Interscholastic athletics in extra-curriculum has been valued as an important educational function in each school levels. However, it involves many problems such as burn-out, drop-out, hazing, and so on.
The purpose of this study is to clarify the cause of the above problems by two perspectives, namely, performance-enhancement and the aim of school education.
The results are as follows:
1. Interscholastic athletics in extra-curriculum has been expected as not only an important educational function but also performance-enhancement. The modified guideline for interscholastic athletics is intended to enhance performance in extra-curriculum.
2. Performance-enhancement has an important meaning for human being in the point that it has a symbolic function for showing what human being could do. On the other hand, the aim of school education is to provide equal opportunity to be educated for every students. Thus, the provision should not be limited for some students.
3. Consequently, the present effort to enhance performance in extra-curriculum is irrelevant both performance-enhancement and the aim of school education. Performance-enhancement should not be taken up additionally in each school levels, but be proceeded by some authoritative athletic organizations. In the aim of school education, if the uniformity in term of performance-enhance is introduced, the abundant possibility of the athletic experience would be spoiled, and also the alienation of most of students would be brought in.
Therefore, the preseent author concludes that the system itself which intends to achieve both performance-enhancement and the aim of school education should be reconsidered for the relevant development.

View full abstract

The purpose of this study is to clarify the role of structure moments of philosophy of education and philosophy of physical education by comparing with John S Brubacher, Hiroshi Inoue and Earle. F. Zeigler who used similar method.
The findings are follows;
1) Inoue and Zeigler are influenced by Brubacher to analyze the structure of philosophy of education.
2) Zeigler classifies educational philosophy by Brubacher's influence and Inoue does it by Brameld's influence.
3) They both place general philosophical viewpoint as substructure of educational philosophy and place viewpoints of education and physical education.
4) They also explain each of philosophy of education and philosophy of physical education which are classified, by using the structure moments.
5) To explain by using the structure moments is effective and easy to understand for us.

View full abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe the fundamental conception of sport philosophy proposed by Hans Lenk. The main feature of his sport philosophy is pluralism in which the complex social phenomena are interpreted from various points of view by integrating several independent factors. He takes a pluralistic approach to solve the issues of sport philosophy. Lenk criticizes the preceding philosophical interpretations of sport in two ways, that is, in only individualistic interpretation and in simple social philosophy. Paul Weiss, for example, has focused only on athletes in his individualistic philosophical interpretation. Lenk points out a deficiency of social viewpoint in the approach of Weiss. He also mentions the social philosophical interpretation of sport, and states that in this interpretation of sport philosophy the notion of an individual is not so concrete. It is because the individual described in this approach is not a human being that exists in his own way but a human being that exists among the public. As a result he asserts that it is necessary to integrate these two kinds of approaches. Lenk stated in 1985 that we had not had a sport philosophy yet. This does not mean his ideological denial of sport. His comprehensive conception of sport philosophy let him say such a statement. His perspective is not to make a denial of that kind or to praise sport, but to regard sport as a subject of his own philosophy. Since sport influences us on a large scale, it should be a subject of philosophy like art, religion and science.

View full abstract

This paper aims at a solution of the following problems. 1) What does child need to understand and how does child need to move in order to cooperate with others in playing sport? 2) How should teacher grasp the relation between “understand-ing” and “being-able-to-do.” And 3) how should he/she construct actual lessons for children's cooperation?
Main findings are as follows. To cooperate in play, child has to be given many typical examples of cooperation. Those examples enable child to cooperate with others. Child can get the examples through experience of actual movement throgh using his/her own body. When child is conscious of the typical example, we can say the child understands what cooperation is. It is important to point out that the relation between “understanding” and “being-able-to-do” are not contradictory but interrelated.
In order to use words effectively for making child to understand cooperation, it is necessary for child to be given the typical example which the word applies to. Therefore, teacher should understand how to turn child's eyes to typical examples. Teacher should construct lessons with the typical examples.

View full abstract