KJEP 8:2 (2011), pp.

235-258

A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical

education teacher education systems

Okseon Lee
Seoul National University, Korea

Euichang Choi
Seoul National University, Korea

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to compare the Korean and the U.S. physical
education teacher education (PETE) systems in terms of the recruitment procedure,
structure and content of PETE curricula, and licensure requirements. The specific focus
of comparison is how physical education content- and pedagogy-related knowledge are
emphasized and tested throughout the recruitment process, teacher education program,
and licensure exams. Two exemplary PETE programs from each nation were selected
for the study. The data were collected from teacher education student handbooks, state
and national teacher education standards, teacher education program flow charts,
course syllabi, and physical education student teaching handbooks provided by each
institution. Analysis of the data reveals some similarities and differences between the
Korean and the U.S. PETE systems. Compared with the Korean system, the U.S. PETE
system had stronger physical education pedagogical knowledge and student teaching
yet had weaker physical activity content knowledge. Based on the comparative findings,
this study concludes with some insights into how differing educational systems certify
physical education teachers.

Keywords: physical education, teacher education, recruitment, licensure requirements,

teacher knowledge

KEDI Journal of Educational Policy— ISSN 1739— 4341—

© Korean Educational Development Institute 2011, Electronic version: http://eng.kedi.re.kr
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

Introduction
Throughout the world, teacher education has become a crucial educational poli-
cy agenda item due to the importance of teachers’ roles in preparing high quality hu-
man capital in a knowledge-based society (Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development [OECD], 2005). Although teacher development is an ongoing pro-
cess, initial teacher education plays a critical role in building foundations for candi-
dates to become qualified teachers by equipping them with the knowledge and skills
required for beginning teachers. Recruiting high quality candidates and providing
them with rigorous teacher education programs is a common concern across nations,
but little is known regarding what specific knowledge and skills are valued in the
recruitment process and the teacher education curriculum in different countries (Suh,
1995).
Traditionally, subject matter content knowledge (i.e., what to teach) and peda-
gogical knowledge (i.e., how to teach) are regarded as the two axes of the required
knowledge base for teachers. The tension between subject matter content and peda-
gogy in a teacher education program has been a constant issue in determining what
should be taught and tested in a teacher education curriculum, for teacher certifica-
tion exams, and on teacher evaluations. Subject matter content knowledge refers to
discipline knowledge; it includes not only facts and concepts but also the structure of
subject matter regarding how concepts and principles are organized (Shulman, 1986).
Meanwhile, pedagogical knowledge focuses on the knowledge of effective teaching
behavior drawn from teacher effectiveness studies and teacher behavior research
(Berliner, 1986; Rosenshine, 1979).
Balancing an ideal mix of subject matter content and pedagogical knowledge
in the education of future teachers is an important issue (Ball, 2000) because teacher
education policies across nations have been conflicted about whether teacher candi-
dates should mainly learn discipline or pedagogy (Dewey, 1964). Teacher education
programs are therefore faced with the challenging task of deciding what kinds of and
how much subject matter content and pedagogy preparation are needed for prospec-
tive teachers.
Teacher education in some academic subjects, such as math and science, has
been frequently examined in terms of teachers’ knowledge (Committee on Sci-
ence and Mathematics, 2001; Kim, Ham, & Paine, 2011) because teacher candidates’
knowledge is closely related to student learning outcomes (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-
Mundy, 2001). However, the education of physical education (PE) teachers has not
been widely explored (Dodds, 2006). Given the increase in youth obesity and health
crises in sedentary societies, the demand for quality PE teachers is great, and, as a
result, the preparation of high quality PE teachers has become one of the most impor-
tant issues in school PE policy (McKenzie & Kahan, 2004).
Although subject matter content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are

236
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

critical indicators of highly qualified PE teachers (Napper-Owen, Marston, Volkin-

burg, Afeman, & Brewer, 2008), little is known about how these types of knowledge
are taught in PETE programs. Several researchers have focused on examining either
prospective teachers’ physical education subject matter content knowledge (e.g.,
biomechanics, motor learning, sport psychology) or experienced PE teachers’ health-
related physical fitness content knowledge (Ayers, 2002; Castelli & Williams, 2007).
Although these studies examined teacher candidates’ subject matter content knowl-
edge from the perspective of physical education sub-discipline knowledge, they did
not provide information on how and where teacher candidates obtain the required
knowledge to teach students.
Similarly, studies on teacher candidates’ pedagogical knowledge development
have focused on the nature and enactment of knowledge in instructional contexts,
but little effort has been made to identify how pedagogical knowledge development
is structured in PETE programs (O’Sullivan, 1996; Tsangaridou, 2006). Research on
PE teachers’ knowledge development has been conducted in a single context, such
as during the student teaching period or a PE teaching methods course, rather than
throughout the whole PE teacher preparation process (from recruitment to teacher
certification).
Given that few studies have examined prospective PE teachers’ knowledge
preparation— from recruitment to certification—future research should explore pro-
spective teachers’ knowledge preparation throughout PETE programs. Furthermore,
the study of teacher knowledge preparation regarding what kinds of and how much
subject matter content and pedagogical knowledge can be enhanced through a com-
parative study because it is a common concern throughout the world.
Although international comparisons of school PE curricula have been con-
ducted, little attention has been paid to the comparison of PETE programs. In order
to strengthen PETE program and policy, global and multiple perspectives across na-
tions are required. Special attention should be paid to what types of knowledge and
skills are valued and emphasized in PETE systems across nations.
The purpose of this study is to compare the Korean and the U.S. PETE systems
and examine what kinds of knowledge and skills teacher candidates are expected
to have in each system. Specific questions that guide this study are: (a) what are the
similarities and differences between the U.S. and Korean PETE systems in terms of
admission requirements, teacher education curricula structure, and licensure require-
ments? (b) what consequences do the differences have on teacher candidates’ knowl-
edge preparation?
The comparison, however, did not include alternate routes in teacher education
but only centered on the regular PETE track. Based on the authors’ separate teaching
experiences in the U.S. and Korea, specific emphasis is placed on the similarities and
differences between the systems of the two countries, and implications for reform ef-
forts in PETE in Korea and the U.S.

237
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

Contextual background
As is the case for other international comparison studies, the authors of this
study recognize that teacher education is contextualized within different social, po-
litical, and cultural influences. Therefore, contextual background information on the
general teacher education system and the status of teachers in Korea and the U.S. will
be provided.

The Korean context

In Korea, a teaching job is extremely competitive to secure and highly attractive
due to the security it provides and the respect that traditionally accompanies this
position. In general, teacher education policy and education is highly centralized and
governed by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. Although there are
some different levels of governance among the national, regional, and local govern-
ments, teacher education policy is quite consistent because the central government
oversees the implementation of teacher qualification standards and teacher prepara-
tion (Ingersoll, 2007). The minimum length of teacher education is four years, which
includes subject matter and pedagogical preparation. Teacher candidates obtain a
teaching certificate upon completing teacher education program requirements with-
out additional exams or tests. However, employment in public schools requires an
open, competitive National Teacher Employment Test (NTET), which works as a
final screening process to ensure that prospective teachers are qualified. Although
it is extremely competitive to be hired as PE teachers, they receive tenure upon ap-
pointment, which makes the job very stable and attractive to the candidates (Kang &
Hong, 2008).
Elementary (1-6) and secondary school (7-12) teachers are educated separately,
and each has separate licensure/certification. PE in elementary school is mainly
taught by classroom teachers although in some cases it is taught by specialist teach-
ers. Elementary PE specialists, however, are different from secondary PE teachers.
Basically, elementary PE specialists are teachers who have completed classroom
teacher training with a concentration in PE. Therefore, PETE in Korea applies only to
the education of 7th-12th grade PE teachers, which is different from that of the U.S.,
which offers K-12 certification.
Because teaching PE is a highly competitive job, PETE candidates tend to have
higher GPAs and SAT scores than other sport- or exercise-related majors in the ki-
nesiology department. Although PETE programs recruit students who excel both
academically and physically, the quality of PE teacher preparation has become a
critical issue with the government, resulting in an initiative to downsize PE teacher
education programs based on results of teacher education program evaluations (Choi,
2011). The government-initiated teacher education program evaluation has height-

238
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

ened teacher educators’ awareness on the issue of accountability in teacher education

and reshaped the landscape of the PETE system to meet the criteria set by the gov-
ernment.

The American context

Unlike the Korean system, the teacher education system in the U.S. is decen-
tralized and governed by each state department of education. Therefore, variability
among states exists in terms of degree requirements, teacher education curricula, and
licensure/certification requirements. The minimum length of teacher education is
four years, and teacher candidates have to complete undergraduate degree require-
ments in both subject matter and professional preparation. In order to obtain teach-
ing certificate/licensure, teacher candidates have to pass a test or an exam specified
by their state department of education (OECD, 2005).
A PE teaching position is generally not considered an attractive job in the U.S.
In the past, PE teacher candidates were attracted to the profession due to the easy
requirements (Belka, Lawson, & Lipnickey, 1991). Recent education reform move-
ments, however, have forced many PETE programs to strengthen the rigor of their
program in order to be aligned with state and national standards and testing, thus
decreasing general job attractiveness.
PE teachers are certified for K-12; therefore, PETE covers subject matter for both
elementary and secondary levels. Eighty-two percent of states (n = 42) require licen-
sure or certification at the elementary level, 90% of states require it in junior high
school (n = 46), and 98% of states (n = 50) mandate certification or licensure at the
high school level (National Association for Sport and Physical Education & Ameri-
can Heart Association, 2010). Although PE teacher certification is not required in
private or independent schools, delivering a PE program under the instruction of a
certified or licensed PE teacher is considered as a critical element of quality for K-12
PE in public schools.

Methods

Settings
In order to describe and compare how PETE systems in Korea and the U.S.
equip candidates with knowledge and skills, this study purposefully selected two
PETE programs from each country. The first author worked as a PETE program
faculty member in two selected programs in the United States: one comprehensive
master’s institution in the midwestern U.S. and one research intensive university in
the southeastern U.S. - both of which are NASPE/NCATE-accredited PETE institu-

239
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

tions. The second author worked as a PETE program faculty member in two selected
sites in Korea: one research-extensive university and one comprehensive university
located in Seoul, Korea. - both of which are well known for their PETE programs.
Background information on the four selected institutions is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Background information of selected institutions

Korea U. S.
Programs
Program A Program B Program C Program D
Number of candidates 170 184 150 174
Faculty * 15(2) 6(1) 24(6) 23(5)
Length of education 4 years 4 years 4 years Four and half
Total credits 130 125 131 129
Note. *( ) Number of PETE faculty

The goal of the two Korean PETE programs is to prepare competent PE teachers
who are well-rounded in theoretical knowledge and competent in physical ability (i.e.,
skill competency). Although the two U.S. programs have a goal similar to that of the
Korean programs for preparing qualified PE teachers, they emphasized pedagogical
techniques and data-based reflection in addition to theoretical knowledge and
skill competency. In terms of program size, the four chosen programs have a range
of 150-184 teacher candidates in each program. The length of education (4 years)
and the total credit hours for graduation (about 130 credits) are similar across the
four chosen programs. The number of PETE faculty members in the two Korean
programs is much lower than that of the two U.S. programs. The low number of
PETE faculty members in the Korean programs is related to the low number of PE
pedagogy courses offered in PETE programs. Although the four chosen programs
have a similar number of candidates in the program, the number of people who are
able to obtain annual employment as a PE teacher is low in Korea compared with
the U.S. due to the highly competitive PE teaching profession in Korea. For example,
the passing rate of the National Teacher Employment Test for physical education
teachers in public schools in Seoul was 1 to 35.0 in 2010 (Seoul Metropolitan Office of
Education, 2010).

Data sources and analysis

Data were collected from documentation on the rules and procedures of PETE
programs, teacher education student handbooks, state and national teacher education
standards, teacher education program flow charts, course syllabi, student teaching
handbooks, and licensure/employment test guidelines. In addition, both authors
participated in teaching classes in PETE programs, supervising student teachers,
revising teacher education curricula, and writing program accreditation/evaluation
reports in Korea and the U.S., respectively. Both authors’ substantial experience

240
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

facilitated the interpretation of the documents and understanding of the teacher

education system within each cultural context.
The data were analyzed based on pre-determined criteria of recruitment, the
teacher education curriculum, and licensure requirements. A descriptive level of
analysis was conducted for both the Korean and American PETE systems. Followed
by a descriptive analysis, a juxtaposition approach was used to compare the two
different systems to find similarities and differences (Hantrais & Mangen, 1996).
The comparative findings were interpreted in terms of what types of and how much
teacher knowledge was represented in each PETE system.

Findings

Entry into the PETE program

The entry requirements into the PETE programs in the two countries are quite
different. In Korea, PETE program entrance is determined at the admission stage;
students declare their major as PETE with their admission into college/university.
PE teacher candidates are selected based on college entrance exams, which include
Korean SAT scores, an interview, an essay test, and a sport skills/fitness test.
The college entrance exam plays a role as a screening procedure for selecting PE
teacher candidates. The interview and essay test focus on PETE candidates’ oral and
written communication skills and professional dispositions as future PE teachers.
PETE candidates must also take a physical fitness test, general motor skill test, and
sport skill test of their choice. Skills and fitness competency is one of the critical
components of screening PETE candidates.
Compared with the Korean system, which determines teacher candidacy at
the admissions stage, the U.S. system allows students time to explore their teacher
education major. As can be seen in Table 2, students have to apply for admission
into the PETE program after completing 30-45 credit hours (usually during their
sophomore year). The application requires a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.5, which
should be maintained through completion of the degree program, an interview,
and an essay. The interview and essay are used to check their communication skills
and awareness of teachers’ professional dispositions. In the essay, students are
required to describe their reasons for wanting to become a PE teacher, their work
experience with children/youth, and their strengths and weaknesses in terms of
their professional disposition. In addition, students have to pass the Basic Skills Test,
or Pre-Professional Skills Test (Praxis I) as part of the certification process. The Basic
Skills Test, composed of reading, mathematics, and writing, tests teacher candidates’
skills and knowledge to become teachers.

241
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

Table 2. PETE program entry requirements

Korea U. S.
Programs
Program A Program B Program C Program D
Entry decision Admission to the Admission to the Sophomore year Sophomore year
university university
Admission requirements Korean SAT Korean SAT Cumulative GPA Cumulative GPA
interview interview 2.5 or higher 2.5 or higher
Essay exam for Essay exam Interviews Reflective paper
teacher aptitude Skills & fitness test Reflective paper Basic Skills Test
and dispositions (Fitness test, motor Pre-Professional
Skills & fitness test skill test) Skills Test (PPST)
(Fitness test, motor
skill test)

Both the Korean and U.S. PETE systems require basic academic competency and
professional disposition in order to complete the program successfully. As previously
mentioned, in Korea there is strong competition for entry into PETE programs due
to the attractiveness of teaching jobs. Therefore, there are more comprehensive
assessment procedures—including academic ability, professional disposition, and
fitness and motor skill competency. A noticeable difference in entry requirements
between the two countries is the skill and fitness testing in the Korean system.
The Korean system requires motor skill competency and fitness as an important
component for candidates’ successful completion of PETE programs. Meanwhile,
the U.S. system does not require any physical education-specific qualification such
as skill or fitness competency; rather, it requires general academic competency
in reading, math, and writing as basic skills for completing the teacher education
program.

Organization and content of the PETE curriculum

Organization of content courses

The organization and content of the PETE curriculum reflects what knowledge and
skills are valued to become competent PE teachers. Although there are some variations
in the organization of teacher education curricula, they all offer some combination
of coursework in discipline content knowledge, activity content knowledge, and
pedagogy-related courses (see Table 3). Unlike academic subjects such as math,
English, and science, the nature of PE as a performance-based subject requires two
types of subject matter content knowledge: discipline content knowledge (e.g., exercise
physiology, sport psychology) and activity content knowledge (e.g., basketball, soccer).
Discipline content knowledge refers to discipline-specific scientific and theoretical
concepts related to skillful movement, physical activity, and fitness. Activity content
knowledge includes factual knowledge such as rules, history, defensive/offensive
strategies as well as accomplishing specified tasks in a specific given situation.

242
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

Table 3. Organization of PETE curriculum

Korea U.S.
Programs
Program A Program B Program C Program D
Discipline *History and philoso- *Introduction to *Introduction to kine- * Motor behavior (3)
content phy of PE (3) kinesiology(3) siology (3) *Anatomy & Physiol-
knowledge *Biomechanics (3) *History and philoso- *Sociocultural analysis ogy (3)
*Movement analysis (2) phy of PE (3) of sport and exercise *Biomechanics (3)
*Motor learning and *Measurement and (3) *Motor development
sport psychology (3) evaluation (3) *History and phi- (3)
*Sport sociology (3) *Exercise physiology losophy of sport and *Exercise physiology
*Anatomy and physiol- (3) physical education (3) (3)
ogy (3) *Motor learning and *Physiology of sport *Sport psychology (3)
*Exercise prescription sport psychology (3) and physical activity
(2) *Sport sociology (3) (3)
*Introduction to kinesi- *Biomechanics (3) *Biomechanics of sport
ology (3) and physical activity
(3)
*Motor development
and learning (3)
*Psychology of physi-
cal activity (3)

(22 credits) (21 credits) (21 credits) (18 credits)

Activ- *Swimming (1) *Track (1) *Educational games *Invasion games (2)
ity content *Track (1) *Gymnastics (1) (1) *Net/Wall games (2)
knowledge *Gymnastics (1) are *Swimming (1) are *Games for under- *Target/field games
required for all. required for all. standing (3) (2)
*Personal skill (gym- *Educational gym-
Select 18 credits from Select courses from nastics & dance) nastics(1)
the followings: the followings: performance (1) *Contemporary
*Conditioning (1) activities (1)
*Field (1) *Basketball (1) *Weight training (1) *Lifelong leisure
*Ballet (1) *Volleyball (1) *Optional activity (1) activities (2)
*Yacht (1) *Windsurfing (1) *Health related fitness
*Baseball (1) *Ski (1) (3)
*Educational dance (1) *Swimming (1) *Elementary move-
ment fundamentals
*Taekwondo (1) *Gymnastics (1)
(2)
*Archery (1) *Dance education (1)
*Tennis (1) *Softball (1)
*Weight training (1) *Sport dance (1)
*Table tennis (1) *Baseball (1)
*Skating (1) *Badminton (1)
*Rugby (1) *Golf (1)
*Handball (1) *Handball (1)
*Judo (1) *Lifetime sport (1)
*Taichi (1) *Taekwondo (1)
*Badminton (1) *Soccer (1)
*Windsurfing (1) *Camping and hiking
*Dance sport (1) (1)
*Golf (1)
*Snow boarding (1)
*Volleybal l(1)
*Yoga (1)
(21 credits) (18-22 credits) (8 credits) (15 credits)

243
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

Korea U.S.
Programs
Program A Program B Program C Program D
Physical *PE Curriculum (3) *Logics and writing *Instructional Methods *Introduction to PE (2)
education *Materials and meth- in PE (3) in PE I (3) *Instructional founda-
pedagogy ods of PE (3) *Materials and meth- *Instructional Methods tions in PE (2)
*Logics and writing in ods of PE (3) in PE II (3) *Elementary PE meth-
PE (2) *Introduction to PE *Curriculum and ods (3)
*Introduction to PE (3) (3) teaching in secondary *Secondary PE meth-
school PE (3) ods (3)
*Measurement and *Adapted PE (2)
assessment in PE (3) *PE curriculum (3)
*PE for individuals *Skill analysis and
with special needs (3) assessment (2)
*Observation and *Adapted PE assess-
analysis of funda- ment (2)
mental movement (3) *Field experience (1)
*Teaching PE intern-
ship (2)

(11 credits) (9 credits) (20 credits) (20credits)

Student Student teaching (2) Student teaching (2) Student teaching (12) Student teaching (16)
Teaching

Although PE started as a profession rather than a discipline, discipline content

knowledge has been considered more important than activity content knowledge
since the discipline movement in the 1960s (Lawson, 1984). The physical education
discipline movement can be seen as a consequence of the post-Sputnik reform
movement in education which required a more rigorous, science-based body of
knowledge and scholarly approach to all subjects (Siedentop, 1980). With the
revolutionary efforts to establish PE as an academic discipline, a question was raised
regarding “knowledge that constitutes the academic discipline of physical education
in the college degree program” (Henry, 1964, p. 32); scientific sub-discipline
knowledge such as exercise physiology, motor learning, and sport psychology were
the answers to the question. With the physical education discipline movement,
the teacher education program has sacrificed activity content knowledge for more
academically-oriented knowledge (Siedentop, 2002). This trend is more obvious
in the U.S. PETE programs than in the Korean programs. When comparing course
credits, the U.S. allocates more course credits for discipline content knowledge
(18-21 credits) than activity content (8-15 credits). Unlike the Korean system,
which maintains a balance between discipline content knowledge (21-22 credits)
and activity content knowledge (18-22 credits), the U.S system is skewed toward
providing discipline content rather than activity content.

Organization of activity content courses

The number of credit hours allotted for activity content courses (e.g., basketball,
soccer) is higher in Korea than in the U.S. Despite the sport skill and fitness test in

244
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

the admissions process, the Korean PETE system requires candidates to take at least
21 credits of activity classes before graduation. Although the content of the activity
courses is similar, the organization of the activity content classes is quite different
between the two countries. In Korea, the activity courses are organized as one credit
hour-single activity content courses such as basketball, volleyball, and gymnastics.
Activity courses focus on improving teacher candidates’ activity content knowledge
by allowing them to practice diverse sport skills and physical activities.
In the Korean PETE system the teacher candidates’ mastery of activity content
seems to guarantee their teaching competency. As can be seen in Table 4, the common
objectives of activity courses drawn from the analysis of course syllabi were centered
on skill acquisition and the understanding and application of rules and techniques
in game situations. Although teachers’ mastery of activity content is a necessary
condition to become a competent teacher, it is not sufficient enough for them to be
a good teacher. Teachers also should be able to break down sport skills or games to
meet the developmental needs of students, design or modify games or tasks to make
a sport comprehensible to students, and use appropriate analogies or examples to
explain skills and concepts. This requires pedagogical content knowledge (PCK),
which is a “special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province
of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding” (Shulman, 1987,
p. 8). To put it simply, PCK is subject matter knowledge for teaching (Shulman,
1986, p. 9), including knowledge for explaining tasks, showing demonstrations,
modifying tasks to meet the physical and cognitive level of students, and identifying
and dealing with students’ misconceptions or errors in skill performance. It is
unquestionable that physical activity content knowledge is the source of PCK, but the
mastery of sport skills and techniques does not guarantee the development of PCK
(Ward, 2009). In this sense, the Korean system is weak in PCK development despite
its emphasis on content knowledge.
In the U.S., the organization of physical activity classes is based on a different
rationale by emphasizing educational aspects of individual and team sports. Rather
than teaching various one credit hour-single activity courses, the U.S. program
focuses on teaching game tactics and principles that can be transferred to similar
types of sports. For example, the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)
approach uses game classification based on the similar characteristics and tactics
used in games and categorizes the games into: invasion games, net/wall games, and
field/target games (Griffin & Butler, 2005). Each type of game is taught by exposing
students to game-like tasks or small-sized modified games so that they may learn
how to apply skills, techniques, and tactics in given situations, thus eventually
enhancing their game playing ability. Compared with the traditional approach, Kirk
(2005) argued that TGfU strengthens teachers’ PCK and content knowledge because
it requires a solid understanding of game concepts, tactical awareness, and decision-
making skills. As can be seen in Table 4, the organization of activity content in the
U.S. emphasizes not only the skill development of teacher candidates but also the

245
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

design and sequencing of tasks for K-12 students. In addition, the grouping and
categorization of activity courses is based on common principles and tactics among
diverse sports so that the teacher candidates can transfer those principles into
teaching contexts.

Table 4. Organization of activity content knowledge

Korea U. S.
Programs
Program A Program B Program C Program D

Examples of *Basketball *Baseball *Educational games *Invasion games

course *Volleyball *Basketball *Games for under- *Net/wall games
*Baseball *Volleyball standing *Target/Field games
*Badminton *Badminton *Educational gym-
*Soccer *Handball nastics
*Soccer

Course objec- 1. R
 ules, fundamen- 1. D
 evelop fun- 1. S
 kill development 1. E
 ffectively
tives tals, skills and his- damental skills and analysis of demonstrate skills
tory of basketball needed to game physical activity via effective cue
play through a games selection, perform-
2. L
 earn how to
approach ance, and verbal
execute required 2. T
 erminology,
description
skills and tech- rules, equipment, 2. E
 ffective game
niques and strategies play performance 2. D
 etermine ap-
needed to partici- through the suc- propriate tactical
3. Apply strategies to
pate in games. cessful interplay of problems and
the games
tactical decision- sequence them
making with progressively into
associated skill a unit plan
development
3. D
 esign, imple-
3. D
 evelop and ment, and evaluate
design educational appropriate tasks
game for elemen- for selected game
tary and middle tactics and/or
school students skills

4. I dentify similar
on-the-ball, off-
the-ball skills and
tactics among
games

Organization of pedagogy courses

PE pedagogy courses are generally composed of a curriculum, teaching

methods, and assessment courses. The Korean PETE system has only 3-4 PE
pedagogy courses, while the U.S. system has twice the number of detailed pedagogy
courses. The Korean system prepares the teacher candidates well in terms of
discipline and activity content knowledge, but puts less emphasis on PE pedagogy. It

246
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

reflects the view that the PE teacher is an expert in subject matter content knowledge
rather than an expert in organizing learning tasks or facilitating student learning.
In contrast to the Korean system, the U.S. places a strong emphasis on pedagogy
courses, and the number of credit hours allotted for pedagogy courses (20 credits)
is higher than that for activity content courses (8-15 credits). As can be seen in
Table 3, the organization of PE pedagogy courses is developmentally sequenced so
that teacher candidates learn basic instructional skills, and then move on to more
advanced levels of teaching methods. The instructional skill courses are divided
into basic instructional skill courses (e.g., instructional foundations) and grade level-
specific elementary and secondary methods courses (e.g., elementary methods,
secondary methods). Compared with the Korean system, which provides only 9-11
credits of PE pedagogy courses, the U.S. offers more specific and detailed knowledge
on how to teach by providing 20 credits of general PE instruction courses and grade
level-specific PE teaching methods such as elementary PE teaching methods and
secondary PE teaching methods.
Another noticeable difference in the U.S. PETE system is the strong emphasis on
the field experience component. In the U.S., teacher candidates are exposed to a series
of developmentally sequenced early field experiences prior to student teaching. The
early field experiences are infused into many different courses. At the introductory
level, teacher candidates can conduct job shadowing and observe classes. Teacher
candidates plan lessons and teach a small group of students at the next level of
courses (e.g., elementary PE methods), then ultimately take charge of the whole
class (e.g., field experience, teaching PE internship). The early field experiences
gradually expose teacher candidates to instructional settings and help them take
on responsibilities in a progressively sequenced manner under the supervision of
university faculty and mentor teachers. The strong field experience component in the
U.S. PETE system contrasts with the emphasis on university-based pedagogy courses
in the Korean PETE system.
In an effort to address the lack of a field experience component, in 2009, the
Korean teacher education programs added a course (1 credit) called the “Educational
Volunteer Program” to promote teacher candidates’ practical experience. The
course is required for all teacher candidates during their second or third year of
study, and they should complete two credits from the course. Teacher candidates
are placed in public schools, community centers, or other education facilities to
provide educational services such as assisting in classroom teaching, grading tests,
and tutoring after-school program participants. The course is not supervised by
PETE program faculty and does not include any structured subject-specific teaching
experiences. Although the educational volunteer program can expose teacher
candidates to other educational settings and provide them with opportunities to
explore other education-related issues, it is disconnected from the PETE curriculum
and lacks a structured teaching experience.

247
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

Organization of student teaching

Student teaching is considered as one of the capstone experiences in teacher
education programs in both the U.S. and Korea. However, the length of the student
teaching is quite different between the two nations. In Korea, four weeks of student
teaching (2 credits) at either a middle or high school is required for the preparation of
secondary physical education teachers. The length of student teaching is quite shorter
than that of the U.S. system, where 12-16 weeks at elementary and middle/high
school settings is required. Besides the length of student teaching, the supervision
structure of student teaching is also different. In Korea, the supervision of student
teachers is mainly conducted by cooperating teachers, and the role of university
faculty is minimal (1-2 conferences). Meanwhile, in the U.S., the supervision of
student teaching is conducted by triad relationships among the student teacher, the
cooperating teacher, and the university supervisor. Compared with the PETE student
teaching system in Korea, the U.S. system is more intensive in terms of the length
and supervision structure of student teaching. The public school system, cooperating
teacher, and university supervisor share the PETE teacher preparation process and
offer a more holistic environment to the education of beginning PE teachers.

Licensure/Certification requirements
In Korea, PE teacher candidates acquire teaching licensure with the completion
of degree requirements specified by the Teacher Certification Authorization Act (E.
Kim, 2005). According to the law, teacher candidates have to complete a minimum
of 4 credits from PE pedagogy, 2 credits from student teaching, 42 credits from
kinesiology (including physical activity courses), and 20 credits from educational
foundations courses. Korean PE teacher candidates have to complete required
coursework on content and pedagogy and also have to pass a physical skill test
in order to graduate and be certified as a PE teacher. The physical skill test is
administered during the last semester in the degree program by the individual
teacher education programs, and teacher candidates have to prove their competency
in designated activity contents and acquire satisfactory grades for graduation. Except
for the physical skill test, there is no additional competency testing for obtaining
a teaching certificate. Table 5 shows licensure/certification requirements in both
systems.

Table 5. Licensure/Certification requirements

Korea U. S.
Programs
Program A Program B Program C Program D
Requirements *Completion of de- *Completion of de- *Praxis II (content *Technology com-
gree requirements gree requirements test) petency assessment
*Physical skill test *Physical skill test *Teaching portfolio *State content test
*Assessment of pro-
fessional teaching
test

248
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

Meanwhile, in the U.S., teacher candidates have to pass several tests to get
licensure. Although there is variability in teacher certificate tests among states
due to the decentralized, state-based teacher certificate system in the U.S., teacher
candidates have to pass state-approved tests to prove their basic academic capability,
pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge. First, teacher candidates have to
pass the Basic Skill Test or Praxis I during an earlier stage of the teacher education
program. The test measures teacher candidates’ math, reading, grammar, and writing
skills. In addition, teacher candidates have to pass the PE content test.
In North Carolina, for example, teacher candidates have to pass the PE content
test called Praxis II administered by the Educational Testing Service. It includes the
following four categories: (a) physical education content knowledge and student
growth and development; (b) management, motivation, and communication; (c)
planning, instruction, and student assessment; and (d) collaboration, reflection,
and technology. Praxis II tests teacher candidates’ professional knowledge required
for K-12 beginning teachers. It covers knowledge of fitness, sports, fundamental
movement skills and natural and social discipline knowledge and understanding
of how this knowledge is transformed in a PE curriculum. In addition, it covers
professional teaching skills required to facilitate student learning, assessing student
achievement, and reflecting and planning for future improvement in their teaching
(Educational Testing Service, 2010).
In Illinois, teacher candidates have to pass the Basic Skills Test, state content
exam, and Assessment of Professional Teaching exam administered by the State
Board of Education. The state PE content exam is similar to the Praxis II test
administered in other states. It covers the following four areas: (a) health-related
physical fitness, (b) movement and skill acquisition, (c) the role of physical education
in promoting development, and (d) the physical education program (Illinois State
Board of Education, 2006a). While the state content exam covers discipline-specific
subject matter knowledge, the Assessment of Professional Teaching (APT) exam
covers pedagogical knowledge and skills such as: (a) foundations, characteristics
and assessment; (b) planning and delivering instruction; (c) managing the learning
environment; (d) collaboration, communication, and professionalism; (e) language
arts; and (f) technology (Illinois State Board of Education, 2006b). Although Illinois
and North Carolina require slightly different exams for certification/licensure, both
systems require exams that combine basic skills, subject matter content knowledge
and pedagogical skills.
The differences in testing and exam requirements for certification between
the Korean and the U.S. systems are mainly caused by the differences in the hiring
process after graduation. In the U.S., teacher candidates can apply for teaching jobs
upon graduation with appropriate teaching licensure; however, in Korea, teacher
candidates have to pass the National Teacher Employment Test (NTET) designed
and administered by the Korea Institute for Curriculum Evaluation, a government-
supported educational research institution, to be hired in the public school system.

249
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

The employment test is an open, competitive test. This once-a-year exam includes
subject matter content and pedagogical knowledge, essay, and physical skill
competency tests in addition to an interview and teaching performance evaluation.
The exam is extremely competitive as teaching jobs in Korea are very secure and
attractive. Each year, all of those who pass the exam are hired.

Comparative findings and implications

The findings of this study revealed some similarities and differences between
the Korean and the U.S. PETE systems under investigation. Considering that each
system is bounded in its unique cultural, political, and social context, it is difficult to
assess which system is better in preparing future PE teachers. Despite this challenge
in interpreting comparative findings, the comparison can provide insights into how
different systems deal with the issue of preparing highly qualified PE teachers. Based
on the comparative findings, implications can be provided for both Korean and U.S.
PETE policy and practice.
First, the Korean PETE system is characterized by a strong emphasis on
activity and discipline content knowledge rather than pedagogical knowledge.
Specifically, activity content knowledge, including skill competence and physical
fitness, is consistently emphasized throughout the process of recruiting candidates,
the teacher education curriculum, and NTET. Rink (1993) argued that there are
dominant conceptual orientations explaining the underpinning structure of a PETE
program such as academic (emphasis on subject matter knowledge), practical
(emphasis on field experience and practice), technological (emphasis on teacher
effectiveness skills), personal (nurturing personal growth as a teacher), and social/
critical orientations (emphasis on the moral issues of the teacher). Considering that
Korean PETE is mainly composed of discipline and activity content knowledge,
it is characterized by the academic orientation which defines a good teacher as an
expert on discipline knowledge and physical activity. Although there is no doubt
that subject matter knowledge is the main source of pedagogical content knowledge
which is critical to teaching competency, research has shown that more subject
matter is not always positively related to higher student learning outcomes (Monk,
1994; Stuhr et al., 2007; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). Despite the focus on
subject matter content knowledge preparation in the Korean system, the construction
of PCK is emphasized less. Considering that the Korean system screens candidates at
the recruitment stage based on physical competency and fitness, the current structure
of physical activity classes in the PETE curriculum may need to be restructured to
develop more PCK rather than repeating skill development. The organizational
structure of the U.S. PETE curriculum sheds some light on restructuring activity
classes. Rather than providing multiple one credit activity classes such as basketball,

250
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

soccer, and badminton, the Korean PETE program should organize activity classes
based on game categorizations such as invasion games, net/wall games, and target/
fielding games (Choi, 2005; Werner & Almond, 1990). In this way, teacher candidates
can enhance their conceptual understanding of skills and strategies and enhance their
ability to transform activity content knowledge to relevant K-12 teaching content.
For example, prospective teachers should be able to design modified games for K-12
students by matching students’ abilities with the tactical complexity of sports.
Secondly, the U.S. system is characterized by an emphasis on discipline content
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge rather than activity content knowledge. The
emphasis on discipline content knowledge originated from the physical education
discipline movement to establish PE as an academic discipline and legitimize the
status of PE in the university. As a result, the U.S. system has a strong discipline focus
yet sacrifices activity content knowledge because it is “academically unpalatable”
(Kretchmar, 1988). Activity content knowledge was also marginalized with the
emphasis on pedagogical knowledge. Consequently, as Siedentop (2002) argued,
PE teacher candidates in the U.S. are well equipped with discipline knowledge and
pedagogical skills but cannot teach an in-depth unit of instruction due to their lack of
activity content knowledge.
As the teacher education program works in a zero-sum game, the addition of
credit hours in activity content knowledge will result in the decrease of either the
discipline or pedagogical knowledge area. Without changing the credit hours, the
Korean system that administers the physical skill test as part of the admission and
graduation requirements can lend some insights to the U.S. system. The recently
revised National PETE program standards (National Association for Sport and
Physical Education [NASPE], 2009) have strengthened teacher candidates’ skill and
fitness competence and require candidates to demonstrate competent movement
performance and health-enhancing fitness throughout the PETE program. With
the addition of the skill and fitness competence standards, the U.S. PETE program
can administer teacher candidates’ skill and fitness testing throughout the program
and develop a tracking system to monitor their progress. In this way, the American
system can strengthen the importance of skill competency and fitness as important
physical activity content knowledge.
Thirdly, compared with the U.S. system, the Korean PETE program is weak in
terms of providing pedagogical knowledge and field-based clinical experience (D.
Kim, 2008). The number of physical education pedagogy courses is limited and there
is no early field experience prior to student teaching (D. Kim, 2008). In addition,
four weeks of student teaching is too short compared with a full semester of student
teaching in the U.S. system. The Korean PETE system can be characterized by on-
campus preparation lacking field-based experiences and practical knowledge (Cho
& Park, 2010). Due to the short student teaching period and lack of field experience,
Korean PETE students do not have sufficient opportunities to integrate subject matter
content and pedagogical knowledge into real teaching contexts. In order to provide

251
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

a more authentic understanding of the teaching-learning process in the field, the

Korean PETE system should infuse early field experiences into methods courses and
increase the length of the student teaching period.
Lastly, the Korean and the U.S. systems have different ways of assuring teacher
candidates’ quality and conferring licensure. In Korea, teacher candidates obtain
teaching licensure by completing degree requirements without additional testing.
The assurance of teacher candidates’ quality is not made by the rigorous nature of the
PETE program process but by the testing that takes place during the recruitment and
hiring process. The competiveness of the PE teaching job market makes it possible
to attract and hire academically excellent and physically competent individuals.
Strengthening the rigor and accountability of teacher education programs is a critical
issue in Korean PETE, and there has been some improvement through a series of
government-initiated teacher education institution evaluations in 1998, 2003, and
2010.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has adopted standards and assessment as leverage for
quality assurance of the teacher education program (Darling-Hammond, 2001). The
PETE program is structured to meet the initial physical education teacher education
standards specified by NASPE (2009), and the strong drive for accreditation of the
PETE program has emphasized the accountability of the teacher education program.
The standard-based teacher education program and the emphasis on assessment has
added clarity regarding what teacher candidates should be able to do as a result of
teacher education.

Conclusion
The preparation of highly qualified teachers with a balanced composition of
content and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions is challenging but
a commonly relevant issue to international teacher education communities. By
comparing the similarities and differences in candidate recruitment, the structure
and content of the PETE curriculum, and licensure exams/employment test, one
can obtain a better understanding of each system and also obtain new ideas for
improvement based on comparative findings.
The comparative findings have shown that both countries have criteria for
preparing high quality PE teachers. Despite the socio-cultural differences between
both countries, there are common structural components such as meeting recruitment
criteria, the completion of activity and discipline content knowledge coursework,
PE pedagogy coursework, field experience and student teaching, and the passing of
licensure tests or the National Teacher Employment Test. These structural similarities
are the outcomes of more than three decades of sport pedagogy research around
the world regarding what kind of teacher education structure is needed for quality
teacher preparation (OECD, 2005).

252
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

Despite the structural similarities, the two systems place emphasis on different
components of PETE. In Korea, the highly competitive recruitment standards and
the Teacher Employment Test are considered as critical indicators of assuring teacher
quality rather than PETE program content (Lee, 2011). On the contrary, the U.S.
has a strong sense of accountability on PETE programs because only a basic level
of academic and communication skills are required in order to be admitted to the
program. The quality of PE teachers is dependent on the quality of PETE programs
rather than the competitiveness of candidates in the recruitment procedure. These
differences are caused by the job status and attractiveness perceived by individuals
in each country.
The knowledge expectation of PE teachers is also quite different. In Korea, PE
teachers are considered as athletic scholars who are excellent in physical activity
and discipline content knowledge. Although the knowledge expectation of Korean
PE teachers is very high, relatively weak emphasis is placed on the preparation
of pedagogical knowledge or PCK. In this sense, the Korean system reflects the
characteristic of academicization of PETE, emphasizing university-based subject
matter content knowledge rather than field-based pedagogical knowledge or
PCK. The U.S. PETE programs have stronger PE pedagogical knowledge and
student teaching than the Korean system, yet have weaker physical activity content
knowledge.
Given these relative strengths and weaknesses, different recommendations
can be provided for each country to enhance the quality of PE teachers. The
Korean PETE programs are heavily skewed toward discipline and activity content
knowledge yet put less emphasis on PE pedagogy (Jeong & Kim, 1999; Son, 2002).
A consensus seems to be emerging among Korean PETE scholars to strengthen the
physical education pedagogical knowledge base and increase the length of student
teaching (Cho & Park 2010; Jeong & Kim, 1999; Y. Kim, 2010; Son, 2002). Scholars also
have suggested that PETE curricula should be restructured to infuse pedagogical
knowledge into physical activity content courses (Son, 2002).
Meanwhile, American PETE is mainly composed of methods, processes, and
pedagogy without paying sufficient attention to activity content knowledge (Ayvazo,
Ward, & Stuhr, 2010; Rink, 2007; Siedentop, 2002; Ward, 2009). In an effort to address
the lack of activity content knowledge, there was a national move to strengthen
teacher candidates’ activity content knowledge by adding the movement and fitness
competence standard into the recently revised national PETE program standards
(NASPE, 2009).
In addition to the recommendations for each country, the findings of this
study also raise several future research agendas that will enhance the comparative
understanding of the PETE system. First of all, future research should compare
the PETE systems in relation to how other policies are influencing the education of
future PE teachers. This study examined the PETE systems only within the context
of education policy, but did not examine how health promotion, elite sports, and

253
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

physical activity promotion policies are either shaping or controlling the PETE
systems. PE, as a school subject, has been dealing with competing issues such as
health/obesity, elite sports, and education for human capital; thus, contextualizing
the PETE systems within this complex array of issues will make it possible for a more
holistic comparison of the systems (Dodds, 2006).
Secondly, future research should examine how each PETE system is perceived
by teacher candidates, teacher education faculty, and administrators. The
comparative findings of this study show explicitly and officially what is valued in
each system but do not show what is actually implemented or how it is perceived by
stakeholders. The existence of national/state standards, licensure exams, coursework,
and a teacher employment test reflect what is valued for the preparation of qualified
beginning teachers within each system. There can be, however, either alignment or
clash between what is intended and what is actually perceived and experienced in
each system. An examination of the factors bringing about the alignment or clash
and how these factors are influencing the agenda of enhancing teacher candidates’
quality will provide a better picture of a comparative study.
Finally, in each phase of PETE, from recruitment to licensure, an employment
test is assumed to play a certain role in preparing high quality PE teachers. Future
research should pay attention to each of these phases and examine how they
influence PE teacher preparation. In addition, special attention should be paid to
the unique aspects of PETE in each system, such as the physical skill and fitness
competency test in the admissions process and NTET in the Korean system, and
the Basic Skill Test in the U.S. When educational systems have a clearer idea of how
each phase is functioning to attract, educate, test and screen highly qualified PE
teacher candidates, the adoption or borrowing of a policy from other countries can be
enhanced.

Address for correspondence

Euichang Choi
Associate professor
Department of Physical Education
College of Education
Seoul National University
599 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu
Seoul, Korea
Tel: 82 2 880 7789
Email: ecchoi67@snu.ac.kr

254
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

References

Ayers, S. F. (2002, July). Assessing sub-disciplinary concept knowledge of preservice

physical education teachers. Paper presented at the China-U.S. Physical Education
Conference, Beijing, China.
Ayvazo, A., Ward, P., & Stuhr, P. (2010). Teaching and assessing content knowledge
in preservice physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance, 81, 40-44.
Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching
and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 241-247.
Belka, D., Lawson, H., & Lipnickey, S. C. (1991). An exploratory study of
undergraduate recruitment into several major programs at one university.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 286-306.
Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7),
5-13.
Castelli, D., & Williams, L. (2007). Health-related fitness and physical education
teachers’ content knowledge. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 3-19.
Cho, M., & Park, Y. (2010). A comparative study on physical education teacher
education programs in Korea and America. Journal of Korean Physical Education
Association for Girls and Woman, 24(2), 179-192. (in Korean)
Choi, E. (2005). An integrated approach to sport instruction: The application of
Hanaro teaching model to preservice physical education teacher education.
Korean Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 12(1), 1-30. (in Korean)
Choi, E. (2011, June). The preparation of physical education teachers in Korea. Paper
presented at the International Society of Comparative Physical Education and
Sport Conference, East China Normal University, Shanghi, China.
Committee on Science and Mathematics. (2001). Educating teachers of science,
mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Standard setting in teaching: Changes in licensing,
certification, and assessment. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (4th ed., pp. 751-776). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Dewey, J. (1964). John Dewey on education (R. Archambault, Ed.). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Dodds, P. (2006). Physical education teacher education (PE/TE) policy. In D. Kirk, D.
Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 540-
561). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Educational Testing Service. (2010). Test at a glance. Retrieved September 9, 2010,
from http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/0091.pdf
Griffin, L. L., & Butler, J. I. (2005). Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research,

255
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hantrais, L., & Mangen, S. (1996). Method and management of cross-national social
research. In L. Hantrais & S. Mangen (Eds.), Cross-national research methods in the
social science (pp. 1-12). New York: Pinter.
Henry, F. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, 37(7), 32-33.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2006a). Illinois certification testing system study
guide–physical education. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from http://www.icts.
nesinc.com/PDFs/IL_field144_SG.pdf
Illinois State Board of Education. (2006b). Illinois certification testing system study
guide–assessment of professional teaching. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from
http://www.icts.nesinc.com/PDFs/IL_field101-104_SG.pdf
Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). A comparative study of teacher preparation and qualifications in
six nations. Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/
ED498346.pdf
Jeong, D. S., & Kim, S. K. (1999). The development of a model curriculum for physical
education in teacher training institutions. The Korean Journal of Physical Education,
38(3), 345-358. (in Korean)
Kang, N. H., & Hong, M. (2008). Achieving excellence in teacher workforce and
equity in learning opportunities in South Korea. Educational Researcher, 37(4),
200-207.
Kim, D. (2008). A study on the curriculum development of secondary physical
education teacher education. Korean Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 15, 21-37. (in
Korean)
Kim, E. (2005). The quality and qualifications of the teaching force in the Republic
of Korea. In R. M. Ingersoll (Ed.), A comparative study of teacher preparation and
qualifications in six nations (CPRE policy briefs, pp. 55-70). Philadelphia, PA:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Kim, R. Y., Ham, S. H., & Paine, L. W. (2011). Knowledge expectations in mathematics
teacher preparation programs in South Korea and the United States: Towards
international dialogue. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 48-61.
Kim, Y. (2010). Inquiry on training and appointment of Korea’s secondary physical
education teacher. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 19(1),
87-105. (in Korean)
Kirk, D. (2005). Future prospects for teaching games for understanding. In L.L.
Griffin & J. I. Butler (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 213-227). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Kretchmar, S. (1988). Exercise and sport science. Big Ten Leadership Conference Report
(pp. 45-58). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lawson, H. A. (1984). Invitation to physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lee, O. (2011). Physical education teacher education program assessment in USA:
Characteristics and its implications for Korean system. The Journal of Korean

256
 A comparison of Korean and U.S. physical education teacher education systems

Teacher Education, 28(2), 73-92. (in Korean)

McKenzie, T. L., & Kahan, D. (2004). Impact of the surgeon general’s report: Through
the eyes of physical education teacher educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 23, 300-317.
Monk, D. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science
teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125-145.
Napper-Own, G. E., Marston, R., Volkinburg, P. V., Afeman, H., & Brewer, J. (2008).
What constitutes a highly qualified physical education teacher? Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 79(8), 26-30, 51.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education & American Heart
Association. (2010). 2010 Shape of the nation report: Status of physical education in
the USA. Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2009). National standards &
guidelines for physical education teacher education (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: National
Association for Sport and Physical Education.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Teachers matter:
Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Retrieved June 1, 2010,
from http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=4109381/cl=16/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/
fulltextew.pl?prpsv=/ij/oecdthemes/99980029/v2005n6/s1/p1l.idx
O’Sullivan, M. (1996). What do we know about the professional preparation of
teachers? In S. Silverman & C. D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical
education: Applying research to enhance instruction (pp. 275-294). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Rink, J. (1993). Teacher education: A focus on action. Quest, 45, 308-320.
Rink, J. (2007). What knowledge is of most worth? Perspectives on kinesiology from
pedagogy. Quest, 59, 100-110.
Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P. Peterson & H.
Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp. 28-
56). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. (2010). Statistics of the national teacher
employment for the public secondary schools. Retrieved September, 21, 2011 from
http://www.sen.go.kr
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Siedentop, D. (1980). Physical education: Introductory analysis (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Brown Company Publishers.
Siedentop, D. (2002). Content knowledge for physical education. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 21, 368-377.
Son, C. (2002). Present situations and improving plans for physical education teacher
education. Korean Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 9(2), 26-42. (in Korean)

257
Okseon Lee & Euichang Choi

Stuhr, P. T., Lee, Y. S., Ressler, J., Rodrigues-Neto, M., Zhang, P., & Ward, P. (2007,
November). The relationship between prior soccer experience and current soccer
content knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ohio Association
for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Columbus, OH.
Suh, C. W. (1995). Teacher training and professional development in Korea. In L.
Darling-Hammond & V. L. Cobb (Eds.), Teacher preparation and development in
APEC members: A comparative study (pp. 131-142). Department of Education,
Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary.
Tsangaridou, N. (2006). Teachers’ knowledge. In D. Kirk, D. Mcdonald, & M.
O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 502-515). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ward, P. (2009). Content matters: Knowledge that alters teaching. In L. D. Housner, M.
W. Metzler, P. G. Schempp, & T. J. Templin (Eds.), Historic traditions and future
directions of research on teaching and teacher education in physical education (pp. 345-
356). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Werner, P. & Almond, L. (1990). Models of games education. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance, 61(4), 23-27.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research:
Current knowledge, gaps and recommendations. Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy, University of Washington. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from http://
depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-2001.pdf

258