PEPonline
Professionalization
of
Exercise Physiologyonline
An
international electronic
journal
for exercise physiologists
ISSN
1099-5862
Vol
3 No 7 July 2000
|
Exercise Physiology
and Physical
Education: A Graduate
Student’s Perspective
Jesse Pittsley
Department of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN
Introduction
When I entered the graduate
program in exercise physiology in early September of 1999, I knew that
two of the three professors in the department had an undergraduate degree
in physical education. I assumed that a high percentage of the graduate
students would also have academic training in physical education.
However, to my surprise, I found that I was wrong. Only a small number
of the students (3 out of the 25) had come from a physical education background.
Most of the students had undergraduate degrees in biology, zoology, physiology,
exercise physiology, and exercise science! My stereotype of the coach
and the teacher going on to get a master’s degree quickly changed to the
idea of a young scientist applying his/her knowledge to exercise and/or
rehabilitation. I also realize just how different my undergraduate
degree in physical education is from the discipline of exercise physiology.
The professional concerns and differences between the two disciplines are
much wider than I originally thought.
Where
It All Began
After some reflection, it
is hard for me to believe that exercise physiology grew from the physical
education of the past. But, that is exactly what happened.
From the early calisthenics days to the sport and game themes of the middle
and later periods of physical education, certain physical educators were
interested in the science of human movement. At one time, it was
reasonable to conclude that the two disciplines could have been referred
to easily in the same sentence without much difference in meaning.
A brief look at history supports this point. Eight of the 11 founders
of the American College of Sports Medicine (1) and the
two founders of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists (2)
were all physical educators at one in time. Yet, gradually but certainly
overtime the gap between the two disciplines has increased.
An interesting question is, “What has caused the separation?”
The
Separation Factors
It is common in today's
culture for disciplines to separate and define themselves. In many
ways, separation is a necessary step to survive and to grow. Was
this the reason exercise physiologists created their own academic programs
(i.e., to get beyond the negative mystique that is sometimes associated
with physical education)? Or, perhaps, it was as simple as a professional
choice to work with different populations? "Hey, you guys take the
schools, we'll take the clinics and the public sector, and after a few
decades everybody will be skinny." Whatever the reason, the gap between
the two disciplines is present and widening. Today, it is more difficult
to bridge the two disciplines than just a few years ago. As we begin
this century and a new era for exercise physiology, it is important to
examine the reasons that may be responsible for branched away from our
roots. This knowledge could be important in making correct decisions
about further changes our profession will undoubtedly make.
ASEP
Accreditation
The separation of exercise
physiology and physical education has become very clear with the establishment
of ASEP's Accreditation Program (3). The established
ASEP undergraduate curriculum for exercise physiology demonstrates an objective
beginning point for academic preparation necessary to be an exercise physiologist.
This point, when implemented, will be one of no turning back. Exercise
physiology students at the graduate level will have an undergraduate “degree”
in exercise physiology. Their course work will include more science
prerequisites in addition to the typical physics, chemistry, and statistics
courses. The department core courses will be increased to include
basic and advanced exercise physiology, biomechanics, exercise testing,
prescription, and electrocardiography, clinical cardiopulmonary rehabilitation,
sports nutrition, and exercise biochemistry. Hence, part of what
has created the two distinct disciplines is the academic coursework that
is required for an undergraduate degree in exercise physiology. Physical
education students take courses that prepare them to teach, primarily in
the public school system. Exercise physiology students are prepared
to engage in a variety of other types of jobs in the public sector.
ASEP
Certified Exercise Physiologist
The Certified Exercise Physiologist
(EPC) exam is another area where the separation is clearly stated (4).
Few physical educators have taken a sufficient number of science prerequisites
to sit for the exam. The typical physical education curriculum requires
a course in exercise physiology and kinesiology (and/or biomechanics),
but how many students have experience in exercise testing and prescription,
cardiovascular physiology, and exercise biochemistry? The difference
in academic courses implies a difference in knowledge background.
In fact, all the reader has to do is take a look at the EPC questions at
the end of the Manual. I’m confident that the type of questions presented
requires information that simply isn’t part of the content of physical
education. This is very likely the case with many physical education
majors with a concentration in exercise science, which brings up the question,
“How many students from typical Exercise Science and Human Performance
programs will have the necessary academic preparation to past the EPC exam?”
Exercise
Physiology Defining Itself
With the implementation
of ASEP Accreditation expected to take place this coming academic year
(2000-2001) and ASEP Certification during the 3rd Annual Meeting, state
licensure is down the road (but closer than ever before). All three
ASEP initiatives have defined exercise physiology (5).
This is as it should be, that is, an emerging profession defined by the
players themselves rather than by others. The process itself is by
no means negative. Professionals in physical education as well as
other academic fields of study have had these academic processes in place
for decades.
For years, it has been clearly
stated that an exercise physiologist and those from other areas cannot
legally teach physical education in the public school setting. The
state governments require strict scrutiny as to who teaches children.
The same should (and will be) applied to exercise physiologists.
Just like various state requirements (such as multicultural, mainstreaming,
and adaptive education classes) have defined the educator of different
professions, the established academic courses proposed by ASEP's Accreditation
program will objectively define exercise physiology. Soon,
with everything in place, with increased specialized academic coursework,
the exercise physiologist will very likely not be recognized as a physical
educator and the physical educator will not be recognized as an exercise
physiologist.
Separation
Is Inevitable
In our modern day culture
this type of separation is inevitable and often times a form of survival.
To ensure a strong hold in the job market and to maintain some form of
legal stability, countless professions are working to establish their creditability.
Without an established hold in the job market a profession may cease to
exist. The same is true if the actions of the profession are not
legally supported. State governments license its educators.
Exercise physiologists need to be licensed as well. Change is good,
and the reason exercise physiologists have evolved away from physical education
is good for both professions. One significant reason is that the
students from each profession will no longer be confused as to what constitutes
a physical education or exercise physiology. Each will have its own
professional markets and job opportunities without the confusing overlap
that is so evident today. With exercise physiologists in the clinical
and corporate worlds and the physical educators in the school systems,
a larger portion of the population will be reached in the teaching and
fulfillment of health related issues. Besides this natural evolution
that has allowed for both to exist in harmony, there are possibly other
reasons why this break has transpired and is necessary.
The
One-Sided View
Do exercise physiologists
view physical education as a failed profession? Most physical educators
would tell you that they have not failed, and it is actually the system
that has not allowed them to succeed. With the outside pressure
to increase math and science scores, physical education is one of the first
areas cut in the public schools. There is also the obvious
unnecessary pressure of living up to the idea that “I’m a PE teacher, and
society’s narrow view of what it means to teach PE.”
When both are considered
together, it is no wonder physical education is having a tough time of
it in many schools across the United States. Recently, in a national
magazine (6), it was reported that "fewer than half of
the nation's schools offer physical education and the number of schools
offering daily gym classes has dropped from 42% to 29% in the 1990s." Although
the magazine is not a scientific source, the numbers do demonstrate that
something has gone wrong somewhere. With fast foods, television and sedentary
living, and heart disease dominating much of today’s thinking, one would
think that there is value in having physical education in the public schools.
Unfortunately, physical education
is not valued as much as math, science, and music. Society
and school administrators, in particular, don’t seem to understand the
importance of prevention (regardless of how often it is discussed).
The wait and see idea, and the fact that “activity” has so little value
compared to the math calculator has all but done away with comprehensive
physical education programs. Even some exercise physiologists have
made statements to me that illustrate their lack of respect for physical
education. Their beliefs and ideas stem from the fact that they hold
physical educators responsible for their failure to sell and promote physical
education. This is however an unfair evaluation because “what sells”
depends on the public’s notion of what is valued.
While I was completing my
undergraduate degree, I believed that a good physical education program
should be accompanied by a strong health education component. My personal
feeling is that physical education should be taught 3 days/week (such as
MWF) with two days/week of lecture. Those who have come from the
new generation of physical education agree with the 3:2 ratio, activity:lecture
and, in time, it may become a more consistent part of the curriculum.
The change itself, however, simply was not going to happen fast enough
for me. I made the transition from physical education to exercise
physiology to help find a better way and, yes, a home for my beliefs.
The combination of lecture and activity is not uncommon to exercise physiologists.
Many cardiopulmonary rehabilitation
programs directed by exercise physiologists have a strong emphasis in education
and lifestyle modification, in addition to the standard exercise programs.
My lecture/activity belief was more strongly accepted in the area of exercise
physiology and, therefore, I made the professional transition. I
plan to stay with exercise physiology. Although I am just one example,
I believe that the desire for a stronger emphasis in science academic coursework
is sufficient to encourage others to also make the transition. This
difference in philosophy could be a source of misunderstanding between
the two disciplines.
It is also possible that
some exercise physiologists feel that physical education has failed to
incorporate a more holistic approach to fitness development. If so,
is this a failure or just a difference in means and targeted populations?
Physical educators, for example, have for decades attempted to develop
people (young and old) through movement. Teaching fine motor and
interpersonal skills while expecting the by-product of physical fitness
to take place isn’t an easy task, especially in a 50-minute class several
days a week.
Exercise physiologists, on
the other hand, develop fitness through applied physiology across many
months of training. They attempt to promote a healthier lifestyle
with cardiovascular and neuromuscular development, and they do so frequently
with college-age and older adults. Physical educators, on the other
hand, aren’t generally in position with middle and high school jobs to
exercise their students between 30 to 40 minutes/day, 5 days/week, in their
individualized 60-80% age-predicted heart rate range. The physical
educator is looking to make the experience fun and productive for motor
skill development in a population that responds well to that type of stimulus.
Members of both disciplines work towards the same general outcome of a
population that isn't afraid to exercise with slightly different means.
The
“Coach” Image
Up to this point I have
presented the natural evolution or differences in philosophy that might
have influenced both disciplines. I would now like to examine
some other reasons that might not be as positive. For example,
it is a belief that physical education shot itself in the foot several
decades ago and has worked since then to rid itself of its old stereotypes.
Neither of my parents speaks of the physical education experience they
had in a positive light. Instead, my parents’ generation is
often heard talking about the image of physical education.
That image is a large overweight
man in navy blue shorts and a gray t-shirt that says "COACH" on the front
with a whistle in one hand and a cigar in the other yelling at them to
"pick it up" as they run around a football field. Although this is
a comical generalization, I do not see my parents’ opinion being in the
minority. This is especially enlightening, given that the students
of yesterday are in control of the educational funding of today.
Since physical education programs around the country are being cut, then
it is no surprise that some parents of today have relatively little respect
for the physical education of yesterday?
With the negative feelings
surrounding physical education, did the exercise physiologists run to avoid
being associated with those thoughts? I sometimes picture an exercise
physiologist giving a lecture at a seminar when somebody in the audience
recognizes that he was once a physical education teacher. "Hey, he
used to be a gym teacher, he made us shower in front of our friends.
Get him!" The vocal member of the audience screams as the former
physical educator/current exercise physiologist attempts to flee.
Scampering down hallway after hallway to avoid the angry mob, he eventually
slips inside a room. He puts on a lab coat to help with a disguise
and examines his new hiding place. "Ah, the biochemistry lab, they'll
never find me in here." This cowardly fleeing from the negative
feelings surrounding a profession is a political maneuver we do not need
in a new discipline. I feel is says nothing positive about our profession
and could be done in a more productive manner for both professions, assuming
of course that such feelings exist and the “lab coat” story actually happens.
Very likely, exercise physiology
in America has evolved from being a "scientific" physical education to
an "applied" physiology. Although I see this as a positive shift
in terminology, this was partly caused by an elitist attitude that we no
longer wanted to be associated with "games." Moreover, to gain acceptance
into the "real" scientific community, some feel we need to rid ourselves
of the physical education anchor that has prevented us from sailing.
We've all met those poor individuals trapped inside their ivory towers.
The exercise physiologists who call themselves “physiologists” or the
“cardiovascular physiologists” or the “exercise biochemists” in hopes of
gaining more prestige.
The
Importance Of An Academic Degree
I believe it is clear that
if a person’s degree is in physical education, then that person is not
an exercise physiologist. If the degree is in exercise physiology
(7), then that person is not a physiologist. It
is as simple as, “How many would be willing to call himself or herself
a doctor of medicine without having an MD degree?” The same
should be true for exercise physiologists who call themselves biochemists.
Yes, I agree, biochemistry is an important part of exercise physiology.
But, I do not see it proper for someone to refer to him- or herself as
an exercise biochemist unless that person has a significant number of courses
(such as an academic minor) in chemistry.
It seems that a certain percent
of the exercise physiologists feels that the more they get involved with
the "real" sciences and less involved with the “fun and games” then the
more they will be respected and, yes, the more the profession they are
associated with will be respected. And, yet, it is interesting
that a discipline (such as exercise physiology) that has worked so hard
to establish its own identity have individuals within it that are closely
associating themselves with other fields to gain respect. In my opinion,
it is counterproductive. Probably, part of the problem is that such
thinking very likely stems not from a strong rooted philosophy but rather
a feeling of insecurity arising from not being accepted in the academic
community. I find this perspective to be illogical because the work
of exercise physiologists should speak for itself.
Summary
It is very positive and
productive that exercise physiologists are working hard to establish their
own identity. They are in position now to decide what they want to
incorporate into their thinking, and how they would like to evolve as a
profession. And, for the first time in history, they now have a means
to discuss the reasons for change and independence from physical education.
Whether exercise physiologists evolved to survive is still an open question?
Whether they left because of a difference in philosophy is also an unanswered
question? Did they run and hide to avoid a negative aura, or
did they strut away with our noses in the air? Still, more unanswered
questions. Whatever the reasons might be, it is important to examine
them and to understand the decisions from which the emerging profession
is built upon.
References
1. Foss,
M and Keteyian, J (1998). Fox's Physiological Basis for
Exercise and Sport (6th edition). Madison: McGraw-Hill.
2. American
Society of Exercise Physiologists (2000) [Online] Available: www.css.edu/ASEP/
3. American
Society of Exercise Physiologists (2000). [Online] Available: http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/accredit.htm
4. American
Society of Exercise Physiologists (2000). Information for EPC Candidates.
[Online] Available: http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/EPCManual.html
5. American
society of Exercise Physiologists (2000). Goals and Objectives. [Online]
Available: http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/goals.htm
6. Cowley,
George. (2000). Generation XXL. Newsweek. July 3:40-44.
7. Boone,
T. (1999). What's in a title? [Online] Available: http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/fldr/terms6.htm
Copyright
©1997-2000 American Society of Exercise Physiologists. All Rights
Reserved.
ASEP
Table of Contents
Questions/comments