Abstract
For decades, physical education (PE) scholars have called for a change to how PE is conceptualised and enacted, highlighting that its current (and persistent) form and focus – organised around physical activities and sports – are not fit for purpose. Much of this change-oriented discourse highlights what is wrong with PE, leading to suggestions about how PE should change in and for the future, for example, by adopting critical approaches and connecting more to the lives of young people. While we do not disagree with these perspectives and ideas, it is important to note that, in general, they have had little impact on PE curricula or pedagogy. In this paper, we suggest an alternative, strengths-based approach. Drawing from discussions with a range of professionals from the PE community (teachers, undergraduate and postgraduate pre-service teachers and teacher educators) across five national contexts – Canada, England, Ireland, Norway and Scotland – we generated narratives about ‘what's right with PE’. The narratives highlighted that PE can be ‘fit for purpose’ when it connects to the wider school and community, when everyone has a shared understanding of its purpose, and when PE teachers enact a broad, holistic and inclusive curriculum. We present the narratives as a reflective tool, encouraging all professionals within the PE community to consider how they align with (or against) their current experiences. We hope that these reflections facilitate critical thinking and problem solving to ensure that the subject is (and remains) fit for purpose now and in the future.
Introduction
Over the last few decades, scholars have outlined several key problems with current (and common) forms of physical education (PE) and have called for an urgent need for change (Kirk, 2010; Lambert, 2020). A central argument is that PE is dominated by performance in team games, activities that exclude many young people because of the perception that their (moving) bodies do not meet the normative standards for successful learning and performance in those contexts (Fitzpatrick and McGlashan, 2016). Another argument is that PE focuses too much on physical activity participation, linked to improving physical health and reducing childhood obesity (Gray et al., 2022). It is claimed that this discourse has a negative impact on both young people and the profession due to its focus on normative conceptions of the body, and a narrow focus on physical activity engagement (Burrows and Wright, 2007).
In response to these concerns, many (including the authors of this paper) have advocated for more inclusive, critical and embodied conceptualisations of PE (Hill and Azzarito, 2012; Oliver and Kirk, 2015). Indeed, the larger project from which this study has emerged is focused on embodiment in PE (EPE), seeking to understand what this means, what it looks like and how teachers of PE might be supported to pay attention to embodied learning in PE, for all bodies and their experiences in the world. However, as critical researchers, we are also troubled by the idea that we should impose our thinking on teachers, that our knowledge is somewhat privileged, and that it should be ‘taken up’ by teachers. This approach undermines what teachers know and do, and ignores the unique material, social and cultural contexts in which they work. Instead, we advocate a more collaborative approach, recognising the value in bringing together teachers and the wider profession, including undergraduate and postgraduate pre-service teachers and teacher educators (Sinnema et al., 2021). This diversity provides teachers (and the wider profession) with access to a broader range of resources, encourages rich dialogue and creative thinking, and increases their confidence to contribute to change at both the school and system levels (Aldous et al., 2022; Prenger et al., 2021).
With this in mind, as part of our research on EPE, we brought together groups of professionals from the PE community (teachers, undergraduate and postgraduate pre-service teachers and teacher educators) to engage in exploratory workshops in five different countries: Canada, England, Ireland, Norway and Scotland. The overall aim of the workshops was to collaboratively interrogate the concept of EPE – connecting experiences, contexts and practice, and formulating a tentative consensus around what EPE means, does and looks like. For one of the introductory group tasks, we asked participants to discuss what they believed was currently ‘right with PE’ and ‘wrong with PE’. It is on this data that the present study is focused.
In our endeavours to consider how PE might change for the future, we understood these discussions as a useful starting point – to generate ideas for the future based on the current knowledge and experiences of a range of voices from within the profession. However, we are also acutely aware that PE research is dominated by studies of what is wrong with PE – inevitably leading to more research, but rarely changes in policy or practice (Enright et al., 2014). Thus, in this paper, we take a strengths-based approach by focusing on the positives – on what is right with PE – and, where there are negatives, we reorient them towards the positive. We hope that exploring what PE can do across different contexts will stimulate critical reflections and ideas for the future.
To do so, we adopt a narrative approach (Williams, 2013), creating stories from the group discussions held among the PE professionals in the workshops across each of the five countries to identify and understand the potential and possibilities in and for PE. By centring the voices of the profession, we draw on their professional insights and experiences to guide how PE can be fit for purpose now and in the future.
The perennial problems
Over three decades ago, Crum (1993) shed light over the persistence of the ‘problems’ with PE, proposing that conceptualising PE in different ways is challenging because of two powerful and dominant ideological legacies. Firstly, PE is understood as a means of managing the body (biologistic ideology) through physical training – an important means of preventing ill-health and reducing obesity. Secondly, there is the belief ‘that educational effects [for example developing cognitive, social and emotional skills] come automatically simply by taking part in movement activities’ (Crum, 1993: 345) (pedagologistic ideology). From this perspective, teachers believe that their role is simply to organise enjoyable activities, that learning is intrinsic and therefore that ‘intentional teaching is superfluous’, often leading to PE lessons that ‘have the character of supervised recess or entertainment’ (Crum,1993: 345).
Over 20 years later, the same author suggested that these dominant ideologies persist, strongly influencing both PE curriculum and practice (Crum, 2017). Others have similarly suggested that PE has remained constant over the decades (Gray et al., 2022; Kirk, 2010; Lambert, 2020; Tinning, 2012): that is, as a means to develop sports techniques and/or to increase and enjoy physical activity for physical health (Lambert, 2020). Furthermore, Penney and Chandler (2000) and Kirk (2010) suggest that these persistent forms and focuses for PE are so dominant they are understood as the only possible ways of organising the subject. Significantly, they are not only understood by teachers in this way but also by pupils, parents, members of the public and politicians (Penney and Chandler, 2000).
While it could be argued, particularly at a political level, that these dominant forms of PE might be desirable, they present serious problems in relation to how PE curricula are enacted and, consequently, the learning experiences of young people in schools. For example, Crum (2017) suggests that understanding PE as a way to manage the body, or assuming that learning simply emerges from movement, results in ‘non-teaching PE practices’ (240). Indeed, he claims that these conceptualizations have led to ‘an absence of a real commitment to teaching’ (239) and a ‘general lack of learning in PE’ (239).
Another problem with PE conceptualised as sport or physical activity is that many of the activities offered within curricula do not connect with the lives of many young people (O’Connor and Penney, 2021). More worryingly, the focus on movement for physical health or body management suggests that young people are understood as needing improvement, with adults making decisions for them to enhance their bodies and lifestyles (Alfrey and Welch, 2021). Quennerstedt (2019) suggests that understanding learners and teaching in this way ignores the fact that young people are ‘becomings and beings’ at the same time. He proposes that rather than seeing learners as deficient and in need of preparation for an idealised future (often detached from their real-life experiences), teachers should understand their learners as they are now and focus on what they can do and be. In this way, PE can open up opportunities for all young people to be and become someone in the world (Quennerstedt, 2019).
What alternatives?
Many researchers have proposed alternative futures for PE, with changes to current PE curricula and practice (O’Connor and Penney, 2021; Penney and Chandler, 2000). One of the key ideas to emerge from this scholarly activity is that PE should connect more to the social and cultural lives of young people. Penney and Chandler (2000), for example, suggest that curricula need to be more connected, consisting of subject communities (rather than individual subjects) working together to respond to a changing world. This idea aligns well with Tinning's (2012) claim that teachers and schools should have a deeper understanding of the socio-cultural environment that young people live in so that PE might evolve to connect more closely to their worlds, and in doing so, become more relevant and more meaningful. This also supports Quennerstedt's (2019) thinking, that we need to deliberate and clarify the purpose of PE. Drawing from the work of Biesta (2013), he writes: …it is when we have established the purpose that we can start discussing the content that students should engage in and how this content could be meaningfully presented. That requires engagement with the question why. (Quennerstedt, 2019: 618)
Establishing the purpose of PE is important as it informs and guides what teachers do – drawing attention to teaching and learning, encouraging teachers to reflect on the approaches, knowledge and skills they require to enact a (socio-culturally) relevant curriculum. This moves the focus away from understanding PE as a ‘series of activities’, towards what teachers do, and therefore, what young people learn, why and in what context.
A focus on teaching and teachers
To begin to re-think the nature and purpose of PE, Crum (1993) suggests working with the term ‘movement culture’. The idea of a culture, he proposes, transcends the ideas of ‘doing sport’ or ‘doing exercise’, and suggests a more holistic and embodied approach that connects young people and their learning to their world. Moreover, cultures are governed by rules and open to change, enabling young people to question the conventions that shape their movement and look for new opportunities and reasons for moving.
Understanding, critically reflecting upon and challenging cultures (societies and contexts) reflect dispositions and skills associated with critical pedagogies, an area of practice (and research) that has emerged from critical scholarship in PE (Kirk, 2020). Kirk (2020) defines critical pedagogies as ‘…the organisation and alignment of curriculum, learning and assessment in ways that render PE inclusive, fair and equitable as an embodied experience for young people and, through this experience, they seek to empower young people’ (115). Given this focus on the experiences of young people, critical pedagogies tend to be learner-centred, empowering them to negotiate, interrogate, challenge and construct their own learning experiences (see Enright and O'Sullivan, 2010; Oliver et al., 2009). As critical researchers, these approaches align well with our thinking about and aspirations for the future of PE. They attend to the changing social and cultural contexts of young people, contribute to whole school objectives and necessitate a focus on teaching and learning. However, we are also aware that the research that has been carried out in this area has had little impact on teachers, pupils or society (Tinning, 2019). We therefore suggest a different approach – one that involves working collaboratively with a range of PE professionals, acknowledging the invaluable insights they bring for shaping educational change. This collaborative approach, bringing together different knowledge and experiences, has the potential to encourage creative and critical thinking about the possibilities for PE (Aldous et al., 2022).
Previous research has highlighted the ways in which teachers have worked collaboratively with university-based researchers (Alfrey and O’Connor, 2020). For example, Gray et al. (2024) worked with PE teachers from across the UK and found that, through cross-border dialogue, they began to think more critically about their own curriculum and the purpose of PE more broadly. Similarly, Aldous et al. (2022) supported collaborations between university staff (teacher educators) and teachers across different schools to explore the PE curriculum in Wales. They found that opportunities for collaboration with other teachers and university staff helped the ‘re-imagination of secondary PE provision in their schools’ (262).
The purpose of this paper was to extend collaborations across a wider range of PE professionals, including teachers, undergraduate and postgraduate pre-service teachers and teacher educators, and create space for them to come together to articulate what is right with PE. As part of a larger project to (co-)explore EPE, we facilitated discussions about ‘what's right with PE’ and ‘what's wrong with PE’ with groups from Canada, England, Ireland, Norway and Scotland. However, already acutely aware of what is wrong with PE (see above), and in our attempts to adopt a strengths-based approach (Enright et al., 2014), we re-orientated the negative responses towards the positive (Cooperrider et al., 2008). From the data generated during each of the discussions, we created positive narratives about what PE in each context is or could be. We present and analyse these narratives not to silence negative accounts of PE, nor to claim the truth about what PE is. Rather, we understand them (and our analysis of them) as a starting point and a framework through which other PE professionals might begin to critically reflect upon the possibilities in and for PE – in other contexts, and in their own context, with or against their own beliefs, knowledge and experiences.
Methodology
A strengths-based approach: appreciative inquiry
The approach adopted for this research was inspired and guided by appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987). Appreciative inquiry is an approach that encourages researchers to start with, and prioritise, the positive. As Enright et al. (2014) highlight, appreciative inquiry has the capacity to shift the focus from what is broken with PE towards what works, to generate positive stories about PE that have the potential to ‘enrich the body of knowledge in the field’ (292). Appreciative inquiry is based on the idea that everyone has strengths and that these strengths should be a starting point for change – that a positive focus is more likely to achieve and sustain effective change (Cooperrider and Whitney, 2001). Thus, in the present study, participants were given the opportunity to identify and describe what is right with PE, which we then turned into ‘success stories’ of what could/should be (Cooperrider and Whitney, 2001). The intention is that those within the profession critically reflect on these narratives to generate ideas for their idealised future and begin to take steps towards this.
Data collection
This project was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC) (ID number 36870). The second author contacted eight key contacts from universities in five countries who shared similar research interests and were open to hosting workshops. All agreed to participate, helping recruit participants from their networks (e.g. colleagues, pre-service teachers and school teachers) and arranging venues. The second author provided recruitment materials, consent forms and explanatory statements, which the key contacts distributed and collected. Workshop dates and times were coordinated with the key contacts. Data were collected from 9 × 90–120 minute in-person workshops held over a 5-week period (October–November 2023) in five universities in five countries (England, Norway, Scotland, Ireland and Canada). To maintain anonymity no names of individuals, universities or cities were recorded at any stage. The total number of participants who took part in the workshops was 68. This included: teacher educators (32), postgraduate pre-service teachers (24), teachers (8) and undergraduate pre-service teachers (4). A limitation of the research was the under-representation of school teachers. We acknowledged the challenge of asking teachers to give up their time to engage in research, and in response, we made efforts to mitigate this by holding evening workshops.
At the start of each workshop participants were self-selected into small table groups of three to five people, and groups were typically homogenous. In total, 21 small table groups participated. The main method of data collection involved audio recording via digital voice recorders of small table groups as they participated in and discussed activities during the workshop. A key focus of this was to amplify their voices, ensuring that the lived experiences of the participants were central to the conversations. The entire workshop was organised using the Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) Taxonomy (Biggs, 1999), a framework designed to guide the participants through progressively deeper levels of understanding – from identifying simple ideas (early activities) to integrating and applying complex concepts (later activities). Adopting this approach ensured that participants could critically engage with the topic of EPE in a systematic and meaningful way. This approach supported the workshop's aim of co-designing a framework by building participants’ capacity to explore, connect and expand their ideas effectively. SOLO Taxonomy was used to structure ‘Activity two’, which yielded the data for this article. This activity scaffolded participants’ understanding by progressing from unistructural (identifying single aspects of what is right and wrong with PE) to multi-structural (listing multiple aspects) (Biggs, 1999). This activity was designed to help participants articulate and expand their perspectives, laying the foundation for deeper relational and extended abstract thinking in subsequent activities. This approach was tailored to the participants to facilitate critical engagement with the concept of embodiment in their specific professional context. The activity was guided by the questions, ‘what's right with PE’ and ‘what's wrong with PE?’ Each small table group was given 10–15 minutes to discuss these questions amongst themselves.
Data analysis
Data analyses for this research were carried out in three phases. During the first phase, we extracted the relevant text from the entire transcript for each workshop, before separating this text into two parts according to the discussions that took place during the group activity (‘what's right with PE' and ‘what's wrong with PE'). Taking an appreciative inquiry approach (Cooperrider and Whitney, 2001), we then focused on all the text that described ‘what's wrong with PE' and re-orientated this towards the positive to imagine what could/should be (Cooperrider and Whitney, 2001). This was based on our assumption that implicit in the participants’ responses to ‘what's wrong with PE' was their perspective on what should or could be right with PE. For example, in stating that PE in secondary schools is too detached from PE in primary schools, participants implicitly believe that there could or should be at least some connection between the two sectors. Resultantly, the first author re-orientated the negative statements into positive statements, a process which was then verified by the second author (see Table 1 for some examples).
Re-orientating negative statements towards the positive.
We understand this process as both novel and experimental and therefore encourage readers to interpret the resultant narratives with this in mind. As previously mentioned, our intention with the narratives was not to represent a definitive truth about what PE is. Rather, we believe their effect might be ‘heliotropic’, offering a more positive image (a source of light) of what PE is and could/should be, one that others may be drawn towards and which could influence their present reality (Cooperrider and Whitney, 2001). That said, for transparency, we present the ‘translated text’ in bold to indicate where the participants’ views reflect ‘what's wrong with PE'. Thus, we acknowledge the negative responses and encourage them to be viewed from a different, more positive perspective.
In the second phase of the analysis process, the first and second authors developed all the text that was extracted (including the ‘what's right with PE' text) and re-orientated from phase one into narratives. To do so, we creatively moved the text towards a story about ‘what's right with PE', developing a narrative around an imaginary PE department. This was achieved using techniques drawn from creative nonfiction (Smith et al., 2015) – a way of presenting facts, real perspectives and experiences as stories, to draw readers’ attention so that they become interested and want to learn more about the subject (Gutkind, 1997).
The starting point for crafting the narratives was to read and re-read the text extracted from phase one of the analysis process. From this reading, texts were highlighted and notes were taken – engaging in exploratory activity to work out how the ideas might be presented within a story. Williams (2013) describes this activity as ‘invention’ (31), working with the materials gathered to consider how they might form a narrative that will be compelling for the reader. Once the initial ideas were developed through this invention work, preliminary narratives were drafted by the first author. A selection of direct quotations from the participants was included in the narratives to ensure that their voices remained present. The initial drafts were then sent to the second author to check that the ideas or themes presented in the narratives were reflected in the transcriptions, as well as to check for comprehension, coherence and continuity. There was overall agreement that the themes evident in the narratives were also evident in the transcripts. However, feedback was provided to improve the structure of the narratives and the clarity of expression within each. Five narratives were developed, one for each country. Each narrative is presented as an ‘ideal PE department’ within each country and has been given a fictional name. All five narratives can be accessed via the following link: https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/7924.
Once the narratives for each country were completed, the third and final phase of the process involved using thematic analysis (Sparkes and Smith, 2014) to identify similarities and differences across countries, creating themes to draw our attention towards key characteristics of ‘what's right with PE' – according to our participants. This involved reading all the narratives, highlighting relevant units of text and developing phrases to summarise their meaning. Similar units of text were then grouped together to generate themes. The themes below provide an overview of ‘what's right with PE' and will be explored in the subsequent section.
PE is ‘fit for purpose’ Motivated teachers A broad, holistic and inclusive curriculum A curriculum that is meaningful and inherently enjoyable Embodied learning – a Norwegian perspective
Findings
PE is ‘fit for purpose’
Across all the countries, the PE curricula are understood as being ‘fit for purpose’. That is, they are progressive and include contemporary activities, for example, yoga, pilates (Scotland) and adventure sports (England), that connect to the lives of young people beyond school. As highlighted in the narrative from England:
The PE curriculum at Rose High
Importantly, this ‘purpose’ is understood as being more than just physical activity, and connections to life and society beyond the school are explicit, a perspective evidenced in the narrative from Ireland:
An interesting and common feature of all the narratives (except for the one developed from the workshop in England), was the importance of having strong connections with primary school PE. Developing partnerships with local primary schools was important to know that PE is being delivered by ‘
Understanding PE as one part of a connected network of relevant groups, people and stakeholders is clearly a key feature of what is right with PE across most of the countries – a structure that enables everyone to know and value the purpose of PE. Across the countries, PE is understood by everyone in the school (pupils and teachers) and in the community (parents, sports clubs, etc.) as more than just physical activity, and thus is accepted as a core/mandatory subject for all pupils. For example, in Scotland:
These connections are key to ensuring that PE curricula are ‘fit for purpose’, progressive and connected to the lives of young people.
Motivated teachers
In all the country narratives, PE is understood and valued by everyone, largely because of the excellent work carried out by the teachers. Within each narrative, the PE teachers are the key drivers of their progressive curricula; they are motivated and passionate advocates of the subject. In Canada, for example, they ‘
a strong partnership between the PE teachers in the school at the local university, which offers professional learning for all their needs. The staff are very self-reflective and self-aware, and motivated to engage with the university to take part in professional learning activities. This motivation comes from their own values around education and PE.
This is similar in Norway, where the PE teachers are proactive in meeting their professional learning needs:
It is important to say that the success of this PE curriculum would not be possible without the teachers in the department and the opportunities they have to engage in professional learning. The teachers at Oslo Nord Academy are engaged and passionate: ‘We have really engaged teachers who are really passionate about PE’.
Overall, who the PE teachers are, their motivation, and their desire to learn and progress, enable them to develop a curriculum that is ‘fit for purpose’ and advocate passionately for the subject within their community.
A broad, holistic and inclusive curriculum
As a result of the ‘motivated’, ‘reflective and self-aware’ (Ireland) nature of the PE teachers in each context, they have created curricula that are broad, holistic and inclusive. These curricula include a range of activities, many of which reflect ‘non-traditional’ activities so that there is something for everyone. For example, in Norway:
They have organised a broad curriculum that includes a range of activities including – but without a focus on – traditional ball games. Alternative movement activities like dance or yoga are prevalent within the curriculum.
This range of activities ensures that learning takes place across a range of domains. This is certainly the case in Scotland where:
The curriculum at Alba Academy adopts a holistic approach, addressing not just physical development, but also cognitive, emotional, and social development. As one of the teachers highlighted: ‘we're quite holistic and teach about the cognitive, emotional, social as well as the physical’.
As mentioned above, the belief is that offering a broad range of activities, and forms of learning within each, ensures that PE is for everyone, where all pupils are offered the same opportunities and where pupils with additional needs are included and supported. This is clearly demonstrated in the English narrative where:
…there is an emphasis on inclusion, where girls’ participation is high. All pupils are offered the same activities rather than, for example, football for boys only and netball for girls only. Additionally, at Rose High school, learners with additional support needs are recognised for their strengths and capabilities.
The situation is similar in Norway:
As one teacher states: ‘In [from] a gender perspective, I think it's a good thing that Norwegian physical education classes are gender mixed classes. It's like more of a diversity maybe. And it's not like the boys do one thing and the girls do something else. But it's like everyone gets to try everything’.
Having the ‘flexibility’ (England) to create curricula to cater to the unique needs of all their learners is a key feature of what is right with PE in each context.
A curriculum that is meaningful and inherently enjoyable
While the perception in each country is that a broad and holistic curriculum is inclusive (welcoming and equitable), it is also understood as meaningful and enjoyable. For example, in Scotland:
The teachers at Alba Academy aim to create meaningful experiences that inspire students to remain physically active throughout their lives. As one of the teachers reinforced: ‘you do want to create that meaningful experience now so that they want to continue to be physically active in a range of ways.’
In the narrative developed from the workshop in England, meaningful and enjoyable experiences are also related to an inclusive and equitable curriculum:
All the young people who attend this school, regardless of gender, disability, or experience, have meaningful and enjoyable experiences that have a lasting impact on their future engagement in physical activity.
This sentiment is echoed in the narrative from Ireland, where, in describing the teachers’ motivation for professional learning, some detail is provided in relation to how ‘meaningfulness’ might be achieved:
This motivation to keep learning has resulted in PE lessons that are well planned and organised – they have structure, purpose, meaning and are learner-centred. Through this they are able to cater for all learners,
While overall detail about how to support students in ‘making meaning’ is limited, there is no doubt that endeavours to create meaningful experiences are an important focus for teachers in each context. Furthermore, that meaning-making contributes to purposeful, enjoyable, inclusive and equitable learning experiences in PE.
Embodied learning – a Norwegian perspective
Despite bringing together a range of PE professionals from different contexts, there were very few differences between each narrative, supporting Tinning's (2012) claim that, even though there are ‘variations in what stands for PE across national borders, the form of its survival is remarkably similar across cultures’ (116). However, there was one notable difference in the narrative from Norway. In this context, there was greater reference to the body and learning (or acquiring knowledge) through movement:
At Oslo Nord Academy in Norway, the teachers in the Physical Education (PE) department are proud to say that learning through movement remains central to their curriculum, unlike some schools that focus more on knowing about the body rather than through the body.
Other contexts did pay attention to movement, but not in the same way. In Norway, movement is clearly linked to embodied learning; it is inherently educational. However, in Canada, the emphasis on movement appears more associated with being active, albeit with others:
PE is a space where young people can move. It's an opportunity for them to be active, to move around and interact with others, and for some this may be their only opportunity to do so.
Similarly in Ireland, there is a reference to movement (and learning), but again the emphasis is more about being physically active (and implicitly the physical health benefits associated with this) and engaging in sport:
It [PE] is a place for them to learn through movement and engage in physical activity. This is important because for many young people PE is the only opportunity they have to engage in physical activity or sport. ‘Some children's only experience of physical activity is during their lessons in school. Children are only exposed to certain sports through physical education.’
These are interesting differences that might be important for teachers in other contexts to reflect upon, with the potential to open up new possibilities for thinking about learning in PE, and pedagogies in PE for embodied learning.
Discussion
The purpose of creating and analysing the five narratives was to highlight, from the perspectives of a range of PE professionals (teachers, undergraduate and postgraduate pre-service teachers and teacher educators), ‘what's right with PE'. The intention is that, by taking a strengths-based approach and positioning PE within a more positive framework, others may feel motivated to critically reflect on their own context and consider what changes they could make for a more positive (connected, progressive and meaningful) future (Cooperrider et al., 2008). Furthermore, this motivation may be enhanced by the fact that each narrative draws on the knowledge and experience of a range of PE professionals, presenting a collective and authoritative voice (Kirk and Macdonald, 2001) on what PE could/should be.
Through our analysis, we have uncovered that PE is ‘right’ when it is understood as being ‘fit for purpose’, when it is progressive and connected to the lives of young people. While the purpose of PE was not clearly articulated in the narratives, it was evident that PE is understood as more than simply engaging in physical activity or sport. Furthermore, regardless of how its purpose is articulated, PE is understood by a range of stakeholders and valued in the same way as other curriculum subjects. This is because PE is part of a wider network, working in partnership with others for a shared purpose, and connected to the lives of the students. This reflects the thinking of Penney and Chandler (2000) and others who understand learning in PE as situated (O’Connor and Jess, 2019), and where curriculum subjects work in a more connected way, considering not just what is learned, but in what contexts learning is applied, and for what purpose (Quennerstedt, 2019). In this way, learning becomes connected to the unique and changing lives of young people, resulting in a form of PE that is both understood and valued by all.
Focusing on learners in context, in different contexts (across boundaries) and as part of a network of people and places, will inevitably lead to a deeper understanding of learners and their learning (Tinning, 2019). This may then lead to the development of innovative approaches that are inclusive and equitable, considering the experiences, needs, contexts and diversity of learners. This may also (re-)direct the professional learning of teachers towards the needs and contexts of their learners, rather than the more common approach that focuses on the activity – and learning about the activity to transmit this knowledge to their learners (Capel, 2007).
A focus on learners and their learning might also contribute to a shift in how PE is currently understood, as a collection of physical activities and sports, and the development of knowledge and skills detached from the lives of learners (Kirk, 2010). This is important because, when the focus is placed on the activity, less attention is given to teaching and learning (Dyson, 2014). PE then becomes merely an opportunity to take part in activities – for physical health, for mental well-being, for academic achievement, and so on (Quennerstedt, 2019). To some extent, this perspective was evidenced in the narratives from Canada and Ireland, where PE was deemed important because it was the only opportunity some young people had to engage in physical activity and sport. Mindful not to undermine these statements, it is helpful to consider the potential implications of this perspective. While opportunities to engage in physical activity may be more important/necessary for some young people compared to others, PE teachers (and other stakeholders) must be able to advocate for a form of PE that is more ‘educationally orientated’ (Jess et al., 2021). In other words, when it leads to growth and a desire to continue learning – ‘opening up for different ways of being in the world as some-body’ (Quennerstedt, 2019: 614). This, we suggest, will encourage PE teachers not only to provide their students with a broad range of relevant activities (as advocated in each of the narratives), but also consider how and why these are taught.
Focussing on how and why activities are taught is important in the context of the present study given that, although the stories indicated that PE should be holistic, inclusive and meaningful, how this is achieved pedagogically was not fully explored. Paying greater attention to pedagogy, for example, is especially important for the PE teachers from England and Norway to understand how boys and girls can have more equitable experiences beyond simply providing them with access to the same activities. They might, for example, explore pedagogies (and language) that are genuinely inclusive, that support them to understand young people in ways other than binaries such as girl-boy. In doing so, they can begin to embrace diversity and seek creative and flexible ways of working (Sáenz-Macana et al., 2024). As critical researchers, we see much promise in critical pedagogies to support teachers to address issues around, for example, gender (Oliver and Kirk, 2015), ability (Wilkinson and Penney, 2022) and ethnicity (Hill and Azzarito, 2012) in PE – something we value and understand as a worthwhile purpose of PE. However, given the references to ‘meaning experiences’ in PE in each narrative, another critical pedagogy that warrants further exploration is ‘Meaningful PE’ (Fletcher et al., 2021). ‘Meaningful PE’ pays attention to the learner-in-context, ensuring that they are supported to understand and commit to their learning. This is achieved through approaches that are democratic in nature, where students take ownership of their learning, the learning of others and have opportunities to reflect on the purpose, value and relevance of movement for their wider lives (Fletcher and Ní Chróinín, 2022). This focus on the learner, learning, context and pedagogy is important in order to realise and articulate a form of PE that is progressive and connected to the lives of young people – as conveyed through each of the narratives.
Understanding border crossing as a way to support professional learning and critical thinking (Gray et al., 2024), teachers might also look to the Norway narrative, and reflect upon ‘learning through the moving body’ – what this means, looks like and feels like. Indeed, this conceptualisation of learning in PE reflects our own critical research exploring the concept of EPE (Lambert et al., 2022). The narratives have been useful in drawing our attention to embodied learning in PE, as well as highlighting the importance of working in partnership, across a range of contexts, and with a focus on learners-in-context. Considering PE within this framework may help teachers to begin to (co-)construct a ‘purpose for PE’ that is educative (Quennerstedt, 2019), that is connected to the life, and supports the growth, of all young people. Echoing the work of Carse et al. (2018), this is not to suggest a ‘dominant agenda to be prescriptively followed’ (498), but rather to establish a way of communicating about and advocating for PE – to garner support for PE, so that it is valued in the same way as other subjects and to guide decisions about what should be taught, and also how and why it should be taught. This is especially important in the context of the current paper, because while the narratives highlight the importance of a shared understanding of the purpose of PE, the bold text indicates that not having this shared understanding is something that is currently wrong with PE. However, in presenting the narratives, we hope that other PE professionals might begin to reflect on what PE could/should be, and consider what this means for their teaching and their students’ learning – as Penney and Chandler (2000) state, a focus on ‘the detail of teaching’ (84) is arguably the most important consideration in relation to curriculum developments in PE.
Conclusion
Our study has highlighted positive aspects of PE as perceived by a range of PE professionals from Canada, England, Ireland, Norway and Scotland. By focusing on the strengths and the potential of PE, rather than its shortcomings, we highlight how PE can be effectively conceptualised and organised to meet the diverse needs of students and their communities. The workshop-generated narratives suggest that PE is most successful when it is holistic, inclusive and connected to the broader educational and social contexts of students’ lives. Our findings suggest PE is ‘fit for purpose’ when its goals are shared, primary–secondary connections are strong, and the curriculum is broad, diverse and inclusive of contemporary activities that seek to engage all students equally.
This study adds to the literature by offering a strengths-based perspective on PE, encouraging different professionals from within the field to reflect critically on what works well in their contexts and how to enhance their practices. While challenges persist, to develop more effective, inclusive and engaging PE programmes, we offer the following suggestions for future research. Based on our narrative approach, future research could explore how curriculum integration supports teachers in delivering ‘fit for purpose’ PE that meets young people's learning and lifelong needs. Here, we support the conclusions drawn by Aldous et al. (2022) who highlight the value of professional learning opportunities that ‘integrate disciplinary and practical ideas’ (265) from across contexts. We extend this work by suggesting future research focuses on nurturing professional learning partnerships with universities. Indeed, such partnerships with universities are vital for disrupting educational mechanisms that hinder equity in PE, neglect embodied life experiences, differing interests and abilities and that essentially foster superficial understandings and deployments of diversity and inclusion – dialogues of which were evidentially lacking in the narratives. Also lacking in this research is student voice. Future research must include student voice, and we strongly encourage teachers to actively collaborate with students when refining their PE practice to ensure it is ‘fit for purpose’ for them. Our work encourages ongoing debate about what is both right and wrong with PE to ensure that the subject is (and remains) ‘fit for purpose’ now and in the future.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval
This project underwent ethical approval through the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC). Full approval was granted under project ID number 36870.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the School of Curriculum, Teaching and Inclusive Education (Monash University) Research Project & Impact Grant (Ethics Project ID: 36870).