Insights: Facts and Myths of Character Education, PE and Sport

“Sports do not build character, they reveal it.”  – Facts and Myths of Character Education, PE and Sport 

We are all too familiar with the common trope in our fraternity that “Sports build character”. Not only are we conversant in it, perhaps many of us are convinced that our field will help inspire future Ghandis and Mother Theresas. However, is this truly the case? What does the existing research say about PE and character education? Apart from inspiring anecdotal stories of 21st Century Competencies (21CC) skilfully infused into PE lessons, what are the issues and challenges faced by teachers when infusing character and citizenship education (CCE) or 21CC into our lessons? What are the limitations and affordances of our PE curriculum in teaching character education?

As a disclaimer, this article does not intend to conclude whether we can or cannot nurture the next Abraham Lincoln or provide concrete steps to prescribe effective CCE infusion for the next Nelson Mandela to flourish in the VUCA world. But to draw attention to some research and issues about character education in PE and the challenges teachers face.

This article will first situate physical education within the globalised neoliberal educational environment. Next, it will look at some of the existing literature, provide discussion and insights revolving around character education and PE. And finally, provide some closing thoughts on the issue.

Making claims: A search for distinction?

As professionals, we need to rethink how PE supposedly distinguishes as a subject well placed for character education. For example, a common refrain is that in PE, we have the opportunity to teach “teamwork” and how students can be inclusive in their selection of team-mates. But how is that different from a geography project which requires students to form teams? We may say, “Well, in competitive moments in PE and sport CCAs, students learn experientially, socio-emotional competencies like self-management and values like Excellence.” But how different is that from a Media Club CCA participating in NEmation? Perhaps we say that through challenging physical exercises during fitness and conditioning, students learn the value of resilience. But how is this different from a Primary 6 student repeatedly trying to solve difficult PSLE Math questions and not quitting? While not meant to be exhaustive (and maybe at risk of misinterpreting policy documents), the CE2021 Syllabus document (p.15) is rather careful in its claims. Subsumed under the sub-heading of “Other Subjects”, it states rather specifically that PE allows for “students to learn sportsmanship and take responsibility for a healthy lifestyle.”

Why then, do we make such claims? I contend that there are two possible reasons:

1. Perhaps there is indeed a correlation between good character and PE/sports/movement education, and/or

2. An oft neglected and considered aspect is that it is a value proposition to add relevance to PE.

First, the correlation and relation between character and PE/movement/sports go back to ancient Greek or Roman times. Some credit Roman poet Juvenal with the phrase “Mens sana in corpore sano” or some credit Thales (Miletus, 624–546 BC), a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, with the famous quote which translates to "A sound mind in a healthy body," which emphasises the connection between physical health, mental health, and happiness. The founder of modern-day Olympics Pierre de Coubertin based this celebrated event upon his ideals to “create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of a good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.” Further examination of this first possible reason of “correlation” is discussed in the next section of this article.

Second, in a neoliberal commodified education system, what is the value proposition of PE, as compared to other subjects which have taken on instrumentalised forms in modern capitalist societies? In other (and some students’) words, “Why do I need PE (as opposed to the Mathematics and Sciences), in order to secure a job and excel in the future?”. A further expounding of this point can be found in Evans & Penney's (1995) paper, discussing specifically how the UK government, through the 1988 Education Reform Act and the legitimisation of specific values and competencies in the PE curriculum, sought to enculturate “disciplined citizens of good character, thus helping to ameliorate 'societies' contemporary social ills” (p.188). Correspondingly, Rees (1997) describes a similar situation in US where there is an “almost mythological belief in the social value of team sports” (p.100) which is “well-entrenched” in PE in particular. Discourses in PE, like healthism (Kirk & Colquhoun, 1989) and meritocratic notions of “ability” (Hay & Lisahunter, 2006), while fostering growth and learning through competition and individual responsibility, present equity challenges within the curriculum. Such discourses and policies speak of a neoliberal ethos in education policies which are characterised by globalisation, economisation, “governing by numbers” (Lingard & Ozga, 2007), performativity (Ball, 2003) and such. Likewise, Singapore’s education policies such as 21CC, CCE2021 and Learning for Life Programme (LLP) take on similar ethos (Gopinathan, 2007), (Gopinathan & Mardiana, 2013), in which “Singapore’s remarkable socio-political development and the changes it seeks to implement in education are illustrative of the wider debates about the power of globalisation…”(Gopinathan, 2007, pp.68-69). Forthwith, by situating PE within a neoliberal environment, I hope to illustrate that the PE curriculum is not a value-free proposition. In fact, the currciulum presents PE with the unique value proposition amongst the instrumentalisation of other fields and subjects.

Some literature:  Clarifying Myths and Facts

There is almost no doubt that most physical educators, administrators and even children advocate the teaching of physical education beyond sports skills and games strategies (Birtwistle, G. E., & Brodie, D. A., 1991; Leuciuc, F. V., 2018).

According to Rink (2006), “Affective objectives describe student feelings, attitudes, values, and social behaviors…Unless teachers address affective goals in their programs, students may be skilled and may even be knowledgeable but may choose not to participate (pp. 6-7).” Therefore, not only do affective objectives develop moral character, it also directly impacts a child’s motivation and participation levels in PE. In addition, teaching in the affective domain directly aligns with the Ministry of Education’s 21CC directive.

As far back as almost a century ago, McCloy (1930) called for a robust methodology to promote character education through physical education as the claims back then, far overshadowed the evidence.

“Physical educators have for years claimed to be builders of character. Not infrequently,  such claims are buttressed by reference to a few students who have engaged in physical education programs and who have changed in the course of a few years from being individuals of rather inconspicuous personality to individuals of outstanding character and ability. The physical educator has been prone to claim the credit for such metamorphoses. Examination of the evidence has not been impressive. The literature is strangely silent with regard to those individuals who took the same courses or belonged to the identical athletic groups but who have changed for the worse.” (p.41)

Convincingly, McCloy illustrates the merits of PE vis-à-vis the impact of other subjects on promoting character education. “The director of physical education, because of the very nature of his athletic situations, has more powerful satisfiers and annoyers under his control than any other educator. A boy who strikes out at a critical point in the game is vastly more annoyed than when he misses the third problem in arithmetic. He is correspondingly more elated when he knocks a home run than when he solves the problem correctly (p. 51).” Therefore, by virtue of the nature of PE, it becomes not only the moral imperative of the physical educator but also the obligation of one to teach a child the way he or she should go.

In line with McCloy’s rationalist-positivist approach, Denaro (2010) found significant relationships between PE teachers teaching character education and students exhibiting various aspects of character like respect, honesty, fairness and self-discipline. Although these results depended on teachers’ description of their students exhibiting those qualities, Denaro’s results corroborate with Gibbons, Ebbeck, and Weiss’s (1995) data, which supported their hypothesis that introducing a customised curriculum would impact on numerous dimensions of moral growth.

In the local context, and to be commended for their efforts in using the Game for Life framework, Huang and Hong (2016) found that not only did the usage of the framework provide sport educators with support in inculcating values in their lessons, it also raised the rate at which students exhibit values-based actions throughout sports lesson. Importantly, using the framework to promote values inculcation in sports did not detract from students' engagement with, or progress in, the activity itself.

At the other end of the argument spectrum, character education itself, although widely accepted to be for the universal common good, cannot be assumed to be without contention. Lockwood (1997) goes as far as to ask if there is a difference between character education and indoctrination. When we select certain values and competencies, what objective or subjective standard do we base them on? Who determines what is to be taught? On an aspect of physical education, Lockwood posits, “Even when movement education is argued to be a powerful medium for creating and reaffirming the moral person, much skepticism regarding character education, an increasingly popular conception to morally educate, remains.” (Lockwood, 1997) (emphasis added).

As scholars and professionals, we must acknowledge that whether sports build character is an ongoing debate (Doty, 2006) and rather than a forgone conclusion. This is pertinent, as sports is a major part of physical education. The predominance of incorrect actions and low character is a significant and constant concern in sports today at all levels. Scandals involving cheating, doping, violence, and disrespect in sports are so commonplace as to be considered the standard. Scathingly, college athletes and non-athletes compared using the RSBH-VJI developed by Rudd and Stoll (2004) to understand better the impact of athletics on ethics and social behaviour, revealed that athletes' moral character index scores were much lower than those of non-athletes.

Perhaps then, the elevation of sport and competition to a “privileged position” within physical education remains the crux of the issue. Rees (1997) argues that the popularity of sport, which was used to elevate physical education in the American curriculum, undermines its very legitimacy.

“The ideology that participation in sport, or more specifically winning in sport, in and of itself leads to positive social growth or 'character development' among the participants is widely accepted as the justification for contemporary interscholastic athletics. Critics of this ideology argue that sport in and of itself does not necessarily produce positive experiences, and that if outcomes such as sportsmanship, fair play or self-responsibility are important, then they need to be planned and rewarded as part of sport, rather than just left to chance. Although the goals of positive social development are invariably part of the 'mission statements' of athletic programmes, these goals are rarely assessed. Neither is evidence of such behaviour rewarded to the same extent as victory (p. 207).” (emphasis added).

Furthermore, even when a society and/or its institutions agree to both the substance and the principle of character education, it is many times not reflected in the execution of daily lessons (Morgan & Hansen, 2008). To the credit of the contributors of the Physical Education, Arts and Music (PAM) Research Report (Ministry of Education, 2016), they sought to address these issues highlighted by Rees and Morgan & Hansen. They recognised the challenges faced by PE teachers in delivering effective affective learning in PE classes, and sought to provide the training and structure, ensuring that lessons are “planned and rewarded”, “rather than just left to chance”1. While warranting that the student outcomes are assessed, there are severe limitations in using self-perception rating tools and episodic focused group discussion in assessing character values and competencies. Nevertheless, the PAM report and SportsSG Game for Life teams have provided us with extremely valuable structural blueprints for character education in PE.

As a summary of this literature section, I refer to Chan’s (2005) dissertation, which provides a much better in-depth literature review than the one here, as well as documents the challenges teachers face. Not surprisingly, PE teachers often aimed to impart character education. However, most did not have a character development-focused PE programme. Many teachers wanted training in instilling values and character in their students and more guidance and resources. Several also wanted additional time to teach character education because the physical and skills components took the entire PE class. Rather than taking for granted the trope that "PE is wonderful for building character" (my words), Chan states "There is a need for a more in-depth study on the effects and benefits of integrating character development in PE classes, that is, to formulate a character education programme and then evaluate its effectiveness."

Echoing her views, we need to bear in mind that the ideology that sports participation leads to positive character growth and development is, at best, a contentious one or, at worst, a proverbial strawman, since it lacks convincing empirical evidence. Regardless, one does not need to throw the baby out together with the bathwater because, at the end of the day, teaching in itself, is a moral endeavour, and at the very least, we need to remain steadfast in this endeavour. Affect, values and character are intangibles that cannot be measured and assessed. After all, “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” (Cameron, 1963)

Conclusion: Looking at PE and Character Education with new(er) lenses

It must be emphasised that despite the challenges, the relationship between PE and character education is not a zero-sum game. Neither are they mutually exclusive. However, first, we need to recognise the role of PE in curriculum policy to understand its implications in the macro-political and educational landscape, how it has “been 'framed' (Bernstein, 1971) by 'others' at sites in the wider socio-political and cultural domain 'outside schools' “ (Evans & Penney, 1995, p.183). After which, we need to be clear about what PE can and cannot do in the field of character education. If we claim it can teach certain values and competencies, how do we ascertain that? Have we ascertained that? Is it even possible to ascertain that? When we say that it cannot achieve certain educational outcomes, what exactly are the challenges involved? To subscribe uncritically and wholeheartedly to the “PE is good for character education” trope risks us being stuck in a quagmire of the status quo. To quote (Rees et al., 1990)’s quasi-experiment which established that high school sports have little effects on the social development of the participants, “These results challenge the sports builds character myth, a necessary prerequisite for athletic reform, because if enough educators, coaches and parents subscribe to the myth then there will be no impetus for change.”(p. 313). This article is thus a call to both verify our claims through existing knowledge and identify potential issues and challenges in our pedagogy to effect adequate change.

To assume that policy automatically translates to practices in the classroom, leading to educational change, is also deeply problematic (Teo et al., 2013; Gopinathan & Mardiana, 2013; Deng & Gopinathan, 2016). Simply infusing values, 21CC and socio-emotional competencies statements into schemes of work does not necessarily translate well into actual teaching and learning in the classroom due to the multiple issues and challenges teachers face (Sullivan, 2007; Tutkun et. Al, 2017; Muhtar and Dallyono, 2020). Thinking with Bernstein's (2004) theory of pedagogic discourse, the official recontextualising field (ORF) and the pedagogic recontextualising field (PRF)2 are in constant flux. In other words, policies are often interpreted, enacted, contested, and ameliorated before its reproduction in the classroom. While educational policies are being “rolled out”, actual reform and fidelity of the policies may not necessarily translate well into the classroom.

Perhaps then, the prospect for success of character education can be found by referring to the quote in this article’s title, “Sports do not build character, they reveal it”3. While the studies referenced in this article, do not conclusively determine a correlation between physical education and social/character development, it is quite clear that sports (and by extension physical education) reveal it, although many times in a negative sense (Ransom & Ransom, 2018; Doty and Lumpkin, 2010). This can be a starting point for more adequate reforms in PE, sports and character education, akin to a mirror revealing our flaws, then can we educate and change.

Notes:

1. The notion of teachable moments versus intentional structuring of classroom lessons to facilitate character education during PE needs to be further discussed.

2. “Official re-contextualizing field (ORF), created and dominated by the state and its selected agents and ministries” and the pedagogic recontextualizing field (PRF), comprising, for example, education departments in universities, subject journals, private research bodies, publishers and others transforming texts for disposition (or reproduction) by teachers in schools and colleges.” (Writght and Froelich, 2008)

3. Attributed to sports commentator, Heywood Hale Broun.

Contributed by: 

Chia Tai Yu, a Senior Teacher, has been teaching Physical Education for 14 years and prior to being an ST, was appointed Subject Head / Normal Technical for 8 years. He has been involved in multiple PE projects in his department relating to areas such as affective learning (specifically gender equity, motivation and psychology of physical activity), assessment and e-pedagogy. As Subject Head / Normal Technical, he has experience in the pastoral care and affective learning of students from under privileged backgrounds. He has a keen interest in sociology of education and critical studies in education.

Email: chia_tai-yu@moe.edu.sg

What's next?

Back to content page - 2023 SPEA Newsletter Issue No.1 (June/July)

Click here for previous issues of the newsletter. 

Keen to share any ideas or practices, comment on key issues or contribute to the news letter? Click here for more details.

Be part of the community. Join SPEA as a member. Enjoy members' benefits! We like to thank our partners for their generosity and continual support. 

References

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065

Bernstein, B. (1971) On the classification and framing of educational knowledge, in M.F.D.Young (Ed.) Knowledge andControl, pp.47-70. London: Macmillan

Bernstein, B. (2004). The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203011263

Birtwistle, G. E., & Brodie, D. A. (1991). Children's attitudes towards activity and perceptions of physical education. Health Education Research, 6(4), 465-478. 

Cameron, William Bruce. (1963). Informal sociology, a casual introduction to sociological thinking. New York :Random House

C. H. McCloy (1930) Character Building through Physical Education, Research Quarterly. American Physical Education Association, 1:3, 41-61, DOI:10.1080/23267402.1930.10625788

Denaro, E. J. (2010). Physical Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Teaching Character Education and Their Attitudes towards the Character Development of Their Fourth and/or Fifth Grade Students. In ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC.

Deng, Z., & Gopinathan, S. (2016). PISA and high-performing education systems: Explaining Singapore’s education success. Comparative Education, 52(4), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2016.1219535

Doty, J. (2006). Sports Build Character?! Journal of College and Character, 7(3), 4. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1529

Doty, J. P., & Lumpkin, A. (2010). Do sports build or reveal character?--An exploratory study at one service academy. The Physical Educator, 67(1), https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A221760010/AONE?u=anon~ac9b72fe&sid=googleScholar&xid=07762012

Evans, J., & Penney, D. (1995). Physical Education, Restoration and the Politics of Sport. Curriculum Studies, 3(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965975950030205

Gibbons, S.L., Ebbeck, V., & Weiss, M.R. (1995). Fair play for kids: Effects on the moral development on children in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exerciseand Sport, 247-255.

Gopinathan, S. (2007). Globalisation, the Singapore developmental state and education policy: A thesis revisited. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720601133405

Gopinathan, S., & Mardiana, A. B. (2013). Globalization, the State and Curriculum Reform. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C. K.-E. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore Curriculum: From Policy to Classroom (pp. 15–32). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-57-4_2

Hay, P. J. & lisahunter. (2006). ‘Please Mr Hay, what are my poss(abilities)?’: Legitimation of ability through physical education practices. Sport, Education and Society, 11(3), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320600813481

Huang, S., & Hong, S. (2016). "Effectiveness of Character and Leadership Development through Sport Using Game for Life Framework". In Sport, Identity and Community. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9781848884526_004

Kirk, D., & Colquhoun, D. (1989). Healthism and Physical Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 10(4), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569890100403

Leuciuc, F. V. (2018). Perception on physical education among students. Revista Românească pentru Educaţie Multidimensională, 10(2), 134-143.)

Lingard, B., & Ozga, J. (2007). The RoutledgeFalmer reader in education policy and politics. Routledge.

Lockwood, A. T. (1997). Character education: Controversy and consensus. Corwin Press.

Ministry of Education. (2016). Enhancing 21st century competencies in physical education, art and music: PAM research report. Physical Education and Sports Teacher Academy (PESTA) : Singapore Teachers’ Academy for the aRts (STAR).

Morgan, P. J., & Hansen, V. (2008). Physical education in primary schools: Classroom teachers’ perceptions of benefits and outcomes. Health Education Journal, 67(3), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896908094637

Muhtar and Dallyono (2020). Character Education from the Perspectives of Elementary School Physical Education Teachers.

Ransom, M. R., & Ransom, T. (2018). Do high school sports build or reveal character? Bounding causal estimates of sports participation. Economics of Education Review, 64, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.04.002

Rink, J. E. (2006). Teaching physical education for learning (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Rees, C. R. (1997). Still building American character: Sport and the physical education curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 8(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517970080202

Roger Rees, C., Howell, F. M., & Miracle, A. W. (1990). Do high school sports build character? A quasi-experiment on a national sample. The Social Science Journal, 27(3), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-3319(90)90027-H

Rudd, A., & Stoll, S. (2004). What type of character do athletes possess? An empirical examination of college athletes versus college non-athletes with the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. The Sport Journal, 7 (2), 1-10.

Sullivan, E. C. (2007). Character Education in the Gymnasium: Teaching More than the Physical. Journal of Education, 187(3), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205740718700307

Teo, J. E., Deng, Z., Lee, C. K.-E., & Lim-Ratnam, C. (2013). Teach Less, Learn More: Lost in Translation. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C. K.-E. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore Curriculum: From Policy to Classroom (pp. 99–117). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-57-4_7

Tutkun et. al (2017). Physical Education Teachers’ Views about Character Education. International Education Studies, Vol. 10, No. 11. DOI:10.5539/ies.v10n11p86

Stay connected with us at

SPEA NOTES Instagram Page

SPEA Facebook Page (Under Construction)