Chapter 6: Perspectives on the Future of Doctoral Programs

被引:8
作者
Mitchell, Murray F. [1 ]
Lawson, Hal A. [2 ]
van der Mars, Hans [3 ]
Ward, Phillip [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 USA
[2] SUNY Albany, Albany, NY 12222 USA
[3] Arizona State Univ, Mesa, AZ USA
[4] Ohio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
关键词
faculty; physical education; physical education doctoral preparation; TEACHER-EDUCATION;
D O I
10.1123/jtpe.2020-0244
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
What does the future hold for Doctoral Programs for Physical Education Teacher Education (D-PETE) programs, faculty, and doctoral students? What can D-PETE faculty prioritize and do to create a more desirable future for D-PETE, PETE, and school physical education programs? What are the main facilitators, constraints, and barriers? Framed by these three questions, this chapter offers an action-oriented analysis of doctoral programs. Alongside physical education-specific program priorities influential factors in the external environment merit attention, including regional and state accreditation, neoliberal forces for accountability, the regulatory environment, program standards and national rankings, and declining enrollments. Mindful of alternative perspectives and university- and program-specific action plans, a dual priority appears to be crosscutting. Every D-PETE program needs to reflect theoretically sound and evidence-based practices, and D-PETE graduates need to be prepared to advance these practices after graduation. Toward these ends, it is timely to work toward consensus on a core knowledge base, explore how best to share resources across university boundaries, and join forces to solidify and safeguard appropriate practices. Today's choices have short- and long-term consequences for each program and the profession overall, recommending that national priorities gain prominence alongside local program traditions and D-PETE faculty practices.
引用
收藏
页码:392 / 401
页数:10
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
[2]  
[Anonymous], STAND TEACH ED
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1986, SPORT PEDAGOGY 1984
[4]  
Baker M., 2011, Assessment and review of graduate programs
[5]  
Blankenship BT, 2009, PHYS EDUC-US, V66, P97
[6]   Past Doctoral Students' Perspectives on Their Careers [J].
Boyce, B. Ann ;
Napper-Owen, Gloria ;
Lund, Jackie L. ;
Almarode, Danielle .
QUEST, 2019, 71 (03) :333-341
[7]   Characteristics of PETE Doctoral Level Institutions: Descriptions of Programs, Faculty and Doctoral Students [J].
Boyce, B. Ann ;
Rikard, G. Linda .
JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 2011, 30 (02) :103-115
[8]   Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. [J].
Bray, Nathaniel J. .
REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 2007, 30 (03) :322-323
[9]  
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, CPED FRAM EDD DEF
[10]  
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, CPEDS HIST MIL