A vision lost? (Re)articulating an Arnoldian conception of education ‘in’ movement in physical education

Abstract

In two seminal texts, Meaning in movement, sport and physical education and Education, movement and the curriculum, Arnold articulated ‘… the place of movement in the curriculum’. The concepts of ‘about’, ‘through’ and ‘in’ movement are in theory how Arnold holistically conceptualised the practice of physical education. The importance and desire to revisit Arnold's work reflects that (1) several international curriculum documents, at both junior and senior level, are premised on Arnoldian dimensions; (2) it possesses more currency in curriculum theory than ‘other’ holistic frameworks or models; (3) its use as a framework in physical education curriculum documents may not be as intended given the ways in which Arnold's work has variously been (re)interpreted and (re)presented over the years; and (4) not all dimensions (in particular education ‘in’ movement) are well understood nor fully conceptualised or contextualised. On the basis of the above rationales, the purpose is to examine and critique plausible shortcomings to the currently underemphasised and least understood concept of education ‘in’ movement as it primarily pertains to physical education curriculum theorisation, development and ultimately pedagogy. I contend that Arnold's education ‘in’ movement is more than mere participation in movement, physical activity and sport or as others have suggested education ‘through’ the physical. Drawing on the literature from diverse fields (e.g. philosophy, phenomenology), I will further develop the argument that engagement in these activities alone does not adequately reflect Arnold's conceptualisation of education ‘in’ movement and that opportunity for development of knowledge and understanding on multiple levels (pre-conscious, conscious) is a pre-requisite for individuals to develop deeper meaning and understanding about their engagement as agents within movement. This article, therefore, highlights how Arnold's vision has been ‘lost’, and proposes a re(articulated) and re(emphasised) vision that complements contemporary physical education curriculum theory.

Keywords:

• Arnoldian dimension
• Philosophy
• Physical education
• Movement
• Education ‘in, through and about’

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge the passing of Peter J. Arnold (1931–2010). Whilst I never met him, I have been privileged to read his work and for this I am grateful. His writing continues to challenge my thinking about physical education. I am hopeful that this article builds upon his conceptualisations and becomes useful for all those that use his framework for physical education, through the dimensions of education ‘in, through and about’ movement.

Notes

1. Arnold (1979, 1988) prefers the term movement as opposed to physical education, as the latter is (1) dualistic in its language and connotations and (2) is more closely aligned to extrinsic rationales.

2. Somaesthetics is a discipline, according to Shusterman (2004) of the critical ameliorative study of experience and the use of the body as a locus of sensory-aesthetic appreciation. It is ‘… devoted to knowledge, discourses, practices, and bodily disciplines that structure such somatic care or can improve it’ (p. 51). The potential of somaesthetics to education, is according to Shusterman is that it offers perspectives and techniques related to learning that are focussed inherently on the body.