Play, Games and Cognitive Development: Late Nineteenth-Century and Early Twentieth-Century Physicians, Neurologists, Psychologists and Others Already Knew What Researchers Are Proclaiming Today

Abstract

‘Exercise and Children’s Intelligence, Cognition, and Academic Achievement’, which appeared in the Educational Psychology Review in 2008, is only one of a growing number of recent studies that support the assertion that physical activity is important for cognitive development. Most people today are probably unaware that more than 100 years ago, numerous physicians, neurologists, psychologists and physical educators already knew this. In 1876 neurologist James J. Putman (who had studied in England with the noted neurologist John Hughlings Jackson) had advocated the initiation of public school physical education. At the same American Social Science Association meeting physician David F. Lincoln stated that both manual training (the more ‘applied’ form of motor activity) and gymnastics (the ‘more pure kinetic’ form) are essential parts of a child’s education. Many of their contemporaries expressed similar views. One of these was the noted turn-of-the century psychologist G. Stanley Hall, who wrote often about the importance of play, games and educationally oriented sports for both physical health and neurological development. Others understood the importance of creating the school-based and community programmes that were needed to make what researchers were finding – and asserting – a reality. Physical education was increasingly made part of the curriculum. By 1904 most of the more than 100 ‘settlement houses’ in the USA included recreational and sports programmes for children, youth and often adults. Following its founding in 1906, the Playground Association of America became a major force in extending such work. By the 1920s, the needed programmes had grown extensively. As Michael O’Shea (a professor at the University of Wisconsin) reasserted in his 1924 book The Child: His Nature and His Needs, well-designed programs are needed to put “words” (the findings of research) into practice. Beginning in the 1970s these needed programs, which had existed in the USA for more than 50 years, began a sharp decline. By 2006, at the same time that many research articles were appearing that supported daily physical education, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that only about 30% of boys and girls were attending such classes. Books such as educational psychologist Jane Healy’s Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think and What To Do About It (1990) already had cautioned readers about the negative effects of such things as scripted teaching, which would infect the curriculum following the enactment of the well-intended, but poorly conceived, ‘The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001’. Perhaps it is not surprising that recently a growing number of books, articles and Internet postings have been calling for the restitution of quality physical education and community recreational programs. This article investigates these and related matters.

O exercício e a inteligência, o conhecimento e desempenho escolar das crianças”, que apareceu na revista Educational Psychology Review, em 2008, é um entre um número crescente de estudos recentes que sustentam a afirmação de que a atividade física é importante para o desenvolvimento cognitivo. A maior parte das pessoas de hoje provavelmente não sabem que há mais de 100 anos atrás, diversos médicos, neurologistas e educadores físicos já sabiam disso. Em 1876, o neurologista James J. Putman (que havia estudado na Inglaterra com o famoso neurologista John Hughlings Jackson) defendera o início da educação física nas escolas públicas. Na mesma reunião da Associação Americana de Ciência Social, o médico David F. Lincoln afirmou que tanto o treinamento manual (a forma mais “aplicada” de atividade motora) quanto a ginástica (a forma “mais puramente cinética”) são partes essenciais da educação infantil. Muitos de seus contemporâneos expressaram ideias similares. Um desses foi o famoso psicólogo da virada do século, G. Stanley Hall, que escreveu com frequência sobre a importância de brincadeiras, jogos e esportes educacionalmente orientados para a saúde física e o desenvolvimento neurológico. Outros entenderam a importância de criar programas escolares e comunitários necessários para tornar realidade o que os pesquisadores encontravam – e afirmavam. A educação física era cada vez mais parte do currículo. Em 1904, a maioria dos mais de 100 “centros de assistência social” nos EUA incluíam programas recreacionais e esportivos para crianças, jovens e, muitas vezes, adultos. Após a sua fundação em 1906, a Associação Playground da América se tornou uma grande força na extensão de tais trabalhos. Nos anos 1920, os programas necessários haviam crescido extensivamente. Como fora reafirmado por Michael O'Shea (professor da Universidade de Winsconsin) em seu livro de 1924, The Child: His Nature and His Needs (A Criança: Sua Natureza e Suas Necessidades), programas bem concebidos são necessários para colocar “palavras” (as descobertas das pesquisas) em prática. A partir da década de 1970, esses programas necessários, que haviam existido nos EUA há mais de 50 anos, iniciaram um acentuado declínio. Em 2006, enquanto muitos artigos de pesquisas apareciam, apoiando a educação física diária, o Departamento de Saúde e Serviços Humanos dos EUA relatavam que apenas cerca de 30% de meninos e meninas compareciam a essas aulas. Livros como o da psicóloga educacional Jane Healy, Endangered Minds: Why Children Don't Think and What To Do About It (Mentes em Perigo: Por Que Crianças Não Pensam e o que Fazer Sobre Isso), de 1990, já haviam acautelado leitores sobre os efeitos negativos de ações como ensino roteirizado (scripted teaching), que infetaram o currículo após a promulgação da bem intencionada, mas mal concebida, lei “Nenhuma Criança para Trás” (No Child Left Behind) de 2001. Talvez não seja surpreendente que, recentemente, um número cada vez maior de livros, artigos e postagens de internet tenham clamado pela restituição da qualidade da educação física e de programas recreacionais comunitários. Este artigo investiga esses assuntos e outros relacionados a eles.

El artículo “Exercise and Children's Intelligence, Cognition, and Academic Achievement”, publicado en la Educational Psychology Review en 2008, es uno más del creciente número de estudios que últimamente apoyan la idea de que la actividad física es importante para el desarrollo cognitivo. La mayoría de la gente seguramente no es consciente de que esto ya lo sabían numerosos médicos, neurólogos, psicólogos y expertos en educación física de hace más de 100 años. En 1876 el neurólogo James J. Putman (quien había estudiado en Inglaterra con el destacado neurólogo John Hughlings Jackson) ya había defendido la introducción de la educación física en las public schools. En la misma reunión de la American Social Science Association, el médico David F. Lincoln expuso que tanto el trabajo manual (la parte más “aplicada” de la actividad motora) como la gimnasia (la forma “más puramente cinética”) son elementos fundamentales de la educación infantil. Muchos de sus contemporáneos expresaron opiniones similares. Uno de ellos fue el notorio médico de finales del XIX y principios del XX G. Stanley Hall, quien escribió a menudo sobre la importancia del juego y de los deportes de base educacional tanto para la salud física como para el desarrollo neurológico. Otros expertos comprendieron la importancia de poner en marcha programas escolares y comunitarios, necesarios para convertir en realidad lo que los investigadores estaban descubriendo (y afirmando). La educación física cada vez ocupaba un lugar más relevante en los currículos educativos. Hacia 1904 la mayoría de las más de 100 settlement houses de los Estados Unidos incluían programas recreativos y deportivos para niños, jóvenes y a menudo también adultos. Tras su fundación en 1906, la Playground Association of America se convirtió en un gran propagador de este trabajo. En los años 20 el número de programas existentes se había multiplicado de forma considerable. Tal y como Michael O'Shea (un profesor de la University of Wisconsin) aseguraba en su libro de 1924 The Child: His Nature and His Needs, hacen falta programas bien diseñados para poner en práctica “las palabras” (los resultados de la investigación). A principios de los años 70 esos programas, que habían existido en Estados Unidos desde hacía más de 50 años, iniciaron un brusco declive. En 2006, al tiempo que aparecían múltiples artículos de investigación que apoyaban la educación física con frecuencia diaria, el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos del gobierno de Estados Unidos informaba de que solo alrededor del 30% de los chicos y chicas tenían clases de ese tipo. Libros como el del psicólogo educacional Jane Healy, Endangered Minds: Why Children Don't Think and What To Do About It (1990), ya advertían de los efectos negativos de prácticas como el scripted teaching, que invadiría los currículos a raíz de la promulgación de la bien intencionada, pero mal diseñada, No Child Left Behind Act de 2001. Quizá no resulte sorprendente que en los últimos tiempos haya habido un número creciente de libros, artículos y posts de internet que reivindican la recuperación de programas de educación física y programas recreativos comunitarios de calidad. El presente artículo aborda este y otros temas relacionados.

L'article ‘Exercise and Children's Intelligence, Cognition, and Academic Achievement’ [L'exercice et l'intelligence des enfants, cognition, et réussite scolaire], paru dans The Educational Psychology Review en 2008, n'est qu'une étude parmi d'autres, de plus en plus nombreuses, qui soutiennent que l'activité physique joue un rôle important dans le développement cognitif. Aujourd'hui, peu de gens savent que de nombreux médecins, neurologues, psychologues et éducateurs sportifs en étaient déjà conscients il y a plus de cent ans. En 1876, le neurologue James J. Putman (qui avait étudié en Angleterre avec son célèbre homologue John Hughlings Jackson) recommande que l'on introduise l'éducation physique dans les écoles publiques. Lors de cette même réunion de l'American Social Science Association, le Dr David F. Lincoln déclare que le travail manuel (la forme la plus « appliquée » de l'activité motrice) et la gymnastique (le « mouvement le plus pur ») sont des éléments essentiels de l'éducation de l'enfant. Nombre de leurs contemporains ont exprimé des idées similaires, notamment le remarquable psychologue de la fin du 19^ème siècle, G. Stanley Hall, qui a souvent écrit sur l'importance du divertissement, des jeux et des sports à fins éducatives, tant pour la santé physique que pour le développement neurologique. D'autres ont compris combien il était important et nécessaire de créer des programmes scolaires et communautaires pour mettre en application et démontrer concrètement ce que les chercheurs avaient découvert et affirmé. C'est ainsi que l'éducation physique a occupé une place de plus en plus importante dans les programmes. En 1904, une centaine de foyers socioculturels américains intègrent des programmes sportifs et récréatifs pour les enfants, les jeunes et souvent même les adultes. Après sa fondation en 1906, la Playground Association of America est devenue un levier essentiel dans le développement de cette œuvre. A partir des années 1920, les programmes nécessaires sont considérablement étendus. Comme le soulignait en 1924 Michael O'Shea, professeur à l'université du Wisconsin, dans son livre intitulé The Child: His Nature and His Needs [L'enfant: sa nature et ses besoins], des enseignements bien construits sont nécessaires pour mettre en pratique les “mots” (les résultats de la recherche). Au début des années 1970, ces enseignements nécessaires, qui existaient aux USA depuis plus de 50 ans, amorcent un net déclin. En 2006, alors même que paraissent de nombreux articles de recherche défendant l'éducation physique quotidienne, le Département américain de la Santé et des services aux personnes rapporte que seuls 30% des garçons et filles scolarisés assistent à de tels cours. Des ouvrages, comme celui de la psychologue de l'éducation Jane Healy intitulé Endangered Minds: Why Children Don't Think and What To Do About It [Esprits en danger: Pourquoi les enfants ne pensent pas et comment y remédier] (1990), ont déjà averti les lecteurs sur les effets négatifs de choses comme les cours structurés d'avance, qui risquent d'empoisonner les programmes suite à la promulgation en 2001 de la loi – bien intentionnée mais mal conçue – « Aucun enfant à la traîne ». Peut-être n'est-il pas surprenant que récemment un nombre croissant de livres, articles et publications sur Internet réclament le retour d'une éducation physique de qualité et de programmes récréatifs communautaires. Cet article étudie ce problème et ses enjeux.

Exercise and Children's Intelligence, Cognition, and Academic Achievement', das im Educational Psychology Review 2008 erschienen ist, ist nur eine der zunehmenden aktuellen Studien, welche die Behauptung stützen, dass körperliche Aktivität wichtig für die kognitive Entwicklung ist. Den meisten Menschen ist heute wahrscheinlich nicht bewusst, dass dies zahlreiche Ärzte, Neurologen, Psychologen und Sportlehrer bereits vor mehr als 100 Jahren wussten. 1876 hatte der Neurologe James J. Putman (der in England mit dem bekannten Neurologen John Hughlings Jackson studiert hatte) die Einführung von Sportunterricht in öffentlichen Schulen befürwortet. Auf dem selben Treffen der American Social Science Association erklärte der Arzt David F. Lincoln, dass sowohl manuelles Training (die ‚angewandtere‘ Form der motorischen Aktivität) und Gymnastik (die ‚reinere kinetische‘ Form) wesentliche Bestandteile der Kindeserziehung darstellten. Viele ihrer Zeitgenossen äußerten ähnliche Ansichten. Einer von ihnen war der bekannte Jahrhundert-Psychologe G. Stanley Hall, der oft über die Bedeutung des Spiels und erziehungsorientierter Sportarten sowohl für die körperliche Gesundheit als auch für die neurologische Entwicklung schrieb. Andere verstanden die Bedeutung der Einrichtung von schulischen und gemeinschaftlichen Programmen, die benötigt wurden, um das, was Forscher herausfanden – und behaupteten –, in die Realität umzusetzen. Der Sportunterricht wurde zunehmend Teil des Lehrplans. 1904 umfassten die meisten der mehr als 100 ‚Siedlungshäuser‘ in den USA Freizeit-und Sportprogramme für Kinder, Jugendliche und oft für Erwachsene. Nach seiner Gründung im Jahr 1906 wurde die Playground Association of America eine wichtige Kraft im Ausbau solcher Anstrengungen. In den 1920er Jahren waren die benötigten Programme erheblich gewachsen. Wie Michael O'Shea (Professor an der Universität von Wisconsin) in seinem Buch von 1924 The Child: His Nature and His Needs bekräftigte, sind gut konzipierte Programme erforderlich, um “Worte” (die Forschungsergebnisse) in die Praxis umzusetzen. Beginnend in den 1970er Jahren setzte ein starker Rückgang dieser notwendigen Programme, die in den USA seit mehr als 50 Jahren existiert hatten, ein. 2006, zur gleichen Zeit, als viele Forschungsartikel erschienen, die täglichen Sportunterricht unterstützten, berichtete das U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, dass nur etwa 30 % der Jungen und Mädchen solche Klassen besuchten. Bücher wie jenes der Erziehungspsychologin Jane Healy, Endangered Minds: Why Children Don't Think and What To Do About It (1990), hatten Leser bereits vor den negativen Auswirkungen solcher Dinge wie ‚scripted teaching‘ gewarnt, die gemäß der Verabschiedung des gut gemeinten, aber schlecht konzipierten ‚The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001‘ den Lehrplan infizieren würden. Vielleicht ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass kürzlich eine wachsende Anzahl von Büchern, Artikeln und Internet-Postings die Wiederherstellung von qualitativ hochwertigem Sportunterricht und gemeinschaftlichen Freizeitprogrammen gefordert hat. Dieser Artikel untersucht diese und damit zusammenhängende Fragen.

刊登在2008年教育心理学评论杂志上的论文《运动与儿童智力、认知和学术成就》仅仅是最近越来越多的认为体力活动对认知发展起重要作用的研究成果之一。今天，大多数人或许不知道早在一百多年前许多内科医生、神经病学家、心理学家和体育教育者就已经了解这一点。1876年，神经病学家詹姆斯·普特曼（他曾在英国跟随著名的神经学家约翰·休林·杰克逊学习）就已经倡导公立学校应开设体育课。 在美国社会科学协会会议上，内科医师大卫·林肯陈述到，手工课（更为‘实用’的肌体活动形式）和体操（‘更纯粹的运动’形式）是儿童教育的基本组成部分。 许多与他们的同时代的学者也持相同的观点。其中一位就是著名的、享有跨世纪心理学家美誉的斯坦利·霍尔。他经常在著作中论述以游戏、玩耍和教育为导向的运动对身体健康和神经系统发展的重要作用。其他一些学者则认同创设基于学校和社区课程的重要性。这些课程能使研究人员的发现成为现实，而体育教育正逐渐成为这一课程的一部分。截止到1904年，在美国已有100多个的社会服务所开设了针对儿童、青少年和成人的经常性的娱乐和身体活动课程。自1906年成立以来，美国游乐场协会已经成为扩展该项目的主要力量。到20世纪20年代，所开设的课程已经得到广泛发展。正如迈克尔·奥谢（威斯康星大学教授）​​在他1924年的论著《孩子：他的本质和他的需求》中所重申的，精心设计的课程都需要将那些“话语”（研究结果）付诸实践。20世纪70年代之初，这些已经在美国存在超过50年之久的活动课程开始急剧下降。到2006年，许多研究出现了支持日常体育教育的观点，但美国卫生和人类服务部则报道，大约只有30％的儿童参与了这样的活动课程。一些论著如教育心理学家简·希利的《心灵危机：为什么孩子不想和要怎么做这件事》（1990）则警告读者诸如照本宣科式的教学的负面影响，而这些将影响善意的、但考虑不周的“不让任何孩子落后法案”之后的课程体系的制定。为此，最近越来越多的书籍、文章和互联网帖子一直在呼吁素质体育教育和社区康乐活动的恢复，这也许并不令人感到惊讶。本文将探讨以上这些议题及其相关事项。

２００８年の Educational Psychology Review に掲載された論文「エクササイズと子供の知能、認知、及び学術的到達度」をはじめとして、身体運動が認知の発達にとって重要であることを主張する研究の数は近年増加している。しかし、既に１００年前、多くの医師、神経学者、心理学者そして体育学者がこのことを知っていたという事実に、気付いている人は今日稀であろう。１８７６年、神経学者ジェイムズ・ J ・プットマン（イングランドの高名な神経学者ジョン・ヒューリングス・ジャクソンの弟子）は、公立学校への身体教育の導入を唱えていた。また、米国社会科学協会の同じ会合では、医師のデイビッド・F ・リンカーンが、技術訓練（身体活動のより「応用的な」形態）と体操（「より純粋に身体運動的な」形態）こそが、子供の教育に不可欠な要素であることを主張している。同時代の多くの人々が、似た見解を表明している。例えば世紀転換期の高名な心理学者 G ・スタンレー・ホールは、身体の健康と神経の発達との両方にとって、遊戯やゲーム、教育志向のスポーツがもつ重要性についてしばしば言及している。また、学者たちが見出し、そして主張していたことを現実のものにするために必要な、学校ないしはコミュニティを基礎にしたプログラムを作ることの重要性を説くものもいた。１９０４年までに、アメリカ合衆国の１００を超える「セトルメント・ハウス」のほとんどで、子供、若者そしてしばしば大人たちを対象とした娯楽及びスポーツプログラムが提供されるようになった。アメリカ運動場協会は、１９０６年の創設以降、こうした運動を広げる上で重要な役割を果たした。１９２０年代までに、必要なプログラムはかなり行き渡っていた。ウィスコンシン大学教授マイケル・オシェアが、１９２４年の著作『子供：その本質及び彼らが必要とするもの』の中で主張したように、「言葉」（研究上の発見）を実践に移すためには、よく練られたプログラムが必要なのである。１９７０年代以降、それまで米国で５０年間に渡って続いてきたこうしたプログラムは急速に衰退を始める。２００６年、日々の身体教育の効用を支持する研究成果が多く発表されていたまさにその時、米国保健福祉省は、体育の授業に出席しているのが全児童のわずか約３０パーセントしかいないことを報告している。教育心理学者ジェーン・ヒーリーの「危機にさらされる知性：子供たちはなぜ考えないのか、そしてそれに対して何をすべきか」（１９９０年）などの著作は、座学中心の教育などがもたらす悪影響について既に警鐘を鳴らしており、狙いはよかったもののうまく受容されなかった「落ちこぼれを作らないための初等中等教育法」施行後のカリキュラムに影響を与えることとなった。近年ますます多くの本や論文、インターネット上の投稿が、質の高い身体教育やコミュニティベースの娯楽プログラムの復活を要求するようになっていることは決して驚きではないだろう。本稿は、こうした事情を検討する。

Keywords::

• physical activity
• cognitive development
• playgrounds
• physical education
• late 1800s/early 1900s

Notes

^1.Arnett, ‘G. Stanley Hall's Adolescence’, 190. On page 189 Arnett observes that a century ago ‘penny dreadfuls’ (cheap publications that portrayed crime as glamorous) were instilling in youth many of the criminal behaviours that television and the Internet do today.

^2. Examples of recent studies are: Hillman, Erickson and Kramer, ‘Be Smart, Exercise Your Heart’; Tomporowski et al., ‘Exercise and Children's Intelligence’; Coe et al., ‘Effect of Physical Education and Activity Levels’.

^3.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ‘Executive Summary’, 10.

^4.Healy, Endangered Minds.

^5. For a brief but useful account of circumstances as of 2003, see Jorgensen and Hoffmann, History of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which contains, among other things, the following – and troubling – statement (p. 3): The National Commission on Excellence in Education had ‘found that the field of teaching was not attracting enough academically able students and that teacher preparation programs needed substantial improvement’. It should not be overlooked that without good teachers education cannot improve regardless of what is being propounded today about the value of Massive Open Online Courses.

^6.Olfman, All Work and No Play;Thomas, High-Stakes Testing; Ravitch, The Death and Life.

^7. See for example, Trost and van der Mars, ‘Why We Should Not Cut P.E.’, and the references cited therein.

^8.Brown, Play.

^9.Catalano, Loeber and McKinney, ‘School and Community Interventions’.

^10.World Health Organization, Preventing Violence.

^11.Zueblin, American Municipal Progress. See also, Park, ‘Boys’ Clubs Are Better than Policemen's Clubs’.

^12.O'Shea, ‘The Relation of Physical Training’.

^13. ‘Physical Education’, American Journal of Education 1, no. 1 (1826): 19–23.

^14. ‘Physical Education’, American Monthly Magazine 1, no. 8 (1829): 541–6.

^15. For an extensive account of these matters see Park, ‘Embodied Selves’.

^16.Emerson, ‘Physical Education’; ‘Exercise’, New England Journal of Education 1 (1875): 76–7. See also, ‘The Nature of Play and Its Importance as a Means to Education’, New England Journal of Education 2 (1876): 147–8. The fact that some recent guidelines recommend only one hour each day is probably more an effort to try to reverse the striking diminution that has occurred since the 1970s than a reflection of what children and youth actually need. It remains to be seen whether First Lady Michelle Obama's advocacy of the ‘Let's Move Campaign’ and the National Football League's advocacy of ‘play 60’ will have any affect.

^17. See for example, Clarke and Jacyna, Nineteenth Century Origins of Neuroscientific Concepts; Coleman and Holmes, The Investigative Enterprise.

^18.Fye, The Development of American Physiology, 1.

^19.Bonner, Becoming a Physician; Park, ‘Rise and Demise’.

^20.Flexner and Flexner, William Henry Welch and the Heroic Age, especially chapter 11.

^21.Flexner, The American College, 103. Flexner went so far as to suggest that ‘a rationally conducted secondary school’ might take its inspiration from ‘the football field’. See also, Bonner, Iconoclast.

^22.Flexner, Medical Education in the United States and Canada. For concise but useful accounts of Flexner and the 1910 Report see Ludmerer, Learning to Heal, chapter 9; Starr, Social Transformation of American Medicine, chapter 3.

^23. See Park, ‘Physiology and Anatomy are Destiny’? especially 31–6; Park, ‘Edward M. Hartwell’; Gerber, Innovators and Institutions, 319–24.

^24.Putnam, ‘Gymnastics for Schools’.

^25. In September 2013 the Board of Directors voted to change the name of what then was known as the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance AAHPERD's to Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE). This was the AAHPERD's eighth name since the organization was founded in 1885.

^26.Lincoln, ‘The Nervous System’.

^27.Lincoln, ‘The Motor Element in Education’.

^28.Schaeffer, ‘The Revival of Physical Education’.

^29. See for example, Harris, ‘Fruitful Lines of Investigation’. Regarding the 1889 conference see Barrows, Physical Training.

^30. Royce, Some Relations of Physical Training. The best account of the BNSG is to be found in Spears, Leading the Way. Its scientific courses were usually taught by faculty from Harvard or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

^31. These matters receive considerable attention in Cavallo, Muscles and Morals. Books such as Riess, City Games, and Hardy, How Boston Played, provide indications of how efforts were made to extend these matters to older populations.

^32.Curtis, Education Through Play, 215.

^33.Huling, ‘The American High School’.

^34.Hyde, ‘The Organization of American Education’. The eight areas were: language, literature, mathematics, natural science, physical culture, art, history and philosophy.

^35. It had been difficult, if not impossible, for women to attend medical schools affiliated with American universities. See for example, Park, ‘The Contributions of Women’, especially 41–44. After receiving a medical degree from the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania Jacobi became the first woman to sit for regular examinations at the Ecole de Medicine in Paris. She finished with honours in 1871.

^36.Jacobi, ‘Applications of Psychology in Education’. Learning about ‘the properties of a wooden cube’, she maintained, required a system of training of the type ‘afforded by the study of music, or by the exercises of the gymnasium’.

^37.Krohn, Practical Lessons in Psychology, 398–99.

^38. Ibid., 10–13 and passim.

^39. By 1900 intercollegiate football was being severely criticised for having become not educational but a ‘commercial enterprise’. See for example, Smith, ‘Preludes to the NCAA’; Lewis, ‘Theodore Roosevelt's Role’.

^40.Krohn, Graded Lessons in Physiology and Hygiene, 100–3, chapter 16.

^41.Krohn, ‘Physical Education and Brain-Building’.

^42.Channing, ‘The Importance of Physical Training’.

^43. Sargent served as vice- president of the American Association for the Advancement of Physical Education from its inception in 1885 until 1889, and then as president from 1890 to 1894 and again from 1899 to 1901. He had received a medical degree from Yale University (its programme then was similar to what was offered at proprietary schools) and in 1879 was named assistant professor of physical training and director of the Hemenway Gymnasium at Harvard University. Although Sargent retained the director title until retirement in 1919, after 1889 his faculty rank was not renewed. See Gerber, Innovators and Institutions, 283–5.

^44. Barrows, Physical Training: A Full Report of the Papers and Discussions, 77–8.

^45.Channing, ‘Report on Physical Training’.

^46.Channing and Hartwell, ‘Report of the Special Committee’.

^47.Adams, ‘The Neglect of Physical Training’.

^48.Sanford, ‘Physical Training in Secondary Schools’.

^49.Zenderland, Measuring Minds, 28–30; 46.

^50.Ross, G. Stanley Hall, 295.

^51.Hall, ‘Play and Dancing for Adolescents’.

^52. Hall, Adolescence.

^53.Hall, Youth.

^54.Bryan, ‘On the Development of Voluntary Motor Ability’. Bryan had studied with the German psychologist Herman Ebbinghaus as well as with Hall.

^55.DuBois-Reymond, ‘Swedish Gymnastics and German Gymnastics’.

^56.Hancock, ‘A Preliminary Study of Motor Ability’.

^57.MacDonald, ‘Experimental Study of Children’. See also, Gilbert, ‘Anthropometrics in the U.S. Bureau of Education’. Regarding the late nineteenth/early twentieth century penchant for “measuring” children and youth see Park, “Taking Their Measure”.

^58.Taylor, The Study of the Child, notably chapter 13 (‘Muscular and Motor Control’) and chapter 19 (‘Children's Instincts and Plays’).

^59.Burk, ‘Growth of Children in Height and Weight’. See also Burk, ‘The Influence of Exercise Upon Growth’.

^60.Chambers, A Bibliography of the Biological Aspects. Chambers had studied with Hall and John Dewey, www.ed.psu/educ/epcse/school-psychology/history-spsych (accessed October 10, 2013).

^61. See the John Mason Tyler Papers, Amherst College Archives and Special Collections, http://asteria.fivecolleges.edu/findaids/amherst/ma41_main.html (accessed September 22, 2012).

^62.Tyler, Growth and Education, vi.

^63. Ibid., 198–27. Chapter 14 is concerned with the roles that play and games should have in education. Chapter 15 (Physical Training: Gymnastics) credits gymnastics/callisthenics with the means to exercise in inclement weather and cautions: ‘The aim of our modern system of gymnastics is not to produce prodigies of strength…but to give a harmonious development’ (215).

^64.Betts, The Mind and Its Education, 161–81.

^65.Arrowsmith, ‘Brain Development Through Play’.

^66.Clouston, The Hygiene of the Mind.

^67.Forbush, The Coming Generation, especially chapters 13, 19 and 21.

^68.Forbush, The Boy Problem; Forbush, Child Study and Child Training.

^69. See for example, Smith, ‘Preludes to the NCAA’.

^70.Eliot, Changes Needed in American Secondary Education, especially 3–16.

^71.Johnson, ‘Play in Physical Education’, 181. Johnson had read the paper at the July 1, 1898 meeting of the National Education Association.

^72.Johnson, ‘Education by Plays and Games’.

^73. For a short but useful account of Johnson see Powell, The Uncertain Profession, chapter 5.

^74.Johnson, ‘Play and Recreation’. This was one of many contemporary publications that referred to this.

^75. See for example, Salmon and Hindshaw, Infant Schools; Hall, One Hundred Years and Millions of Boys.

^76. See for example, Johnson, The History of YMCA Physical Education, chapters 1–4.

^77.Woods and Kennedy, Handbook of Settlements.

^78.Addams, Twenty Years at Hull-House.

^79. Cavallo, Muscles and Morals, 27–9; 32–8.

^80.Peterson, ‘Voting for Play’.

^81. ‘Community Recreation Leadership in 945 Cities’, Playground and Recreation, 24 (May 1930): 63–73.

^82. Early in his career Gulick had served as Secretary of the Physical Department of the International Committee of the YMCA of North America (1887–1902). His many other contributions included president of the AAAPE (1903–1907), designer of the YMCA Triangle (mind, body and spirit brought together), and director of physical education for the public schools of New York City where in 1903 he initiated an educationally oriented after-school Public School Athletic League, which became a model for similar after-school programmes in many other places. See Gerber, Innovators and Institutions, 348–56; Taylor, ‘How They Played at Chicago’.

^83. Curtis had been director of playgrounds in New York City and then supervisor of the playgrounds of Washington, District of Columbia. He subsequently would be brought to Puerto Rico to help advance playground work there. See. for example, ‘Public School Playgrounds in Porto Rico’, The Playground, 5 (1912): 385–6.

^84. See Tanner, A History of the Study of Human Growth, especially chapters 8, 9 and 15.

^85. See. for example, ‘Exercise Physiology: Roots and Historical Perspectives’, which opens William D. McArdle, Frank I. Katch and Victor L. Katch, Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance, 4^th edition (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1996), xiii–xliii.

^86.Chambers, ‘Why Children Play’.

^87.Playground Association of America, Report of the Committee on the Normal Course in Play, 1909.

^88. In 1918 Hetherington would become director of physical training for the State of California.

^89.Wood, Health and Education.

^90.Wood and Cassidy, The New Physical Education, 1–4.

^91. Ibid., 36.

^92. Ibid., 9; 51–4; 78; 358–59.

^93.Bosner, The Elementary School Curriculum, chapter 16.

^94.O'Shea, Mental Development and Education, 147, 169–84, 256–67, passim.

^95.O'Shea and Kellogg, Health Habits, chapters 6 and 7; See also O'Shea, ‘The Relation of Physical Training’.

^96.O'Shea, The Child: His Nature and His Needs, 5.

^97. See, for instance, ‘The Interest of the State in Physical Education as Exemplified in State Legislation’, The Athletic Journal 10, no. 4 (1929): 28–36.

^98.Hackensmith, History of Physical Education, 431; Means, History of Health Education, chapter 16.

^99.McNeely, ‘Physical Fitness in the Pentomic Age’.

^100.Kraus and Hirshland, ‘Muscular Fitness and Health’; ‘What's Wrong with American Youth’. U. S. News and World Report, March 19, 1954, 35–6.

^101. See, for example, Hunsicker, ‘AAHPER's Youth Fitness Project’; Hunsicker, ‘First Nationwide Tabulations’.

^102. Now called the President's Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition, www.fitness.gov/about-pcfsn/our-history/

^103.Kidder, ‘All-Around Fitness for All’, 8.

^104.Morrow et al., ‘1958–2008’.

^105. Two hundred minutes every 10 days for grades 1–6.

^106. These are discussed in articles such as Hoffman, ‘Specialization x Fragmentation =  Extermination’; Park, ‘A House Divided’.

^107.http://www.oregondairycouncil.org/what_is_normal/pdf/guide_promote_pa_cdc.pdf (accessed August 1, 2012).

^108. See, for example, citations included in Kohl et al., ‘Physical Activity and Public Health’; Etnier et al., ‘The Influence of Physical Fitness’; Sallis et al., ‘Effects of Health-Related Physical Education’.

^109.Weiss and Wiese-Bjornstal, ‘Promoting Positive Youth Development’.

^110.Bartlett, ‘The Case for Play’; www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/49250.php.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Roberta J. Park

Roberta J. Park is Professor Emeritus, Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, has published in numerous history and professional journals, and has edited and co-edited numerous books. Her most recent is Mappingan Empire of American Sport: Expansion, Assimilation and Resistance (with Mark Dyreson and J.A. Mangan).