Moving Away From the Beep Test in Physical Education

The Beep Test, also known as the 20 Meter Shuttle Run test, is a commonly used fitness test to estimate aerobic fitness (Léger et al., 1988). The test is administered using an audio recording, where individuals run from one marker to another, spaced 20 meters apart, at an increasing cadence directed by audible beeps, to the point of maximum exertion and failure. This test has been slightly modified by some and has been given various names (e.g., the PACER, which includes music in the background; Meredith, 2008). The Beep Test has been implemented in physical education settings for decades given the low-cost, easy-to-use nature, and reasonable accuracy of the test (Alfrey & Landi, 2022). Some exercise scientists continue to identify the merit for use of the Beep Test in schools to understand the aerobic fitness of youth (Marques et al., 2021; Tomkinson et al., 2019). 

As a university instructor, I regularly hear from students that they experienced the Beep Test as part of their secondary physical education programming. As a former K–12 physical and health education specialist and learning/department leader, I have also been part of and observed secondary physical education departments that mandated fitness testing, including the Beep Test, in their programming. In a physical education setting, the Beep Test is typically run in a large gymnasium space, where one group of students runs pylon to pylon while the remaining students watch and wait their turn (Top End Sports, 2024).  

The rationale behind implementing the Beep Test in physical education includes informing students about their fitness, promoting physical activity, ease of implementation, and because it is common practice for physical education (Alfrey & Gard, 2014). Based on my experience, educators would run the test at the beginning and end of the semester to inform students of their aerobic fitness levels and to encourage improvement and related goal setting. The Beep Test continues to be used in many Canadian schools today as a mandatory test, sometimes connected to student physical education grades (e.g., Simmons, 2023).  

However, while the above reasoning to include the Beep Test in physical education might seem appropriate, it is important that as educators, we are critical of what we engage students in during class – especially the activities that are made mandatory for all. Therefore, I take this opportunity to critically reflect on the Beep Test in schools. Below, I have outlined a few points for your consideration, which include the purpose of education, the multidimensional nature of health and physical literacy, and the importance of fostering physical literacy and Meaningful Physical Education for all students. Ultimately, I argue that a mandatory Beep Test has no place in physical education programming. 

The Purpose of Education 

There are varying perspectives regarding the purpose of education, which include acquiring knowledge and fostering students to live well (Gereluk et al., 2016). Across Canada, ministries of education identify their visions for the students in their province; some examples are listed below: 

• Supporting students in “gaining the knowledge and skills needed to form the foundations for successful and fulfilling lives, and to make meaningful contributions to their communities and the world” (Government of Alberta, 2024, para 1). 
• “To enable…[students] to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy” (Government of British Columbia, 2024, para 1). 
• “By ensuring Ontario's education system is modern, sustainable and responsive to emerging student needs, the ministry will ensure students are well prepared for success in school, work and life” (Government of Ontario, 2023, para 2). 
• To create “effective and modern learning environments that foster inclusive and healthy communities for all learners in the province” (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, n. d.a, para 3). 

While each vision is slightly different, the notion of health can be argued as a common thread (e.g., as fulfilling lives in Alberta, in a healthy society in British Columbia, as success in life in Ontario, and as healthy communities in Newfoundland and Labrador). Health and physical education disciplines are an important part of turning these visions into reality for Canadian students. In provincial physical and health education curricula across Canada, the aims and purpose and what guides the work of secondary physical education teachers include: 

• To “enable individuals to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to lead an active, healthy lifestyle” (Alberta Learning, 2000, p. 1). 
• “To empower students to develop a personalized understanding of what healthy living means to them as individuals and members of society” (Government of British Columbia, n.d., para 1). 
• To “enable [students] to thrive in an ever-changing world by helping them develop physical and health literacy as well as the comprehension, capacity, and commitment they will need to lead healthy, active lives and promote healthy, active living” (Government of Ontario, 2015, p. 6).  
• “To develop personal wellness, personal movement competency, and physical literacy to continue with an active lifestyle. Process skills are emphasized and students develop movement strategies to react to various situations, solve problems, and make decisions (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, n. d.b, para 13). 

When health is exclusively considered physical (i.e., the physical dimension of health), the Beep Test may be considered a useful tool for measuring a client’s aerobic fitness at a specific point in time. For an exercise physiologist, physician, or kinesiologist, driven by healthcare, performance, and prescriptive tendencies, the Beep Test could be deemed useful to gather quantifiable data to indicate trends in aerobic fitness and determine one’s own personal fitness at a specific point in time. On this view, one might argue that the Beep Test can provide baseline information regarding their personal health, knowing what one can or might be limited in doing based on their scores and context. This perspective draws primarily on the physical elements of health and where teachers justify the rationale for using the Beep Test in “physical” education. However, I argue that health is a more wholistic intersection of multiple dimensions that cannot be siloed, which must not be ignored in physical education programming; I describe this below. 

Multidimensional Health and Physical Literacy 

Three definitions of health are commonly used in society: (1) health is the “absence of any disease” or illness, (2) health is a state that allows us to cope with “all demands of daily life”, and (3) health is a “state of balance” within oneself and within their physical and social environment (Sartorius, 2006, p. 662). The World Health Organization defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (2021, para 1). On this view, health is multidimensional and involves the presence of wellness or well-being (i.e., where wellness and well-being are synonymous terms that refer to positively elevating one’s health; Taylor, 2024), which includes how we feel (i.e., emotional), our engagement with others (i.e., social) and our engagement in physical activity (i.e., physical). Health and wellness are much more than exclusively physical concepts. 

This understanding is further supported by the construct of physical literacy, which is defined “as appropriate to each individual’s endowment…the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to maintain physical activity throughout the lifecourse” (Whitehead, 2010, pp. 11–12). Physical literacy has been identified as being multidimensional, inherent in the definition, which includes core elements (Dudley, 2015) or the social (i.e., connection with others and their environment), emotional (i.e., how one feels), cognitive (i.e., problem solving, making decisions, and creating), and physical dimensions (i.e., fundamental movement skills) of physical activity; for a useful infographic, see Payne (2021). While physical literacy definitions sometimes slightly vary in wording depending upon the context (Edwards et al., 2017), Canada’s Physical Literacy (2015) consensus statement emphasizes valuing and taking responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life; this is supported by Whitehead’s (2010) conceptualization. 

The term “physical literacy” is explicitly described in some of the Canadian curricula (see Government of British Columbia, n.d.; Government of Ontario, 2015), while other provinces require curricular updates (e.g., the 2000 secondary Alberta curriculum). What is consistent and evident across all the secondary physical education curricula is the essence of physical literacy – the goal of supporting and encouraging students to lead healthy, active lives (see purpose and aims above). This entails fostering the physical literacy of each and every student in physical education, taking into consideration the multiple dimensions of physical literacy and health. The multiple dimensions of health and physical literacy (i.e., social, emotional, cognitive, physical) all require attention. In other words, how each student feels about engaging in physical activity is a critical consideration for their own unique physical literacy journey and is a critical aspect of physical education.   

Fostering Physical Literacy for all Students 

The problem with making the Beep Test mandatory in a physical education setting is that many students despise it (Safron & Landi, 2021), as they do other forms of fitness testing (Alfrey, 2024); in my experience as a teacher, some students will skip class to avoid it. Requiring students to run the Beep Test in class is problematic for several reasons, which are listed below. 

First, if there are students who dread coming to class because of a mandatory Beep Test, physical education is pushing those students away from an active lifestyle. This negatively influences the physical literacy journey of these students and it is difficult to claim that physical education is meaningful to students who feel this way. 

Second, when the Beep Test is run in a gymnasium as a class, students often watch each other as they wait or recover from their run. However, many students are not comfortable with their bodies being on display in front of their classmates (Taylor et al., 2024). Students might feel self-conscious and receive unwanted attention that can feel threatening (Kerner et al., 2018). Furthermore, being on display may be additionally uncomfortable or embarrassing for those who finish the Beep Test earlier than others (Zhu et al., 2018). Requiring students to participate in a fitness test that causes them emotional and/or social harm works directly against multidimensional health, negatively influences the student’s physical literacy journey, and deters them from physical education. 

Third, the Beep Test can unintentionally and unfairly celebrate those who excel in their aerobic fitness and disregard those who do not. Those students who score highest on the Beep Test (i.e., run the longest) are typically those who are already engaged in physical education and extracurricular sports and/or other forms of physical activity. Not always, but often these students are privileged with the financial means and time to participate in these activities. Students who run the longest in class, observed by their peers, are also those who are cheered on by the rest of the students watching in the class. In contrast, this diminishes the confidence for those students who finish early, who do not receive the cheers, and who may also be limited by social determinants of health, work, and/or family responsibilities that keep them busy outside of school hours (e.g., Burchell et al., 2024). 

Fourth, the Beep Test involves public communication of student scores – at each new level achieved, the score is announced alongside the audible beeps. However, it would be inappropriate if a math or science teacher engaged students in an exam like this and had the students stand in front of their classmates, announcing the students’ scores on the exam as they finished, for everyone to hear. This would be a breach of information protection and it would likely be humiliating for many of the students. When considering this, it is hard to believe that the Beep Test is or ever was permitted in schools. 

Finally, while there are those that argue the Beep Test is used to indicate progress over the course of a semester or year and that grades associated with the Test are based on improvement, it is quite easy to manipulate the system. Consider that students may aim for best marks by intentionally scoring lower on the first test so they can score higher on the following assessment. With this in consideration, the Beep Test is not a meaningful metric at all. 

To be truly inclusive, physical education programming needs to support all students – not some, not just the majority, not just those that are privileged, and/or not just those that participate in extracurricular sports. It is important that to develop the physical literacy of all students, physical education is meaningful to each and every student. 

Moving Forward Meaningfully and Addressing Barriers to Change 

A few barriers to change linger that have not been touched on above. First, some students may enjoy running the Beep Test, learning their scores, and challenging those scores. Second, if fitness tests like the Beep Test are not mandatory, how can fitness curricular outcomes be achieved? Third, despite good reasoning, some educators and learning leaders are adamant that the Beep Test continue to be mandatory and included in education programming. To this, I encourage consideration for a reflection of what makes physical education meaningful to students. Below, I briefly describe Mmeaningful Pphysical Eeducation, which provides an approach to physical education that effectively aligns education aims and purpose, physical education curricula, and the concept of physical literacy. Following this, I offer a few specific suggestions regarding barriers to change that better align with Mmeaningful Pphysical Eeducation. 

The Meaningful Physical Education framework framework (MPE) is a student-centered, pedagogical model that can be used to support all students in physical education. Described by Fletcher et al., 2021:  

"The Meaningful PE approach offers guidance to support how practitioners can identify and enhance the quality of physical education experiences for learners. Fundamentally, …greater attention to the meaningfulness of experience can promote richer and more impactful learning for young people in physical education to influence the quality of their ongoing engagement with movement and physical activity participation (p. 4)."  

With a focus on student engagement in physical activity, MPE develops physical literacy in students and is a cornerstone for quality physical education programming. This approach involves a context where students can find enjoyment, be challenged, and are intrinsically motivated to be active (Fletcher et al., 2021). The MPE approach takes into consideration the individual student’s experiences and aims to foster feelings of joy and excitement rather than dread, fear, or boredom in physical education (p. 5). Furthermore, MPE is democratic and offers students choice and autonomy in their programming (Fletcher et al., 2021), which is therefore inclusive of students and their unique physical literacy journeys.  

To make physical education more meaningful, it is important to remove a mandatory Beep Test from physical education programming (which includes detaching it from grades) and offer students choice. For students who are curious and are genuinely interested in the Beep Test, consider running it at lunch (i.e., outside of class time); students who are not interested can avoid the involvement. In class, as educator Chelsi Ryan (2020) indicates, “there are better programming options for our physical education students, ones that don’t create vulnerability, negative self-image, and otherwise perpetuate an ‘othering’ experience for students” (para 13); as supported by Cale and Harris (2009).  

For achieving fitness-related curricular outcomes, consider that regular, ongoing engagement in moderate and vigorous physical activities in physical education can support aerobic fitness (Marques et al., 2015). Additionally, reconsider the value of metrics alongside the use of student reflections on enjoyment, motivation, and participation in physical activities. If the rationale for engaging students in the Beep Test is to improve running, further explore the importance of voice, choice, and flexibility in programming (Naess et al., 2013) and consider how running, alongside many other fundamental movement skills, can simultaneously be developed in a number of different games and activities that students can choose and enjoy. 

In school physical education programs where moving away from the Beep Test would be considered a radical shift (i.e., as decided by learning leaders or department head’s and out of the educator’s control), suggest substituting the Beep Test with step counters, which can be used as an alternative while students are participating in activities they enjoy during class. Step counters can be used to roughly measure distance or changes in movement (Bassett et al., 2017), which can support physical fitness understanding. Secondary students can also be taught to calculate their maximum heart rate, find their pulse, and count beats per minute while active (i.e., taking a short, 15 second break during activity to assess pulse), which can support understanding regarding time engaged in moderate to vigorous physical activity (Mayo Clinic, 2023). A benefit of these alternatives is that students can keep their scores private and record them in a personal journal. These efforts move away from traditional fitness testing that is public and potentially humiliating, towards a more personal exploration and understanding. However, if gathering this data, be crystal clear on why the data is gathered, why it is meaningful or relevant to students, and how it can engage students in physical education and support their unique physical literacy journeys and healthy lifestyle.  

For physical education teachers with colleagues and leaders who are adamant about keeping the Beep Test in education, consider implementing an anonymous, physical education exit survey to gather data about student experience in physical education programming, including pointed questions regarding the Beep Test. When I was a K–12 learning leader, my team used Google Forms to gather student perspectives on all our units of instruction at the end of each semester; all physical education students were given 20 minutes to complete the survey during the last week of classes. The data we received from students led to meaningful changes in our programming, in a variety of units, to support their needs and address their concerns. Alongside the literature that indicates the problematic nature of the Beep Test, supportive school-specific data is a very powerful tool when advocating for needed change and can be a great way to highlight student voice, specific to context.  

Conclusion 

As educators, critical components of our professional role are to reflect on the purpose and aims of education, how they connect to curricula, as well as design activities and assess students in ways that all align. Articulated in this manuscript, the Beep Test does not align with the aims or purpose of education, the physical education curricula in Canada, or the multidimensional nature of health and physical literacy that guides these curricula. On the contrary, the Beep Test can cause negative experiences for students, which can deter them from physical education, and negatively influence their physical literacy journeys. It is important “each of us as educators…continually reflect and articulate the justification for what is being taught, how it is being taught, and how it informs and influences the whole child” (Gereluk et al., 2016, p. 105). 

Acknowledgements 

I would like to acknowledge and offer my gratitude to my academic “critical friends” who took the time to review this manuscript and provide feedback prior to publication. Additionally, I extend my gratitude to the peer reviewers at PHE Canada who strengthened this manuscript. 

References 

Alberta Learning. (2000). Physical education. https://education.alberta.ca/media/160191/phys2000.pdf   

Alfrey, L. (2024). An expansive learning approach to transforming traditional fitness testing in health and physical education: Student voice, feelings and hopes. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 15(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2023.2183477  

Alfrey, L., & Gard, M. (2014). A crack where the light gets in: A study of health and physical education teachers’ perspectives on fitness testing as a context for learning about health. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2014.867790  

Alfrey, L., & Landi, D. (2022). Fitness testing as a debated and contested PE-for-health practice. In L. Cale & J. Harris (Eds.), Physical education pedagogies for health (1st ed., p. 15). Routledge. 

Bassett, D. R., Toth, L. P., LaMunion, S. R., & Crouter, S. E. (2017). Step counting: A review of measurement considerations and health-related applications. Sports Medicine, 47(7), 1303–1315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0663-1  

Burchell, D., Chen, B. X., Baddour, J., & Aljanaideh, R. (2021, August 22). Why the oldest child in Syrian refugee families needs the most urgent support, and what schools can do. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/why-the-oldest-child-in-syrian-refugee-families-needs-the-most-urgent-support-and-what-schools-can-do-159887  

Cale, L., & Harris, J. (2009). Fitness testing in physical education – a misdirected effort in promoting healthy lifestyles and physical activity? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980701345782   

Dudley, D. A. (2015). A conceptual model of observed physical literacy. The Physical Educator, 72(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2015-V72-I5-6020  

Edwards, L. C., Bryant, A. S., Keegan, R. J., Morgan, K,  & Jones, A. M. (2017). Definitions, foundations and associations of physical literacy: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 47(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7  

Fletcher, T., Chróinín, D. N., Gleddie, D., & Beni, S. (2021). The why, what, and how of meaningful Physical Education. In T. Fletcher, D. N. Chróinín, D. Gleddie, & S. Beni (Eds.), Meaningful physical education: An approach for teaching and learning (1st ed., pp. 3–19). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035091-2  

Gereluk, D., Martin, C., Maxwell, B., & Norris, T. (2015). Questioning the Classroom: Perspectives on Canadian Education. Oxford University Press. 

Government of Alberta. (2024, August 2). Program foundations. https://www.alberta.ca/education-guide-program-foundations  

Government of British Columbia. (2024). Ministry of Education and Child Care—Province of British Columbia. Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/organizational-structure/ministries-organizations/ministries/education  

Government of British Columbia. (n. d.). Physical and health education_introduction. https://www.curriculum.gov.bc.ca/content/physical-and-health-educationintroduction  

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (n. d.a). Education. https://www.gov.nl.ca/education/department/  

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (n. d.b). Education: Physical education. https://www.gov.nl.ca/education/k12/curriculum/descriptions/physical-education/   

Government of Ontario. (2015). The Ontario curriculum grades 9 to 12: Health and physical education (revised) (pp. 1–224). https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/health9to12.pdf  

Government of Ontario. (2023). Published plans and annual reports 2022–2023: Ministry of Education. http://www.ontario.ca/page/published-plans-and-annual-reports-2022-2023-ministry-education  

Kerner, C., Haerens, L., & Kirk, D. (2018). Understanding body image in physical education: Current knowledge and future directions. European Physical Education Review, 24(2), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X17692508  

Léger, L. A., Mercier, D., Gadoury, C., & Lambert, J. (1988). The multistage 20 metre shuttle run test for aerobic fitness. Journal of Sports Sciences, 6(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640418808729800  

Marques, A., Henriques-Neto, D., Peralta, M., Martins, J., Gomes, F., Popovic, S., Masanovic, B., Demetriou, Y., Schlund, A., & Ihle, A. (2021). Field-based health-related physical fitness tests in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.640028  

Marques, A., Santos, R., Ekelund, U., & Sardinha, L. B. (2015). Association between physical activity, sedentary time, and healthy fitness in youth. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 47(3), 575–580. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000000426  

Mayo Clinic. (2023). Exercise intensity: How to measure it. Mayo Clinic. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/in-depth/exercise-intensity/art-20046887  

Meredith, M. D. (2008). Parental overview of Fitnessgram assessment: Fitnessgram / Activitygram reference guide (pp. 1–32). The Cooper Institute. https://www.pcsb.org/cms/lib/FL01903687/centricity/domain/180/Parent_Overview_of_FitnessGram.pdf  

Næss, H. S., Säfvenbom, R., & Øyvind Førland Standal. (2013). Running with Dewey: Is it possible to learn to enjoy running in high school physical education? Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. https://nih.brage.unit.no/nih-xmlui/handle/11250/218857  

Payne, R. (2021). Definition and infographic: What is physical literacy? International Sport and Culture Association. https://indd.adobe.com/embed/2456e581-6a4a-4dad-bd9d-093cf75ce8a3?startpage=1&allowFullscreen=true  

Physical Literacy. (2015). Consensus statement. https://physicalliteracy.ca/physical-literacy/consensus-statement/  

Ryan, C. (2020). Bleep the beep: A short rant. Healthy Schools Lab. https://hslab.ca/bleep-the-beep-a-short-rant-about-fitness-tests-in-physed-and-the-aim-of-being-healthy-and-active/  

Safron, C., & Landi, D. (2022). Beyond the BEEPs: Affect, FitnessGram®, and diverse youth. Sport, Education and Society, 27(9), 1020–1034. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1953978  

Sartorius, N. (2006). The meanings of health and its promotion. Croatian Medical Journal, 47(4), 662–664. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2080455/  

Simmons, T. (2023, April 17). Fitness evaluation or humiliation? Whether the beep test should still run in Calgary phys-ed. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-beep-test-phys-ed-class-1.6811210  

Taylor, L. M. (2024). Honouring wounds and healing forward: Teacher health in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary]. UCalgary Prism Campus Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/1880/118169  

Taylor, L. M., Wilson, O. W. A., Tingle, E., & Russell-Mayhew, S. (2024). Purposeful practice: Physical education for everybody. The Runner: Journal of the Health and Physical Education Council of the Alberta Teachers’ Association, 55(1), 15–19. https://www.hpec.ab.ca/uploads/files/Runner_Vol55No1_2024-05.pdf  

Tomkinson, G. R., Lang, J. J., Blanchard, J., Léger, L. A., & Tremblay, M. S. (2019). The 20-m shuttle run: Assessment and interpretation of data in relation to youth aerobic fitness and health. Pediatric Exercise Science, 31(2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.2018-0179  

Top End Sports. (2024). Instructions for the PACER Test (The Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run). https://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/pacer-test.htm  

Whitehead, M. (2010). The concept of physical literacy. In M. Whitehead (Ed.), Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse (pp. 30–40). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203881903-6  

World Health Organization. (2021). Frequently asked questions. https://www.who.int/about/frequently-asked-questions  

Zhu, X., Davis, S., Kirk, T. N., Haegele, J. A., & Knott, S. E. (2018). Inappropriate practices in fitness testing and reporting: Alternative strategies. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 89(3), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2017.1417929