Search

ABSTRACTIn this paper, we reflect on SHAPE America’s K-12 National Standards and its connection to physical literacy. We argue physical educators in the United States have primarily engaged with the termphysical literacy without engaging with the theoretical and pedagogical depth of the concept. Despite this, SHAPE America does explicitly endorse an adapted version of Whitehead’s definition of the physical literacy concept. In drawing on feminist intersectional thought, we make an argument that SHAPE America’s adoption of physical literacy has produced an era of ‘disorientation’ in United States physical education. Within this disorientation, much of the advancements made in theory, pedagogy, sociocultural issues, as well as curriculum have been lost. We conclude by calling for a revamping of the standards that are not bound to a single concept, model or theoretical paradigm.

ABSTRACTIn this critical reflection, we consider physical education policy research in the United States (U.S.) using a sociocritical lens. Our aim is to extend the discussion and critiques of physical education policy research by exploring how it is conducted in the U.S. Instead of asking ‘What is physical education policy research?’, we are more concerned with the complex, imbalanced, and unpredictable affects of physical education policy research in the U.S. Thus, we ask questions like, ‘How is physical education policy research working in different contexts?’, ‘What counts as policy research?’ and ‘Who is doing policy research?’ We examine how physical education policy research is being taken up across the U.S. and the orientation – or direction – those studies take. As such, we conclude by considering what directions, people, and elements are not included in the current orientation.

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this paper was to explore the role of queer men’s desire in physical education. The author used interview data from an ethnography with queer youth to explore the relationship between desire, affect, and physical education. Drawing on new materialist theory, the author asserts that queer desire is not ‘pre-existing’ and therefore outside of physical education, but rather the field plays an active role in the production and shaping of homoerotic desire. By contending that physical education plays an active role in producing desire, the author asserts that the field of physical education affects queer men’s potential. Alternatively, the author also claims that since queer desire is produced within physical education, the productive potential of queer desire can reciprocally affect the field and its practices.