gone into the ASEP development,
the underlying assumptions, and the implications of professionalism.
Neither seems to have any idea of why ASEP is important and why it is required
when professionals set out to professionalize their work. Why they
are continually oblivious of the need for self-assessment, self-improvement,
good thinking, and standards of professional conduct is hard to understand.
It is logical to ask the question, “Where is our individual and collective
disciplined reasoning?” Isn’t it clear that we can no longer rely
on the past to be the guide for the future (8).
The continued down-loading of our beliefs
from the past has to change, including our teaching that is highly related
to the way we were taught. We need to find a way out of this circle
if we are to define our professionalism, and if we are to improve the quality
of our thinking to improve the quality of our lives. The critical
connection here is the intention to think critically about the needs of
the non-PhD exercise physiologists, and to be responsive to and guided
by those needs. It is thinking that supports the development of professionalism,
intellectual integrity, professional perseverance, and self-discipline.
A connection, in fact, that encourages the identification of answers to
questions such as: “What is the purpose of exercise physiology? What
are we trying to achieve in the public sector? Whose point of view
is important to my intellectual integrity? How can I learn to interpret
correctly what is right for exercise physiologists? Are my conclusions
correct about sports medicine? What would be the consequences of
my actions if I choose to embrace ASEP? What are the implications
of a profession without the elements of professionalism?”
Answers to these questions and others like
them are important. Anyone who suggests otherwise is not thinking
right. In fact, when sophisticated but flawed thinking is embedded
in the argument against exercise physiologists having their own professional
organization, it is not critical thinking. It is pseudo critical
thinking, and those who do it rarely understand they are “…victims of their
bad thinking” (8). Unfortunately, many educators have been misinformed
if not miseducated which is understandable given the educational environment
dominant in most colleges and universities. Much of the “exercise
science” curriculum is intellectually unchallenging and fragmented.
The expert’s (the professor) beliefs about what is relevant classroom content
in regards to the public sector are inconsistent with today’s reality.
Since the instruction is seldom holistic, students often lack a comprehensive
educational philosophy and, unfortunately, they have little understanding
of professionalism.
Most of the present-day exercise science
curriculum is derived from traditional physical education courses.
Seldom has there been an attempt to formally define the courses and content
that exercise physiologists should study. This lack of a coherent
understanding of the necessary professional reasoning and academic standards
is a problem. With the obvious advancements in knowledge, professors
in exercise physiology should be asking probing questions in a reasoned,
self-critical way. Such a pursuit or justification of exercise physiology
concepts, procedures, and assumptions would go a long way in better understanding
the exercise physiology approach to teaching, thinking, and the continued
development of its own body of knowledge. We need to analyze what
we do, what we think we do, and why we teach as we do or fail to do.
Professors should consider the value and importance in researching why
we think differently from other professionals, if we do, and to learn how
and why it is important to assess our thinking with standards specific
to all exercise physiologists.
The problems inherent with our present
approach to teaching are too numerous to discuss in this article.
However, it is obvious that pumping out one more lactate study among the
thousands of articles that already exists on the topic is not helping our
profession! The education of responsible exercise physiologists requires
the teaching of inseparable insights intimately interconnected and cultivated
within a strong sense of critical thinking. We need to challenge
our collective sense to clarify the importance of professional thinking
versus having the relatively narrow interest in and knowledge to publish.
It is important to see that publishing is part of professionalism, but
publishing per se is not the essence of professionalism. Publishing
can be a convincing step of how clever and clear the researcher has done
the work. But, researchers can (and do) confuse research with professionalism.
The emphasis on research, which exercise physiologists do very well, is
very much like the student who memorizes facts without the construction
of meaning. Without integrating the facts with everyday meaning in life,
the information is quickly forgotten. Similarly, if published research
does not have the construction of meaning (8) with the professionalization
of exercise physiology, then research itself is the only thing that is
believed to be important. A close examination of this kind of thinking
suggests that research per se does not provide a realistic model to professionalize
exercise physiology. The professor’s work does not call attention
to the issues and concerns important to an emerging profession of exercise
physiologists. The research, in fact, leads only to the professor’s
benefit towards academic tenure and/or curriculum vitae. There is
no way that the professor’s published work on the acute physiologic responses
to steady-state exercise after eating a carbohydrate meal helps to clarify
and shed light on a professional Scope of Practice or Code of Ethics for
exercise physiologists.
The Crisis in Academic
Exercise Physiology
Have you heard the statement, “A college
education isn’t what it used to be!” There was a time when going
to college meant getting a job. Parents sent their sons and daughters
to college so they could get job at graduation and to become financially
responsible. They encouraged not only their children but other family
members and friends to attend college. And so, where possible,
they paid the tuition for their children and helped by supplying a car
for travel to and from college. The “value of an education” has been
understood as part of the American experience and, thus partly the reason
for the existence of 3,500-plus public and private colleges and universities
in the United States. Parents and students believe that a four-year
college degree means a job, an income, and personal responsibility.
They have come to expect that a college degree will result in all three
outcomes. What they believe, however, isn’t really the truth.
Sure, its true for some college academic programs but not for most.
It should be true for all students, and it can be if professors are willing
to look at the problems faced by college students.
The most pressing issue in exercise physiology
today is the professor who is n0t in touch with the reality of the job
market for undergraduate students in the public sector. Not being
in touch isn’t a function of intelligence; it’s a by–product of the academic
setting, a setting that hasn’t changed in decades. Professors are
still caught between the demands of the academic department or university’s
policy and/or expectation to publish research articles and books for tenure.
Finding time to teach students is the last thing on their minds.
Students are often left to fight their own battles. They are concerned
whether the required courses are relevant? They want to know if the
content has any relationship whatsoever to the types of jobs they are expected
to access in the public sector and, of course, can they expect their professors
to help in locating the jobs?” Answers to these questions are important
to students.
The future of exercise physiology lies
not in more publishing by professors, but in building better relationships
with students and the public sector. Hence, the first step, alongside
the production of knowledge, is to rise above the myopic view that the
college exists for professors. Research and scholarship separate
from the students’ needs have very little to do with helping graduates
get good paying jobs. Professors may understand this point, but few know
how to get past the influence of decades of thinking as professors.
They simply can’t remain removed from society that students face day-after-day
after graduation. Their courses and level of knowledge must make
sense when applied outside the profession. It is no longer acceptable
to do research when it matters less to the graduating student who must
find employment to pay for the college loans. Professors are therefore
responsible for teaching concepts and ideas that will make a difference
in the students’ ability to land a job. Doing so gives purpose to
their teaching aside from the inevitable proliferation of more research
studies, unless the studies help students learn about themselves and increases
the likelihood of beginning a career in exercise physiology.
Landing a job is the ultimate reason for
going to college not just the acquisition of knowledge. But, for
many reasons, professors and department administrators continue to look
the other way. The students’ evaluation of the professors and courses
at the end of each semester is a good example of giving lip service to
the professors’ teaching skills. Seldom is the information used to
cause professors to change behavior, and most department chairs and faculty
do not think twice about the evaluations. This almost unthinking
defense of professors who teach undergraduate courses and the apparent
refusal to upgrade course content are protected within the design of the
system itself. The failure of professors to challenge the present
condition is itself a symptom of the overall problems academia faces on
a daily basis. The problem is that if students can’t be convinced
of the worth of an undergraduate degree, then why would they continue to
attend college.
The failure of higher education producing
graduates who can go to work in the public sector is real. It deserves
our criticisms. Students do not go to college to fill classrooms.
They do not secure loans so that professors have something to do when they
are not doing research. Students are actively seeking knowledge and
hands-on skills to get a job. They believe in the system, and they
believe that it works. Parents have convinced them of the value of
an education. They believe in higher education even when it is difficult
to pay the house note and still have money for food, the car(s), and clothing.
Debts are high for many families. In the end, at graduation, parents
expect their sons and daughters to get a good paying job and, in general,
a better life. The college degree is recognized as the ticket to
success in the public sector.
What they do not know is that most professors
are not into whether students succeed in society. Professors are
not necessarily against it, but their focus is not on getting jobs and
better pay for students. The professor’s life is more self-centered.
It is about scholarship, professional meetings, publishing, and tenure.
Little else really matters. Most professors are probably unaware
of the cost of college tuition, room and board, and other fees. They
are not interested in how much it cost to attend public universities and
private schools. Students, on the other hand, understand the differences
all too well since they shoulder the debt. Professors are seemingly
indifferent to it. Their full-time job is to do what it takes to
get tenure even if it means poor teaching when emphasis is otherwise placed
on research and publishing.
This view may seem a bit hard to take,
and it may result in some criticism. Yet too many professors inside
and outside of professional education know that it is true. Part
of the reason is that during the professors’ education, they were not taught
to value teaching much less how to teach. It’s easier to think that
the PhD is about research, scholarship, and tenure (9). Little if
any thought goes into how to teach and why the college education is linked
to better jobs for the undergraduates. Teaching is something the
professors have to do because it is part of their assigned responsibilities.
It isn’t the real reason they were hired. Often, professors will
say, “I was hired to direct the Human Performance Laboratory, as if directing
the laboratory is somehow more important than teaching.” Others will
say, “My job is to write grants, do research, and promote the department
and/or college at professional meetings.” The work they devote to
realizing promotion and rewards is considerable and, oftentimes, misdirected,
especially if the students are left out of the picture.
Few, if any, exercise physiologists talk
about teaching. Their passion is promotion. What does it take
to get tenure and to be recognized in your field? Most have come
to believe it is about doing original research and publishing. They
believe that good teaching is pretty much a given. Anyone can teach
and, in fact, many people retire from other professions to do just that.
Try and convince someone that teaching requires hard work and you will
be in a battle for your senses. All PhDs, even those you would not
want to mentor your children, believe they can teach, that is, if forced
to discuss the topic. However, most professors are not really interested
in discussing the “how to” aspects of teaching. They do it because
it has to be done, and everyone does it, so what is the problem?
The problem is that many professors cannot
teach. There emphasis in graduate school was scholarship not teaching.
They know how to do research. They do not know how to teach.
They were not trained to teach, and they did not have to pass a licensure
to teach. Their lectures are boring and dry. They have little
reference to what teaching is about. Some professors never take their
eyes off their notes. They hold on to the podium like it is their
life source. Without the ability to read their notes, they would
be lost. Seldom do they make eye contact with their students and,
in fact, most professors seldom acknowledge their students. Instead,
they remained fixed to their notes and refuse to say much more than what
they read. Hard questions are seldom part of the lectures, and follow-up
readings that require critical inquiry are usually left for professors
to discuss between themselves.
Had the professors been taught ”how to
think” versus “what to think” and “how to teach” versus the assumption
that the “doctorate degree equals good teaching” – perhaps, a college education
would mean what it was meant to be. However, every year thousands
of young graduates leave college not much more enlightened or educated
than when they entered as first-year students. In theory, they are
supposed to be the educated. The problem is that every spring commencement
has its percentage of graduates who still ca not read or write and have
no idea why critical thinking is important. These graduates often
parallel the increase in the number of PhDs produced each year; many with
research skills, not teaching skills. Undergraduate teaching could
be said to suffer from overly specialized research professors who have
little to no interest in teaching. Incredibly as it sounds, each
year is a rehearsal for yet another year. Nothing has changed, and
nothing seems to change even with the expansion of more undergraduate programs.
The problem is that professors have been
allowed to construct their sense of reality within the institution.
They play by their rules, often copying simply what has been done earlier
while in graduate school, and when necessary order their events and thinking
to benefit themselves. Students have been and continue to be subservient
to ideas in academia, particularly the fraternity of scholars. On
occasion, there are a few professors who argue against the status quo in
favor of students, but the culture of academia is as it ever was.
But, in all fairness to research, the pursuit of knowledge and research
for the sake of knowledge and research is not enough! In fact, it
is problematic if it is not connected with society at large. Students
are in college to better themselves, to be educated in a specific field
of study, to access a job, perhaps, a better job than they had before entering
college. They expect the education paid by hard-earned money from
part-time jobs and loans to pay for itself. They are not comfortable with
the idea that pure scholarship has a right to displace an education and
hands-on skills to get a better paying job. Students expect professors
to be engaging and supportive. They certainly are not paying them
to be disengaged, non-supportive, and condescending, which is more frequently
what happens in major research institutions.
Without students, the idea of continuing
to pay professors is a bit stupid yet professors do not appear a least
bit worried. They should, at least as evidence by the closing of
some departments, be concerned and, in fact, their existence is in reality
a function of their students, however smart and scholarly the professors
might hold themselves to be. Students have more power than they use,
even in face of the obvious fear most students are forced to accept.
Students set the stage for the existence of college and its faculty.
Without students, college does not exist. Without the college work
environment, professors do not exist. Hence, when professors do not
respect students, the system breaks down and everyone ends up with less
than desired.
Professors do not seem to get the point,
however. They live in a world defined by the September to May academic
calendar; a world created by the profession of professors. It is
no wonder they think alike. Their thinking is consistent with the
priorities of other professors and scholars. Their work and the perception
of their worth are a function of the fact they are academic men and women.
They are the infrastructure of academic essence. There is not any
question that their work is important, both in scholarship and the commitment
to a better society that education affords. The concern is the displaced
passion for what they do, both in the classroom and the laboratory.
Surprisingly, the question is “Why aren’t they in touch with the
undergraduates as developing professionals?” Graduates who are committed
to exercise physiology and yet, with the support of professors, they are
often at the mercy of the public.
The staunch refusal to embrace the concerns
of the undergraduate makes reform difficult, but not impossible.
Professors will have to get over the knee-jerk defense of sports medicine.
A serious discussion (based on the contemporary view of job considerations,
salaries, and credentials) is past due and not at all an unreasonable request.
Similarly, professors have to get past the idea that research is “the”
reason for their existence. Professors are responsible to the students
and, if students need access to the public sector, then professors are
public servants. Their job is to market students and to enable them
to identify with other professionals in higher education. Not surprisingly,
many professors would disagree. The time has come to develop a new
way of thinking that transcends, yet respects the distinguished views of
the present-day professors
To be fair, many professors have not had
to think about the influence of their academic programs on how students
think. It’s perfectly understandable that for a variable period of
time all new professors would defer to their professors, to the experts
from which they learned the trade of scholarship. Why, therefore,
would they ponder the question “Are students learning what is necessary
to access a good job in the public sector?” For many, there isn’t
any reason to think more so about students than about scholarship.
But, if college graduates ca not get a good job, then college is either
not necessary or the education is not consistent with the path to success.
Both views lead to a paradox. If college is designed to access better
jobs with good salaries and, yet neither is a certainty, then what is the
point? If college is necessary to realize a good job with better
pay and, yet there are few such jobs, then logically the education itself
needs analysis. Having said this, if professors are not willing to
address the concerns of undergraduates, then the academic setting has only
a tenuous relationship to reality. That is, it’s nice to believe
that a major in kinesiology with an emphasis in exercise science produces
an exercise physiologist, but reality (and basic commonsense) suggests
otherwise.
Exercise physiologists need a serious discussion
about this issue, and they are not having it. Such a discussion would
help evaluate where exercise physiology is, academically speaking.
It would also help in encouraging all exercise physiologists to think about
what is expected from higher education. Seldom is there the opportunity
that ASEP provides today to rebuild and to produce entrepreneurs as well
as scholars. So what do we have to lose except our future as an emerging
profession, if we should fail to embrace the passionate pursuit of professionalism
that ASEP is built upon? Who we are is not as well understood as
most may think? Who or what will determine our direction as exercise
physiologists in the upcoming years is still an open question? Students?
Graduate students? Parents? Directors? Administrators?
Presidents? The answer is: All of the above. All of these
individuals have an interest in exercise physiology professionalism and
a good reason to see that the professionalization of exercise physiology
continues. All of them look at college as the force to create change
and to provide direction in shaping exercise physiology in higher education.
The “shaping” is not an easy task, although
possible. Professors will need to relate to their students, to society,
and to each other to embrace the new hope for a more significant role in
exercise physiology throughout the public sector. The idea of research
scholarship above all else is too narrow to share the work of shaping and
redefining the role of the university in the professionalization of exercise
physiology. One solution is to step away from the old beliefs and
mold of thinking and start fresh with ideas that support the process of
redefinition of teaching and the steps toward professionalism. Professors
should begin to respond, and respond actively, to the notion of professionalism.
They simply cannot remain passive resistors of change.
It would also be nice to think that the
academic community of exercise physiologists has come to recognize that
the American Society of Exercise Physiologists has undertaken meaningful
analysis of what is necessary to professionalize exercise physiology.
It is time that professors trained in research learn to extend themselves
to the community of college students within the ASEP organization.
The most effective way to do so is to make teaching as relevant as scholarship.
The following question is worth asking, “Do professors see themselves
primarily as faculty members, as members of sports medicine, or as public
servants?” It seems that most professors have difficulty seeing themselves
as public servants. Rather, they see themselves as researchers; a
by-product of the PhD culture of academia. They do not see themselves
working on behalf of their students, which is unacceptable. Today,
the “value of an education” is more important than the personal development
of the scholarship of the faculty. Students deserve good teaching
from faculty who are dedicated to serving their needs.
The Illusion of Learning
It is widely believed that professors
in charge of college courses are engaged in the remarkable phenomenon of
teaching that translates to learning. On closer inspection, however,
it becomes clear that teaching does not always result in learning.
Yet, people who are charged with teaching believe strongly that learning
is taking place. This article seeks to understand the illusion of
learning. It examines how we teach, how we think, and how we learn.
Several things are clear at the outset.
First, while there may be no single answer or right way to interpret, for
example, how we learn, our beliefs still need to be expressed and, if possible,
improved. Second, this article is not about running professors down.
They are professionals, and they probably care very much about their students.
Instead, it is about encouraging a discussion about how we think.
What do we know about teaching and helping our students compete at a higher
level of critical reflection? Keeping these considerations in mind,
it is a great credit to all professors who challenge their students to
think straight. Exercise physiology is a difficult subject, and it
should be carefully nurtured.
I cannot overemphasize the need for teachers
who know how to teach. There is no more important faculty member
than the dedicated teacher. Unfortunately, many college professors
are not good teachers. Most teach facts and force students to memorize
facts without looking for relationship and meaning. Their lectures
are sheets of indoctrination rather than “how to think”. Students
learn the professor’s beliefs, whether fallacious, misleading, or correct,
as knowledge. They take notes whether the professor’s lecture is
clear or not, whether it is based on scientific information or not, and
whether the content is in dispute or not. Students are seldom encouraged
to learn to think for themselves. In fact, if the student’s thinking
differs significantly from the professor’s views or insights, it is basically
overlooked or shaped by the professor’s comments. The latter differs
in style and methods, but inevitably all students are eventually turned
to the professor’s views if they wish to pass the course.
While professors are not taught how to
teach, the process often begins in graduate school. Their professors
lectured on what to learn and not how to learn. The professors failed
to emphasize the significance of teaching and the ethics of learning with
indoctrination. Instead, they emphasized the significance of empirical
research. Publishing articles is seen as more important than good
teaching. Learning how to apply statistical analysis to a set of
data is important. Finding time to become a critical thinker is not
important. Monological thinking is commonplace while multilogical
thinking is not. Playing up the role of the professor’s position,
as an expert, before the student is important, but teaching the student
how to think (vs. what to think) is not.
Nearly everyone recognizes that most professors
have little passion for teaching. Students know that the professors
give lip service to a universal understanding that if you are in front
of the class, you are teaching! Unfortunately, few have deeply committed
themselves to teaching students how to think and, herein lies the problem.
By not teaching the elements of how to think, students graduate thinking
they are educated in the fullest sense possible. They take their
professor’s perspective and believe that they are thinking correctly.
Yet, if the truth be told, educators from around the world understand that
the graduates need more. They need to learn how to think critically;
that is, to intellectually discriminate between clear vs. unclear thinking,
straight vs. crooked thinking, and critical vs. uncritical thinking.
To think critically requires a different
approach to how professors present information to their students.
It requires them to clearly distinguish between two or more answers to
questions such as: Will exercise prevent a heart attack? Will
lowering cholesterol prevent a heart attack? Will the practice of
progressive muscular relaxation decrease high blood pressure? Professors
are likely to suggest that the right answer is “yes” to each of these questions.
The truth is the professor may be sharing beliefs that are common to the
profession. The question is “Whether the beliefs result from the
“exercise” association with the research?” In other words, can exercise
physiologists get beyond their personalized beliefs about exercise and
disease prevention? If their thinking stems from tradition, then
there is a clear absence of thinking based on a balanced interpretation
of scientific research.
As teachers of exercise physiology we should
not impose an authoritative interpretation of “prevention” upon our students.
Instead, students should have the opportunity to study exercise physiology
to understand, evaluate, and use the information. They need to understand
that teaching is not always based on critical thinking. Unfortunately,
however, students have no idea that they are being presented a one-way
interpretation of their education. They are not even challenged to
reflect upon why a particular risk factor is likely to share several points
of view. Clarifying the relationships and finding good research articles
to offer a sympathetic view of the “other side” is not an objective of
most professors.
Consider, for example, that students are
told that cardiac rehabilitation results in an increase in cardiovascular
endurance in the post-myocardial infarction patients. On the surface,
this sounds good especially since the pubic sector has come to believe
that excellent cardiovascular endurance means freedom from cardiovascular
disease since disease itself is believed to have decreased endurance.
Who would not want their father or grandparents benefit from rehabilitation
with increased cardiovascular integrity (defined as an increase in maximum
oxygen consumption). Most exercise physiologists believe that cardiac
patients have improved the heart’s ability to eject a larger stroke volume
(and thus cardiac output). Since cardiac output essentially equates
to oxygen consumption (and thus more energy for muscle contraction), an
increase would be an expected positive physiological adjustment.
However, maximum oxygen consumption can
be increased in two major ways. The first method is by increasing
the patient’s ability to extract more oxygen in the periphery. As
such, then, the increase in maximum oxygen consumption (and thus cardiovascular
endurance) is not a central (heart) response but rather a peripheral (muscle)
response. The work capacity of the heart is essentially unchanged,
and it is very likely that the patient’s coronary artery disease has gotten
worse over time since exercise per se does not get rid of the disease.
The real danger is that with the increase in functional capacity, as a
function of the patient’s muscle fibers adjusting to the chronic exercise,
the patient may come to believe that he/she is free from the disease.
Unfortunately, unless the patient (and exercise physiology students) are
properly informed, they will very likely not have the understanding to
reason out the facts and the correct perspective.
Each student must learn to clarify exercise
physiology ideas, content, and concepts, and support them with good solid
facts. To do so, they need scientific knowledge to understand and
solve problems, particularly those having to do with the biology, chemistry,
and physiology of human performance. The real danger, however, is
that if students are not taught how to think critically, then they are
likely to accept without thinking the imposed authoritative interpretation
by their teachers. There is no more important subject than learning
how to think. Once we grasp the significance of reflective thought,
as well as the steps toward development within exercise physiology, then
we will be on our way to teaching our students to grasp the power in critical
analysis.
Bringing critical analysis into the curriculum
is essential but very difficult to do. Most professors are committed
to the indoctrination they received in graduate school. Few professors
have challenged their ability to examine the truth of what they hear, read,
write, and speak. The quest for intellectual rigor does not exist
outside the mainstream thinking. This means, therefore, there are
no new ways of thinking being taught to the students of exercise physiology.
No perspective, other than the professors’ view, is correct. As educators,
however, it is imperative that we integrate critical thinking into our
everyday teaching. The result of doing so will be increased depth
of understanding and intellectual synthesis.
Intellectual synthesis itself is next to
impossible without a paradigm shift whereby the professors take note of
how they teach. Far too often, lectures are viewed as disconnected
ideas with little emphasis on “personalizing” the content. Rather
than encouraging the students to take the content, study it, and figure
out how it might be useful in their own lives, the emphasis is instead
on learning the material for a grade. Success could be better defined
with the students’ definition to the question, “Why is it important to
integrate the ideas, concepts, and research findings from this course with
my personal life?” This way of thinking is not new, but seldom practiced
in exercise physiology. Yet, assuming that exercise physiologists
are educated to help members of the public sector, isn’t it be expected
of the professionals to first get their house in order before consulting
with and sharing prescriptive research information in print copy journals?
In other words, instead of the student’s
motivation being narrowly defined as passing the course with an “A”, and
the professor’s intent to present important yet often times disconnected
ideas without the consideration of personalized implications, emphasis
should be on enlightening the student and to further the professional role
of the professor. Hence the question, “Did the student learn
something about him- or herself?” Was the lecture format and content
linked to the development of the student’s moral integrity and responsible
citizenship? (8)
The Challenge of
Teaching Thinking
How many times have we heard the statement,
“Think about it.” Good advice and obviously an admonition of some
importance. But, what if both the professor and the student are not
sure what is meant by the word “think”. Is thinking simply a statement
of what one’s beliefs and/or attitudes might be about a particular topic?
Is it reflecting on a question presented by the professor or, perhaps,
to ponder an idea? (9) The latter example is closer to what experts
believe “to think” is if the effort is to realize a specific objective.
There is sufficient reason within the emerging
profession that the professionals should learn the importance of “how to
think” more so than ever before. Part of the reason is that
there are simply too many factors to consider to have caused “something”
without understanding the multi-faceted aspects of dysfunction and/or disease.
Exercise physiologists can no longer associate one thing with another in
conversation or counseling with middle-age adults and/or heart patients
and expect that their efforts are complete or right. Too long now,
the mis-management of scientific information has resulted in a certain
predictable one-sidedness that victimized the client. Change and
knowledge today are too fast and more complex than a decade ago and, in
spite of their best efforts to be helpful, exercise physiologists do not
generally introduce a balanced perspective on most health issues (e.g.,
risk factors for heart disease). Unfortunately, then, since
the client does not have alternatives to consider that might increase his/her
ability to choose wisely, the one-sided argument convinces the client to
do one thing. Figuring out what to believe is not a consideration.
The client is also not encouraged to judge the plausibility of specific
assertions by the exercise physiologist managing the program. Weighing
the evidence, considering the soundness of the inferences, and – thus to
think critically is part of the process (10).
The reader may have second thoughts after
reading the last paragraph. Did the write mean to say “mis-management”
of scientific information? In short, the answer is “yes” because
information provided by one professional versus another can and does take
on different purposes. From convincing a client that elevated low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol causes coronary artery disease (and thus the signs
and symptoms of heart disease: chest pain and/or myocardial infarction),
to specific philosophical positions, and to highly focused interpretations
of different health and/or fitness positions, all professionals (and anyone
for that matter interested in selling a product) are seeking attention
and acceptance of his/her claims. Figuring out what is good solid
science is difficult by today’s standards. It is even more challenging
to weigh the evidence of one approach over another without scientific training.
Of course, the education of scientific
matters of today’s college students should be a given. That is, students
should be taught how to think and not what to think. This in itself
is the problem. Professors who have finished the PhD degree within
the past 10 years (and actually many older PhD professors) are likely to
teach a fixed outlook, including methods and procedures, for dealing with
common exercise physiology topics. Botkin et al. (11) refers to this
type of teaching (and thus the way students learn as well) as a means to
maintaining an existing system or an established way of life. While
a useful learning style, it is not powerful enough to cope with the problems
of an aggressive and changing society. The authors contrast “maintenance
learning” with a new kind of learning they called “innovative learning”.
By definition, it is learning that questions assumptions, even the risk
factor correlations for heart disease that most exercise physiologists
embrace. Innovative learning questions ideas and beliefs that have
been around for decades. It is a kind of learning that seeks new
perspectives (10).
As founder and Editor of the PEPonline
electronic journal, I am especially interested in realizing the potential
of all exercise physiology students and professionals. The ability
to think effectively can no longer be considered a given. As professors,
we need to challenge ourselves to “think” through what we can do about
the situation. What kinds of concepts, courses, experiences in exercise
physiology are likely to increase critical thinking in our students?
How can PhD exercise physiology professors develop teaching strategies
that place greater emphasis on the teaching of thinking skills? What
kinds of laboratory experiences are not only necessary to full professional
development but enhance the student’s intellectual growth and spirit of
inquiry? How does ASEP instill in its members the indisputable fact
that to think effectively is related to role that college professors play
in teaching thinking skills systematically? Can ASEP members provide
the guidance for continued development of the academic curriculum beyond
the undergraduate level? If so, what kinds of subject matter and
hands-on experiences should be required at the master’s level? Can
critical thinking be taught at the PhD level? Is it likely that the
professor can assume the role of facilitating learning versus that of a
dispenser of knowledge? Implicit in all of the questions is the assumption
that the study of thinking is fundamental to the educational crisis in
exercise physiology. If critical thinking is central to professionalism,
then it is imperative that professors include the teaching of thinking
skills. The ability not just to think, but to think well is essential
for realization of a fulfilled life (12), and is essential to the professionalization
of exercise physiology.
Exercise Physiology
as a Profession
To understand fully the need for professionalism
in exercise physiology, it is necessary to look at exercise physiology
from several perspectives. This article provides an introduction
to the concept of critical thinking that can (and should) shape exercise
physiology as a science and a profession. Several historical and
present-day considerations regarding professors and how they teach have
been presented to help further the idea that change is important and a
basic foundation from which we grow professionally. It also provides
a context for understanding the many (most as yet unexplored) career opportunities
available in exercise physiology.
Service to the public sector is built into
the definition of professions and, by doing so, the professionals are provided
a means of self-realization and exercise physiology influence. The
discussion of this “influence” was briefly undertaken at the 3rd Annual
Meeting of ASEP in Albuquerque, NM (September 29-30). The President,
Dr. Robert Robergs, introduced it with several questions to stimulate responses
from the participants. While historically, however brief, exercise
physiologists have embraced the clinical areas of work in the public sector,
exercise physiology is larger than the more narrow title clinical exercise
physiology. The implication is that if exercise physiology is to
gain professional status and public recognition as a leader in health,
fitness, rehabilitation, and wellness, and sports, it must not limit itself
to just the clinical realm. In fact, the unique function of exercise
physiologists is to assist the individual and his/her performance issues
across the spectrum of physiology. The emphasis is therefore on an
understanding of the multi-faceted factors that influence the mind-body
interconnectedness and society’s understanding of our expertise in these
matters. In short, however the exercise physiologists can serve the
public in assisting individuals or groups promote, retain, or regain optimal
health and fitness is consistent with ASEP’s vision of service.
At this point, however, a few comments
are necessary to better understand the terms profession, professionalism,
and professionalization. Often, the term profession is taken to mean
“What is your work?” Considering that we have not had a formal beginning
as a profession, what we say we do is frequently defined by our certifications.
For example, someone might say, “I’m an exercise specialist or a health
fitness instructor.” The dozens of different titles does not help
the public sector understand what work we do, and they certainly do not
convey the impression that we are experts. Rather, to be referred
to as a professional (and thus an expert), there must be an association
with a profession from which the title of distinction, professional, defines
the professionalism of the individual(s). Professionalism per se
is typically defined, in part, by the academic preparation for entry into
professional work as an exercise physiologist. The professionalization
of exercise physiology is the process of adapting to the general criteria
for all professions.
If an occupation lives up to the criteria
for the traditionally accepted professions such as medicine, law, and the
ministry, it correct to believe that the aspiring occupation has the inherent
right to the title “profession”. The degree to which other occupations,
professionals, and the public sector agree with the view is another matter.
The truth is that most occupations are on a continuum of professionalization
and, thus entry of an occupation into the professional realm and status
is a question of time. At the very least, the professional status
of exercise physiology should be considered in light of the following general
criteria (13).
-
A body of knowledge on which skills and services
are based.
-
An ability to deliver a unique service to
the public sector.
-
Standardized college education.
-
Control of standards of practice.
-
Member responsibility and accountability for
their actions.
-
Career commitment by members.
-
Independent function.
Not only does exercise physiologists have
their own body of knowledge, as defined by several well written texts (14-22)
across decades of application and service to the public sector, but the
knowledge is also very unique in its application by exercise physiologists.
The question of whether exercise physiologists have a standardized academic
education is an open one with debate from several points of view.
In the strictest sense possible, it is clear that most academic programs
do not adhere to a specific “academic standard” and, unfortunately, are
defined by numerous different titles. This area is a major concern
if exercise physiology is to continue its movement towards recognition
as a profession. The recent adoption of the “Accreditation” document
developed by the ASEP Board of Accreditation should help continue the process
of professionalization.
At present, exercise physiologists do not
have a formal statement (i.e., standard) by which the quality of their
work can be judged. It is also an area that needs attention in that
standards emphasize professional judgment in the application of concepts,
ideas, and procedures obtained from the standardized education. There
is also the understanding that certain assumptions guide the application
process, including individual responsibility and accountability.
ASEP has recently implemented the first national certification for exercise
physiologists and, thus through the process of certification exercise physiologists
can be judged to be responsible and accountable. The certification
also carries with it the assumption of standards having been met and supported
by professional colleagues. The idea of accountability is not
new to exercise physiologists. They have been responsible to their
peers, employers, clients, and other interactions, as reflected in an increasing
use of exercise physiology information to guide the development and maintenance
of health, fitness, rehabilitation, and athletic matters.
Exercise physiologists also have their
own code of ethics. It was first published in 1996 (23) and subsequently
incorporated into the ASEP Charter (24) in 1997. The code guides
ASEP members and holds each accountable for the conduct and consequences
of employment in the different career options available to exercise physiologists.
With professionalization, exercise physiologists will also reach a significant
level of independence, especially as their niche in the public sector is
better defined. This process of becoming professionalized is a dynamic
effort that requires both time and planning. Certainly, the active
existence of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists should help
to bring together exercise physiologists from across the United States.
Increased cohesion is important to defining a developing profession or
an aspiring profession (25).
With respect to the process of professionalization,
the development of the discipline of exercise physiology as a profession
has followed the same general patterns as nursing, physical therapy, occupation
therapy, and other recognized professions. At first, there is a need
in the public sector (highlighting once again that the title profession
is also granted by the public). The need is (and is becoming increasingly
more important) the right kind of sound information to develop, maintain,
or regain optimal health and fitness, including but not limited to rehabilitation
and athletic and human performance activities. To a certain extent,
the academic exercise physiologists identified the specifics of basic to
advanced concepts, protocols, and training prescriptions that have been
transmitted in both formal and informal settings, including primarily but
not limited to health and wellness programs, adult fitness programs, cardiopulmonary
rehabilitation programs, and athletic programs. Gradually, the educational
programs at specific colleges and universities were developed in order
to educate professional exercise physiologists. Graduates are paid
for their services, which are defined and enforced according to the exercise
physiology Code of Ethics. In time, it is expected that the emerging
profession will expand its influence and related hands-on skills as more
academic programs become established in accordance with the ASEP accreditation
guidelines. With increased awareness and support by all exercise
physiologists, ASEP will be recognize as the professional organization
responsible for developing standards and holding its members accountable
for their career-interaction with the public sector.
References
1. Zechmeister, E.B. & Johnson, J.E.
(1991). Critical Thinking: A Functional Approach. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
2. Pittman, T.S. & Heller, J.F. (1987).
Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 461-489.
3. Taylor, R. (1967). Causation.
Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, Vol. 2 (pp. 56-66). New York, NY: Macmillan.
4. Boone, T. (1992). Coronary artery disease
predictions from epidemiological research: Some critical reflections. The
MAHPER Journal, 12:20-24.
5. Chapman, L.J. (1967). Illusory correlation
in observational report. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
6, 151-155.
6. Glenberg, A.M., Wilkinson, A.C., &
Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment
of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 597-602.
7. Handy, C. (1990). The Age of Unreason.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
8. Paul, R.W. (1993). Critical Thinking.
Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
9. Hansen, E.J. & Stephens, J.A. (2000).
The Ethics of Learner-Centered Education: Dynamics That Impede the Process.
Change. Vol. 33, September/October: 41-47.
10. Nickerson, R.S., Perkins, D.V., &
Smith, E.E. (1985). The Teaching of Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
11. Botkin, J.W., Elmandjra, M., &
Malitza, M. (1979). No Limits to Learning: Bridging the Human Gap.
England: Pergamon Press.
12. Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of
Argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13. Schein, E.H. & Kommers, D.W. (1972).
Professional Education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hall.
14. Ricci, B. (1967). Physiological
Basis of Human Performance. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
15. Noble, B.J. (1986).
Physiology
of Exercise and Sport. St. Louis, Missouri: Times Mirror/Mosby College
Publishing.
16. Pollock, M.L. & Wilmore, J.H.
(1990). Exercise in Health and Disease. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders
Company.
17. MacDougall, J.D., Wenger, Howard A.,
& Green, H.J. (1991). Physiological Testing of the High-Performance
Athlete. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Book.
18. Wilmore, J.H. & Costill, D.L.
(1994). Physiology of Sport and Exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
19. McArdle, W.D., Katch, F.I., &
Katch, V.L. (1996). Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human
Performance. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
20. Powers, S.K. & Howley, E.T. (1997).
Exercise Physiology: Theory and Application to Fitness and Performance.
Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
21. Robergs, R.A. & Roberts, S.O.
(1997). Exercise Physiology: Exercise, Performance, and Clinical Applications.
Baltimore, MD: Mosby.
22. McArdle, W.D., Katch, F.I., &
Katch, V.L. (1999). Sports & Exercise Nutrition. Baltimore,
MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
23. Boone, T. (1995). Code for exercise
physiologists: Medicolegal considerations for ethical practice.
The
Exercise Standards and Malpractice Reporter, 9:1-6.
24. American Society of Exercise Physiologists
(1997). Charter.[Online] Available:http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/charter.htm
25. Lindberg, J.B., Hunter, M.L., &
Kruszewski, A.Z. (1994). Introduction to Nursing: Concepts, Issues,
and Opportunities. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Company.
Copyright
©1997-2000 American Society of Exercise Physiologists. All Rights
Reserved.
ASEP
Table of Contents
Questions/comments
