Ready, Set, Let's Jump the Chasm Between Research and Practice

(At Tuesday evening's opening Convention ceremony, Dr. James Sallis, a San Diego State University professor of clinical psychology delivered the R. Tait McKenzie lecture.)

Sallis opened by first admitting that although his research focused on health-related issues he was not a physical educator. This he claimed gave him a different professional perspective and had led him to some disturbing conclusions about the direction physical education appeared to be headed.

Rather than a gap between research and practice Sallis characterized current differences as a chasm. He feared that the decline in resources and requirements in PE was having a serious negative effect on children.

Sallis claimed that advocacy in physical education was currently based more on wishful thinking that on evidence. He noted that bad or inappropriate PE practices were visible and tolerated everywhere. Physical education, he argued, did not have clear goals and claimed that he was not alone in perceiving the "Muddled Mission of PE."

When debates occurred over the mission of PE, Sallis suggested they were consistently grounded in theory rather than data. The fact that there was never any evidence meant there was never any need to establish agreement.

PE he argued had a weak research tradition relative to other disciplines. He then proceeded to cite PE frameworks from his own (California) state to illustrate the inappropriateness of standards currently being implemented in the state's schools.

Sallis pointed out that whereas health standards were based on literature reviews and data, physical education standards were based on consensus. In an effort to achieve consensus, physical educators tried to do everything and would never leave anything out. PE frameworks he observed, were mostly "impossible dreams" and many actually promoted sitting when in practice physical educators attempted to minimize sitting. Sallis asked, "Where is the evidence of the effectiveness of these frameworks?"

The solution, Sallis suggested, was for physical educators to focus specifically on what physical education can achieve. PE needed to avoid concerning itself with other - often desirable - outcomes that could also be achieved elsewhere in the curriculum.

In the health field, Sallis believed that physical education was viewed as a primary vehicle for getting children active. With growing concerns about threats to childrens' health, it was essential to get kids active in and out of school. He noted that more than 200,000 individuals died each year primarily because of a lack of physical activity.

Given the limited time that is allocated within schools to PE, the frameworks currently being advocated were unreasonable, Sallis argued. Instead, he suggested, physical educators should promote themselves more as public health professionals and focus first on ensuring PE classes were active.

Sallis criticized PE research as being mostly irrelevant to practice. Too frequently it was focused on details and ignored bigger issues affecting practice. He pointed out that ironically, there have been many excellent studies supporting the importance of PE yet none conducted by PE professionals.

In the future he suggested that physical educators should begin to use evidence based on practice to guide curriculum decisions and to avoid writing standards that were not based on solid supporting data. This he believed would increase the accountability of the PE profession.

Even our national association - AAHPERD - did not base the standards and practices it proposed on research-based physical education Sallis argued. Health, he again asserted was physical education's best selling point.

Sallis concluded his thought-provoking presentation by suggesting that teaching professionals should be implementing programs that were based on research and had data to prove their effectiveness - thereby closing the chasm currently existing between research and practice.