In 2011, the Swedish National Agency for Education introduced a new national curriculum. The curriculum contained a number of new terms. One in particular proved problematic for physical educators – complex movement. The confusion surrounding the term could be seen as somewhat unexpected since movement is and has been a central element of practically all physical education (PE) curricula. The specific aim of this paper is to identify how the discourse regarding complex movement is assembled, and by doing so, provide insights into the meaning(s) of complex movement within the context of PE policy in Sweden. Following Englund and Quennerstedt (2008), the study is framed within a Swedish curriculum theory tradition and six policy texts are examined using a discourse analytic methodology. The results suggest three different inferences of complex movement discourse: advanced with a wide meaning; context-dependent and related to sports for older pupils; and knowledge-dependent where different views about knowledge exist. From these results, three discussion points are raised related to: the diversity of possible meanings presented in policy; the connection between knowledge and understanding; and the probability of different audiences reading the texts in different ways. The paper is concluded with a consideration of the consequences of different inferences concerning complex movement and whether greater consensus is necessary.
AveryMRettigB (2015) Teaching the middle school grade-level outcomes with standards-based instruction. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance86(7): 17–22.
2.
BarkerDMBergentoftHNybergG (2017) What would physical educators know about movement education? A review of literature, 2006–2016. Quest69(4): 419–435.
3.
BoyceBACokerCBunkerLK (2006) Implications for variability of practice from pedagogy and motor learning perspectives: Finding a common ground. Quest58(3): 330–343.
4.
BrownTPayneP (2009) Conceptualizing the phenomenology of movement in physical education: Implications for pedagogical inquiry and development. Quest61(4): 418–441.
5.
BrownTPenneyD (2013) Learning ‘in’, ‘through’ and ‘about’ movement in senior physical education? The new Victorian Certificate of Education Physical Education. European Physical Education Review19(1): 39–61.
ChowJYAtencioM (2014) Complex and nonlinear pedagogy and the implications for physical education. Sport, Education and Society19(8): 1034–1054.
8.
ChowJYDavidsKWButtonC, et al. (2007) The role of nonlinear pedagogy in PE. Review of Educational Research77(3): 251–278.
9.
CullerJ (1992) In defence of overinterpretation. In: ColliniS (ed.) Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.109–123.
10.
DelašSMiletićAMiletićĐ (2008) The influence of motor factors on performing fundamental movement skills: The differences between boys and girls. Facta Universitatis, Series: Physical Education and Sport6(1): 31–39.
11.
DrostDKTodorovichJR (2013) Enhancing cognitive understanding to improve fundamental movement skills. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance84(4): 54–59.
12.
EkbergJ-E (2014) What knowledge appears as valid in the subject of Physical Education and Health? A study of the subject on three levels in year 9 in Sweden. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy21(3): 249–267.
13.
EnglundTQuennerstedtA (2008) Linking curriculum theory and linguistics: The performative use of ‘equivalence’ as an educational policy concept. Journal of Curriculum Studies40(6): 713–724.
14.
EvansJPenneyD (2008) Levels on the playing field: The social construction of physical ‘ability’ in the PE curriculum. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy13(1): 31–47.
15.
FaircloughN (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
16.
Fernandez-BalboaJMBarrettKSolomonM, et al. (1996) Perspectives on content knowledge in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance67(9): 54–57.
17.
HaASWongACSumRK, et al. (2008) Understanding teachers’ will and capacity to accomplish physical education curriculum reform: The implications for teacher development. Sport, Education and Society13(1): 77–95.
18.
HowarthD (2000) Discourse. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
19.
JessMAtencioMThorburnM (2011) Complexity theory: Supporting curriculum and pedagogy developments in Scottish physical education. Sport, Education and Society16(2): 179–199.
20.
JørgensenMPhillipsLJ (2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
21.
KentelJDobsonA (2007) Beyond myopic visions of education: Revisiting movement literacy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy12(2): 145–163.
KuckartzU (2013) Qualitative Text Analysis: A guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
24.
LarssonHQuennerstedtM (2012) Understanding movement: A sociocultural approach to exploring moving humans. Quest64(4): 283–298.
25.
LarssonHNybergG (2017) ‘It doesn’t matter how they move really, as long as they move.’ ‘Physical education teachers on developing their students’ movement capabilities. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy22(2): 137–149.
26.
LightRWallianN (2008) A constructivist-informed approach to teaching swimming. Quest: 60(3): 387–404.
27.
LukeA (1995) Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education21(1): 3–48.
28.
LundvallSMeckbachJ (2008) Mind the gap: Physical education and health and the frame factor theory as a tool for analysing educational settings. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy13(4): 345–364.
29.
MacdonaldD (2013) The new Australian health and physical education curriculum: A case of/for gradualism in curriculum reform?Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education4(2): 95–108.
30.
MasonM (2008) Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory40(1): 4–18.
31.
McCuaigLQuennerstedtMMacdonaldD (2013) A salutogenic, strengths-based approach as a theory to guide HPE curriculum change. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education4(2): 109–125.
32.
MillerJVineKLarkinD (2007) The relationship of process and product performance of the two-handed sidearm strike. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy12(1): 61–76.
33.
NybergGLarssonH (2014) Exploring ‘what’ to learn in PE. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy19(2): 123–135.
34.
OkelyAWrightJ (1997) The gender bias in fundamental motor skills tests: A new agenda needed. Paper presented at the AARE conference, Brisbane, Australia; 1997. Available at: https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/1997/okela137.pdf(accessed 20 June 2018).
35.
OvensAHopperTButlerJ (eds) (2013) Complexity Thinking in Physical Education: Reframing Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Research. New York, NY: Routledge.
36.
OverdorfVCokerC (2013) Efficacy of movement analysis and intervention skills. The Physical Educator70(2): 195–205.
37.
Peiroó-VelertCMolina-AlventosaPKirkD, et al. (2015) The uses of printed curriculum materials by teachers during instruction and the social construction of pedagogic discourse in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education34(1): 18–35.
38.
PenneyD (2006) Curriculum construction and change. In: KirkDMacdonaldDO’SullivanM (eds) The Handbook of Physical Education. London, UK: SAGE Publications, pp.565–579.
39.
PenneyD (2008) Playing a political game and playing for position: Policy and curriculum development in health and physical education. European Physical Education Review14(1): 33–49.
40.
PenneyDBrookerRHayP, et al. (2009) Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment: Three message systems of schooling and dimensions of quality physical education. Sport, Education and Society14(4): 421–442.
41.
PopkewitzTSBrennanM (1997) Restructuring of social and political theory in education: Foucault and a social epistemology of school practices. Educational Theory47(3): 287–313.
42.
QuennerstedtM (2008) Studying the institutional dimension of meaning making: A way to analyze subject content in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education27(3): 434–444.
43.
RedeliusKQuennerstedtMÖhmanM (2015) Communicating aims and learning goals in physical education: Part of a subject for learning?Sport, Education and Society20(5): 641–655.
44.
RossiTTinningRMcCuaigL, et al. (2009) With the best of intentions: A critical discourse analysis of physical education curriculum materials. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education28(1): 75–89.
45.
RukavinaPBJeansonneJJ (2009) Integrating motor-learning concepts into PE. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance80(9): 23–65.
SegerI (2014) Betygsättningsprocess i ämnet idrott och hälsa: en studie om betygsättningsdilemman på högstadiet [Grading process in the subject of sport and health: a study on the high school graduation film]. Licentiate Dissertation, Örebro University, Sweden. [In Swedish.] Available at:https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:757718/FULLTEXT01.pdf(accessed 2 October 2018).
StoddenDFGoodwayJDLangendorferSJ, et al. (2008) A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest60(2): 290–306.
50.
SvendsenAMSvendsenJT (2016) Teacher or coach? How logics from the field of sports contribute to the construction of knowledge in physical education teacher education pedagogical discourse through educational texts. Sport, Education and Society21(5): 796–810.
51.
SvennbergL (2017) Swedish PE teachers’ understandings of legitimate movement in a criterion-referenced grading system. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy22(3): 257–269.
52.
SvennbergLMeckbachJRedeliusK (2014) Exploring PE teachers’ ‘gut feelings’: An attempt to verbalise and discuss teachers’ internalised grading criteria. European Physical Education Review20(2): 199–214.
53.
TaylorS (2013) What is Discourse Analysis?London, UK: Bloomsbury.
54.
TholinJ (2006) Att kunna klara sig i ökänd natur: en studie av betyg och betygskriterier-historiska betingelser och implementering av ett nytt system [Being able to cope with infamous nature: a study of grades and grading criteria – historical conditions and implementation of a new system]. Doctoral Dissertation, Högskolan i Borås. [In Swedish.] Available at:http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A876774&dswid=4300(accessed 2 October 2018).
55.
ThorburnMCollinsD (2006) The effects of an integrated curriculum model on student learning and attainment. European Physical Education Review12(1): 31–50.
56.
TolgforsBÖhmanM (2016) The implications of assessment for learning in physical education and health. European Physical Education Review22(2): 150–166.
57.
WetherellMTaylorSYatesSJ (2001) Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. London, UK: SAGE Publications, in association with the Open University.
58.
WhiteheadM (2001) The concept of physical literacy. European Journal of Physical Education6(2): 27–138.
