"Physical education", "health and physical education", "physical literacy" and "health literacy": Global nomenclature confusion.

The title “physical education” (PE) is the traditional taxonomy used to represent the education discipline. Health and physical education (HPE) is regarded to be an all-encompassing health-dimensional title that has been recently embraced by various education systems around the world. Hence, it can be argued that PE and HPE are often used interchangeably by educationalists, portraying a similar meaning and understanding. This can be regarded as internationally confusing, as historically PE and HPE have represented different and at times paradoxical discourses and ideologies. Amongst the ambiguity of which title to use, PE or HPE, new terms of branding such as “physical literacy” and “health literacy” have re/emerged. The purpose of this interpretivist study is to identify if associated terms used for the original PE label are a help or hindrance to practitioners? Participants were asked an open-ended question relating to PE nomenclatures. The data gathered were analysed and findings confirmed that practitioner confusion does exist. It is suggested that children are first and foremost “physically educated”; therefore a strong, clear and comprehensive grounding in quality PE is essential for teachers and students

The assessment of practical work in school science

This article reviews how practical work, including practical skills, is currently summatively assessed in school science in a number of countries and makes comparisons with how other subjects, such as music and modern foreign languages, summatively assess skills. Whilst practical skills in school science are clearly valued as being of importance, there is a lack of clarity as to what these skills actually are and how they might, most effectively, be validly assessed. Countries vary greatly in the extent to which they employ what we term ‘Direct Assessment of Practical Skills’ (DAPS) or ‘Indirect Assessment of Practical Skills’ (IAPS). Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages but we conclude that too great a reliance on IAPS reduces the likelihood that practical work will be taught and learnt as well as it might be