PEPonline Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline An international electronic journal for exercise physiologists ISSN 1099-5862 Vol 3 No 6 June 2000 The Exercise Physiology Core Curriculum  Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP Professor and Chair Director, Exercise Physiology Laboratories College of St. Scholastica Duluth, MN THE CONTENT OF THE collegiate curriculum for individuals specializing in exercise physiology, be it at a small liberal arts college or a large research oriented university, is a topic of concern.  For students selecting exercise physiology as their major, the primary focus has been on graduate programs, rather than on developing programs that support the full spectrum of undergraduate majors requiring a strong core curriculum.  In the past, the rationale offered for the focus on graduate programs was based on the preparation for doctorate studies in exercise physiology.  Today, the conversation is shifting, as it must, to meet the needs of the undergraduate college students as they prepare to enter a world governed by credentials, run by certification and licensure models. This article, perhaps more than any other article I’ve written for PEPonline, began years ago as Graduate Coordinator at another university.  It began with a discussion and a quick change in both the curriculum and the demands on the faculty to build an exercise physiology doctorate program.  That was in 1981 at the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg, MS.  The doctorate program had a positive influence on many individuals who are now college teachers throughout the United States.  In fact, the success of the graduate programs helped change the direction of the undergraduate program from a physical education curriculum to an exercise science curriculum.  The course changes and professional direction the School of Human Performance and Recreation were evident in the hiring of two additional exercise physiologists, for a total of four PhDs who taught in the exercise physiology programs.  This reconceptualization of exercise physiology called for new thinking throughout the School (that was comprised of five academic departments at the time) as well as the faculty from the various departments.  Recommendations for developing the undergraduate exercise science program included the discussion of dropping physical education, which I disagreed with.  Physical education has its place and, in my opinion, will always be part of the college academic offerings.  But, central to the content recommendations for a collegiate major in exercise physiology is the fact that exercise physiologists need their own curriculum.  The major should be built on a philosophy that includes a focus on the exercise physiology “sciences” that lay the foundation for the academic preparation of an exercise physiologist.  However, there are only a few academic programs that offer an undergraduate degree in exercise physiology.  While it is not altogether clear why this is the case, it has something to do with the historical roots of exercise physiology emerging from physical education.  Institutional rigidness that I frequently refer to as the “inertia” of long-standing departments is certainly a reason for so little curriculum reform.  Another factor is the exercise physiology faculty who appear, as a collective body,  incapable of making programmatic changes.  There is also the inertia of the department that is poised to address the needs of other departments that result in a lack of adequate resources and support for exercise physiology laboratories and research efforts.  These reasons and others are keeping exercise physiology flat with untested academic opportunities. The question is “Why haven’t the large, well-known colleges and universities undertaken meaningful undergraduate curriculum changes to promote the professionalization of exercise physiology?”  At the present, many programs throughout the United States are simply outdated models of what they should be.  It simply isn’t good business to continue with academic programs that graduate students as exercise physiologists when, in fact, the course offerings are simply a rearrangement of the physical education model.  It is imperative that academic exercise physiologists consider new ways of meeting the needs of both their majors entering college and to better serve the exercise physiology profession.  To do so, exercise physiologists have to think of changes in their core curriculum that go beyond the present physical education/exercise science model.  These exercise physiology “look alike” programs and departments are not helping the professionalization of exercise physiology by continuing to serve the needs of physical education or other departments majors, including (but certainly not limited to) kinesiology.  To continue to do so is, in effect, to abandon the academic service and ethical responsibility of an institution to those who would choose exercise physiology as their major. Take for example a recent email to the ASEP National Office regarding the upcoming Exercise Physiologist Certified (EPC) exam that asked the following question, "I am a Kinesiology major attending a Midwestern State University.  Can I apply for the EPC exam with a Kinesiology degree?  Now, consider the EPC educational requirements to sit for the exam. "To be eligible to sit for the examination, a candidate must meet ASEP’s educational and membership requirements by completing "one of the first 3" and #4 and #5:  1. An academic degree with an academic major in exercise physiology.  2. An academic degree with an academic major in exercise science. 3. An academic degree with an academic concentration in exercise physiology or exercise science.             AND            4. Up-to-date ASEP membership.             5. Satisfactory completion (“C” or better) of five of the following eight            academic courses:                      a). Exercise physiology (including but not limited to titles:                     physiology of exercise and sport; advanced exercise physiology;                     cardiovascular physiology; and physiology of exercise);                      b). Cardiac rehabilitation (including but not limited to titles: health                     and fitness testing; cardiopulmonary rehabilitation; exercise                     prescription; exercise testing; exercise electrocardiography);                      c). Exercise metabolism (including but not limited to titles:                      exercise biochemistry and exercise regulation and metabolism);                      d). Kinesiology (including but not limited to titles: anatomical                     kinesiology; applied anatomy; neuromuscular kinesiology; and                     advanced kinesiology);                      e). Research design (including but not limited to titles: research;                     research design; test and measurements; and statistics);                      f). Sports biomechanics (including but not limited to titles:                     biomechanics; and mechanical kinesiology);                      g). Environmental physiology (including but not limited to titles:                     environmental exercise physiology; and altitude training); and                      h). Sports nutrition (including but not limited to titles: sports                     nutrition and ergogenic aids; and exercise nutrition)." (1) If exercise physiologists are interested in developing themselves as professionals, they must engage in the same behaviors as members have in other professional fields of study.  They can't continue to confuse and mislead students by with academic offerings with different names and still encourage the students to believe that they are something else.  Simply stated, kinesiology is not exercise physiology even should the course work be similar.  There are many professional fields of work in which the students study from the same books or engage in the same relative analysis of concepts and ideas!  But, the students are defined by the college or university "academic degree".  That is the way it has been and, logically, the way will continue to be because it makes sense.  Again, while both the PT and the OT may study the same anatomy and so forth, the academic degree defines who they are and what they can do in the public sector.  Clearly, then, if ASEP is interested in defining the exercise physiologist, then it must be defined based on the existence of an academic degree in exercise physiology.  Why?  Because there are academic majors in exercise physiology throughout the United States.  Once again, since we are talking about exercise physiologists, then the academic programs that offer the exercise physiology academic degree must be the "beginning point" in identifying the academically prepared exercise physiologists (just as we would do for the academically prepared PT or nurse).  The physical therapy profession would not, for example, allow a person who graduates with a physical therapy assistant degree refer to him- or herself as a physical therapist.  Obviously this is true for nursing or any other professional field of study.  It must also be true with the emerging exercise phsyiology profession.  We, especially those of us who teach at the college level, must begin the process of change in our outlook on what we are or otherwise we will always remain as second-class professionals. To argue my point a bit further, please consider that the person who emailed the ASEP National Office also stated the following:  "My course load includes: Anatomy and physiology I and II Foundations of kinesiology Tests and measurements of human performance Physiology of exercise Anatomical kinesiology Mechanical kinesiology Advanced athletic training Exercise prescription and programming Nutrition and exercise" In other words, although the student will not graduate with an academic major in exercise physiology (or exercise science or a recognized academic minor in either), h/she will have taken at least five of the eight courses identified by ASEP as important to the undergraduate core curriculum.  Yet, h/she is not eligible to sit for the EPC exam because the academic major, Kinesiology, is not Exercise Physiology.  Now, you may but the course is the same.  Please remember that it isn't necessarily just the course work that is important in developing a professional in a particular field of study (as is evident in so many healthcare professionals).  It is more, much more, and most importantly, it is the recognition from the beginning of the academic study of a specific profession that both the student and the faculty understand the vision and mission of a particular professional program of study.  No where within the context of an academic setting is there more confusion in the "product" at graduation than in the history of the physical educator turned kinesiologists who believes h/she is an exercise physiologist.  So, the answer is "NO" -- the young college student has not met all of the EPC academic requirments to sit for the exam.  In short, what is the corrective measure?  Two important corrections must be made: 1) the academic programs are interested in encouraging their graduates to refer to themselves as exercise physiologists, then they should consider re-naming the academic major; and 2) students who wish to be an exercise physiologist should locate an academic institution that offers an academic degree in exercise physiology.  It really is that simple.  Why?  Because it is commonsense. Colleges and universities that already have an academic degree in exercise physiology should be recognized as programs that stand out as a test bed for curriculum changes.  The fact that these programs exist and have done so successfully for some years should encourage other institutions to make changes.  Unfortunately, the changes in core courses and/or academic title  have not come about as a reasonable person would have expected.  Given the need for change, as cited in the previous example, and the existence of institutions with academic degrees in exercise physiology, the ASEP Board of Directors considered the concepts and procedural steps that might lead to the creation of a new undergraduate set of core requirements.  The document that addresses this work is headed by Dr. Dale Wagner of Vanguard University in California.  He and his Accreditation Committee have finalized the beginning steps to revise the undergraduate major along the lines of a core curriculum serving the academic and professional needs of those students majoring in exercise physiology. Questions about modernizing and upgrading the physical education/exercise science (or one of any dozen of other names and combinations) curriculum to exercise physiology are seldom discussed or taught.  Sadly, curriculum development is not something that PhD candidates know much about and, therefore, upon graduation, they continue “what is” versus “what can be”.  While radical reform is seldom the spark for change to take place in a very quick period of time, it is nonetheless useful in beginning the process.   It helps with the synthesis of evolving ideas and beliefs that shape the emotional and intellectual climate for confronting the new reality of an emerging profession.  Many of us can remember when physical education was physical education.  We also understood the distinction of the PhD program in exercise physiology versus the PhD program in physical education.  Clearly, many doctorate programs in exercise physiology are defined by a common core curriculum even should the degree itself is defined by the department as a doctorate in physical education.  The emphasis, at least on paper, is in actuality, an academic degree and, yet even the PhD exercise physiologist is technically not an exercise physiologist (given the comparison to the earlier example).  It seems that the spread in interest for doctorate prepared exercise physiologists has outstripped the department or school chairs' or directors' ability or understanding to keep pace.  Either they were (and still are) unable to get the academic dean to agree to an academic major in exercise physiology or a name change from kinesiology to exercise physiology or from exercise science to exercise physiology.  Or, worst yet, perhaps, it is simply easier to keep the exercise physiology emphasis attached to the existing physical education (or whatever title) degree.  My point here is not to come down just on the administrators as though they are “the” problem that has set in motion decades of misunderstanding.  However, they are the administrators.  They are responsible to the students of the institution as well as to the President and his/her administrative staff and the specificity of what the department offers to the community and the parents who send their children to the institution.  In short, the inertia of systems must change. It is time nonetheless that academic exercise physiologists begin the discussion of matching the academic degree with the students' professional expectations as well as the need for a core curriculum for the exercise physiology major within their departments.  It is time that they become the pacesetter in their department and/or school.  The challenges are many, and facing the challenges with the right responses will take time.  It has to begin, however.  In this regard, one important challenge is to start teaching professionalism, ethics, and standards of conduct.  These are importrant beginning points that set the stage for critical thinking and the more common experiences in the tradition course in exercise physiology.  Also, since the obvious diversity in program offerings and the widely different expectations of the faculty and department aren’t helping to swing exercise science to exercise physiology, both academic diversity and faculty expectations must be examined and, perhaps modified.  Why? Because the lack of academic specificity and the lack of a contemporary vision of professionalism distract from the focus on the emerging professional, the student.  Too much attention has been placed on maintaining the traditional dictate without integrating the students’ needs into curriculum design.  As a consequence, the majority of the graduates are looking at dead-end jobs based on “too much of this and not enough of that”, resulting in a chaotic mixture without specificity.  Courses should serve the students who believe they are majoring in exercise physiology.  Look-alike courses don’t help.  Instead, they serve the inertia of “do nothing” because it has always been done this way.  Courses should not only attract students to a major, but have a purpose in the profession itself.  They should challenge and inspire students and, thus move the profession forward. In other words, there should be a simultaneous focus on issues of pedagogy, content order, course organization, and learning alongside the challenging matters of research and publishing.  Curriculum design with a purpose in mind can help exercise physiology majors focus on a sustained commitment to health, fitness, wellness, rehabilitation, and athletics.  It can help them become better contributors to the emerging profession and, as their confidence grows with pride as exercise physiologists, they will be more effective teachers, clinicans, administrators, leaders, and researchers.  By helping, the key is understanding that the curriculum should “service what we are”.  What we do should be taught, highlighting the important concepts and illuminating the public sector problems.  Otherwise without realistic scenarios, what is the point?  Those with good memories will remember that exercise physiology grew out of physical education.  The point of the physical educator with a strong physiology background was to design a single course (such as the “new” exercise physiology vs. the physiology of exercise ) with new possibilities.  Indeed, the new course set the stage for creating other new courses.  Imagine if the physical educator/exercise physiologist had created a new curriculum instead of just a new course, there would not be the present and unfortunate continuation of the existing parallel between physical education/exercise science and exercise physiology.  Students who have successfully completed an exercise physiology major are better prepared than those students who have previously studied physical education with a concentration in exercise science.  It is time that academic exercise physiologists and department chairs and directors come to terms with this fact.  They need to understand that today's students who graduate with an undergraduate academic major in exercise physiology take both number and type of courses that are generally consider master level courses in exercise science.  The challenge is to upgrade the undergraduate curriculum and to change the major from a combination of physical education (or kinesiology, or human performance, or “whatever”) with an emphasis in exercise science to a major in exercise physiology.  The proposed change fits the ASEP vision (2).  It is both exciting and difficult to realize the change – exciting  because it moves exercise physiology into the professional ranks with other professionals – difficult because finding the right people to facilitate change is a challenge.  Why? Because the underlying philosophy of the physical educator, even as an exercise physiologist, is extraordinarily rigid.  The traditional thinking has not allowed for an intuitive understanding of the “important ideas” enumerated in the ASEP Charter (3).  After saying all of this, the question is “Will the college departments come to grips with this problem?” It stands to reason they will.  If they don’t, the probable price of not accepting this challenge would be to see other non-academic fields begin to devise their own means for providing students with what they feel is necessary to locate good paying jobs.  To begin with, the making of the exercise physiology curriculum should no longer be “a continuation of the same” but an enlarged and updated perspective on exercise physiology reform.  This, of course, is a problem shared in some degree by all academic exercise physiologists, and answers are to be found only in an openness now largely unavailable to the exercise physiology community. References 1. American Society of Exercise Physiologists (2000). Information for EPC Candidates: Exercise Physiologist Certified. [Online]. Available: http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/EPCManual.html 2. American Society of Exercise Physiologists (2000). ASEP Vision. [Online]. Available:http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/vision.htm 3. American Society of Exercise Physiologists (2000). ASEP Charter. [Online]. Available:http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/charter.htm Note: For a similar document, click here. Copyright ©1997-2000 American Society of Exercise Physiologists. All Rights Reserved. ASEP Table of Contents Questions/comments