Physical Education in the UK: Exploring provisions across the four home nations

Physical Education in the UK: Exploring provisions across the four home nations

by | BERA, NW 18 Research in Sport Pedagogy, SERA

This blog is the first installment of the EERA-funded seminar series on ‘Physical Education Curriculum Learning across European Borders’ and focuses on the curricula of the United Kingdom (UK), with the four home nations of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

The UK presents an interesting context, with a devolved system of government, meaning each nation has responsibility for the development and delivery of its own localised education policy. As such, there are significant differences in the structure and content of national curricula across the UK, driven by varying political agendas as well as a desire for countries to forge a distinct path and educational identity. For example, in both Scotland and Wales, PE is positioned within the curricular area of Health and Wellbeing and, as such, has an explicit role to play in this regard (more detail on this below). As noted in the opening blog in this series, our recent cross-border curriculum analysis work as the UKPE Collaborative has evidenced this, with a specific focus on the context of physical education (PE) and Health and Wellbeing (see Gray et al., 2022a; Gray et al., 2022b). 

This blog seeks to provide an overview of some key findings in relation to our cross-curricula analysis. What follows is a brief overview of the curricula landscape in each country context, with a focus on the relevance for PE and Health and Wellbeing. Subsequently, we offer a brief analysis of similarities and differences across the home nations and reflections on the implications for curriculum development/reform.

 

PE curriculum in Scotland

In Scotland, the current curriculum is the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), introduced in 2010 for learners aged from 3 to 18. Within CfE, PE sits within the curriculum area of Health and Wellbeing (HWB). Here, PE teachers are guided by Experiences and Outcomes, statements which describe what children and young people should experience and achieve as they progress through school. Alongside physical objectives, they focus on social, emotional and mental objectives, written as ‘I can’ statements that position the learner as central to the planning, teaching and learning processes.

A key feature of the Scottish PE curriculum is this strong alignment with wider HWB outcomes. PE teachers are responsible not only for young people’s physical learning and development, but also for supporting, for example, their confidence, motivation, resilience and relationships. Interestingly, although the curriculum provides details on whatlearners should achieve (I can recognise improvements and achievements), it offers only limited guidance on how this learning should be achieved. Despite this, through collaboration, professional learning and engagement with research, many PE teachers in Scotland have developed pedagogical approaches that meaningfully embed personal development and wellbeing, positioning PE as a subject that supports the whole child (e.g., Lamb et al., 2021; Teraoka & Kirk, 2022).

PE curriculum in England

In the English context, the National Curriculum sets out programmes of study and attainment targets for all subjects across 4 Key Stages (KS1/2 – primary, KS3/4 – secondary), comprising learners from 5-16 years. More specifically, the PE offer is shaped by the National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE), last revised in 2014 (and currently undergoing a review). The four overarching aims of the NCPE are to ensure that all pupils:  

  1. develop competence to excel in a broad range of physical activities
  2. are physically active for sustained periods of time
  3. engage in competitive sports and activities
  4. lead healthy, active lives.

The purpose across all stages is to inspire pupils to succeed and excel in competitive sport and other physically demanding activities, thus helping them to build character and embed values such as fairness and respect. Across all stages of learning, pupils should also be provided with opportunities to become physically confident in ways that support their health and fitness. The current NCPE is a brief document and has been described as ‘traditionalist and minimalist’ (Herold, 2020). However, the brevity of the NCPE can also be seen to afford teachers autonomy and support the use of professional judgement in shaping practice to meet the needs of diverse learners.

PE curriculum in Wales

The Curriculum for Wales (introduced in 2022) is the national framework guiding education for learners aged 3–16. It is underpinned by the Four Purposes, which act as the starting point for all learning, and places strong emphasis on pedagogy, teacher agency, and subsidiarity, enabling schools to design curricula that reflect their learners and local contexts. Learning is organised into six Areas of Learning and Experience: Expressive Arts; Health and Wellbeing; Humanities; Languages, Literacy and Communication; Mathematics and Numeracy; and Science and Technology.

For PE, one of the main implications of this new curriculum is that it is not considered a separate subject but is embedded within the holistic Area of Health and Wellbeing. This Area is structured around five Statements of What Matters, which recognise the interconnected physical, social, emotional, cognitive, affective, and psychological aspects of wellbeing. These emphasise lifelong physical health, mental and emotional responses to experiences, informed decision-making, the influence of social factors on wellbeing, and the importance of healthy relationships. Together with the Principles of Progression and Descriptions of Learning, these statements support teachers in designing locally responsive curricula that develop in complexity as learners progress.

PE curriculum in Northern Ireland

Following its revision in 2007, the Northern Ireland curriculum (NIC) underwent a significant shift towards a more skills-based, flexible curriculum with greater emphasis on Thinking Skills and Personal Capabilities and the introduction of cross-curricular skills (Communication, Using Maths, Using ICT). Specifically, the NIC was designed to help young people develop as:

  • Individuals
  • Contributors to society
  • Contributors to the economy and environment

Across all stages of the curriculum – Foundations (4 – 6 years); KS1 and KS2 (6-11 years); KS3 (11-14 years) and KS4 (14 – 16 years) – PE is a compulsory area of learning.

Within the NIC, PE aims to develop learners’ physical skills and fitness, knowledge of movement, and health and personal and social skills (e.g. teamwork, confidence, resilience) though the focus varies across stages. In Foundation and KS1 and KS2, the emphasis is on children’s physical development, health and wellbeing, though there is a somewhat narrow focus on sport and physical skills here. In contrast, KS3 concentrates more on holistic development, with the skills-based element focusing not only on performance but also on thinking skills and personal capabilities. KS4 then continues the holistic development focus, but with an increased recognition of health, wellbeing and lifelong participation, reflecting the wider aims of the NIC.

Cross-border curriculum analysis

Examining and comparing the messages conveyed across each national curriculum in the UK has highlighted both similarities and differences in how health is conceptualised within PE. Across all four nations, we found references to a public health discourse, positioning PE as a response to concerns such as low physical activity levels and sedentary lifestyles – although the strength of this message varies across contexts.

In England, public health is the dominant narrative, but this is less so in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where health is framed more holistically – as ‘health and wellbeing’, encompassing social, emotional and mental health. This is perhaps unsurprising, given the position of PE in Scotland and Wales (aligned with Health and Wellbeing), and the emphasis on cross-curricular learning in Northern Ireland.

Our analysis also revealed that performance remains a strong curriculum discourse for PE across the UK, except for in Wales where recent reform has encouraged a more holistic approach. This offers useful comparative insights, encouraging us to consider what PE might look like if it moved beyond performance discourses focused on sport, skills and competition. There are implications here for future curriculum development and reform (see Gray et al., 2024 for further reflections).

Conclusion

By generating comparative insights about PE curricula from across the UK, we hope to reveal different perspectives on what PE is for and could become. Alongside the subsequent blogs detailing PE curricula from across Europe, this discussion contributes to a cross‑border learning journey that opens spaces for dialogue, critical reflection and new ideas for future curriculum development.

Key Messages

The devolved system of government in the UK makes for significant differences in the structure and content of the four national physical education (PE) curricula.

While there are some similarities across the four nations, there are also some interesting differences.

Comparing PE curricula from across the UK offers insights and different perspectives on what PE is for and what it could become.

Cross-border conversations like this are useful for future curriculum learning and reform.

Explore all blog posts from the cross-border PE curriculum seminar series 

Physical Education in the UK: Exploring provisions across the four home nations
This blog, the first in the EERA-funded seminar series on Physical Education Curriculum Learning across European Borders, explores PE curricula
Introducing a new series: Exploring Physical Education curriculum across European borders
Physical education has long been criticised for being narrow and exclusionary — but what happens when researchers and teachers from
Dr Rachel Sandford

Dr Rachel Sandford

Loughborough University, UK

Dr Rachel Sandford is a Reader in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough University, UK. She is also the Co-Lead of the UNESCO Chair in Sport, Physical Activity and Education for Development. Her research centres on young people’s attitudes towards, experiences of and development in/through sport and physical activity. She has a particular interest in issues around popular culture, embodied identity and positive youth development. Dr Rachel Sandford | Loughborough University

Dr Shirley Gray

Dr Shirley Gray

University of Edinburgh, UK

Dr Shirley Gray is a Senior Lecturer in Physical Education at the University of Edinburgh. Her research focuses on issues relating to gender and equality, social and emotional learning, pupil motivation and the professional learning of teachers. Dr Shirley Gray | University of Edinburgh 

Dr Anna Bryant

Dr Anna Bryant

Cardiff School of Education and Social Policy, Cardiff Metropolitan University

Dr Anna Bryant is Director of Teacher Education and Professional Learning and Reader in Physical Health Education at the Cardiff School of Education and Social Policy, Cardiff Metropolitan University. Her research focuses on physical health education, the health and wellbeing curriculum, and physical literacy. She co-leads the Teacher Education and Physical Health Education for Lifelong Learning (PHELL) Research and Innovation Group. Dr Anna Bryant | Cardiff Metropolitan University

Dr Julie Stirrup

Dr Julie Stirrup

School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough University, UK

Dr Julie Stirrup is a Senior Lecturer in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough University. Julie’s research focuses on policy and curriculum enactment across formal and informal physical education. Specifically exploring how teachers enact policy/curriculum and how this impacts learners across a range of social and cultural contexts. Julie Stirrup | School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences | Loughborough University

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Gray, S., Hooper, O., Hardley, S., Sandford, R., Aldous, D., Stirrup, J., Carse, N., & Bryant, A. S. (2022). A health(y) subject? Examining discourses of health in physical education curricula across the UK. British Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1161–1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3820 

Gray, S., Sandford, R., Stirrup, J., Aldous, D., Hardley, S., Carse, N. R., Hooper, O., & Bryant, A. S. (2022). A comparative analysis of discourses shaping physical education provision within and across the UK. European Physical Education Review, 28(3), 575–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X211059440

Gray, S., Sandford, R., Hooper, O., Hardley, S., Bryant, A.S. & Carse, N. R. (2024). Exploring the re-legitimisation of messages for health and physical education within contemporary English and Welsh curricula reform. Sport, Education and Society, 29(8), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2023.2240822

 Herold, F. (2020). ‘There is new wording, but there is no real change in what we deliver’: Implementing the new National Curriculum for Physical Education in England. European Physical Education Review, 26(4), 920–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X19892649

 Lamb, C. A., Teraoka, E., Oliver, K. L., & Kirk, D. (2021). Pupils’ motivational and emotional responses to pedagogies of affect in physical education in Scottish secondary schools. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), Article 5183. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105183

Teraoka, E., & Kirk, D. (2022). Exploring pupils’ and physical education teachers’ views on the contribution of physical education to health and wellbeing in the affective domain. Sport, Education and Society, 27(8), 935-945. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1940917

Introducing a new series: Exploring Physical Education curriculum across European borders

Introducing a new series: Exploring Physical Education curriculum across European borders

by | BERA, NW 18 Research in Sport Pedagogy, SERA

In a world of cultural, economic and social change, physical education (PE) as a curriculum subject has remained something of a constant (e.g., Penney, 2008; Tinning, 2012). That is, at its core, PE remains a subject focused on the development of sports skills and/or an opportunity to engage in physical activity for the development of lifelong physical activity habits. These forms of PE have been criticised by some for being narrow (Gray et al., 2015), neoliberal (Evans, 2014), gendered (Camacho-Miñano et al., 2021) and ableist (Evans and Penney, 2008), working more for the benefit of some than others.

However, such views perhaps do not tell the whole story. For example, our recent work analysing PE curricula, and working with PE teachers from across the four nations of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), demonstrated that whilst recurrent features of PE were evident, there were also notable differences in how PE was conceptualised and enacted across country contexts (Gray et al., 2022).

What we learned from talking across borders

Reflecting on these differences – in conversation with others – afforded opportunities for critical thinking, learning and innovation. Our analyses of the teachers’ discussions revealed that, in sharing and analysing curriculum experiences across jurisdictions, practitioners began to generate critical questions and discussions about the nature and purpose of PE in general, and in their own context specifically (Gray et al., 2022).

Such learning has been valuable within our own contexts, but we were keen to extend this conversation across European borders and therefore sought opportunities for further discussions through which we might learn more with/from European colleagues.

This resulted in the creation of the EERA-funded seminar series – ‘Physical Education Curriculum Learning across European Borders’.

Introducing the EERA Network 18 seminar series

This blog serves as an introduction to the seminar series, which is being led by Dr Shirley Gray and Dr Oliver Hooper (Link Convenor of Network 18 – Research in Sport Pedagogy) and supported by the UKPE Collaborative as well as members of NW18. The aim of the year-long project – commencing in October 2025 and running until August 2026 – is to facilitate cross-border dialogue among PE researchers and practitioners (e.g., teachers and student teachers) from across Europe, to support critical and creative thinking and to allow participants to begin to re-imagine PE for a more socially just future.

The series comprises seven online seminars and covers, in addition to the UK, 12 different country contexts (namely, Austria, Spain, Finland, Greece, Cyprus, Poland, Turkey, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands), allowing researchers from across Europe to share their research and/or their critical perspectives on their local PE curricula. During each seminar, presenters and audience members explain and explore the different PE curricula and consider the value of cross-border dialogue to facilitate critical thinking and professional learning. The series culminates at ECER 2026, with a pre-conference, in-person workshop that looks to:

  • Synthesise the issues/discussions raised during the seminar series and consider the implications for PE across European borders,
  • Critically reflect on these issues, identifying key areas of learning around PE curriculum,
  • Co-create new ideas/principles for future PE curricula across Europe, and
  • Reflect on the value(s) of cross-border curriculum dialogue and learning.

After each seminar, speakers are invited to write a short blog post summarising their presentation and reflecting on their cross-border learning. Collectively, these blogs will help sustain and extend the conversations beyond the seminar series, as well as generate ideas for future research in this area.

Key Messages

  • Physical education (PE) as a curriculum subject often remains focused on the development of sport skills and lifelong physical activity habits.
  • PE has therefore been critiqued for being narrow, neoliberal and ableist, working more for the benefit of some than others.
  • Cross-border conversations about curriculum policy and enactment can support critical discussion, facilitate learning and shape more inclusive practice.
  • An EERA-funded seminar series has been established to explore PE curricula across 12 European contexts and facilitate cross-border learning for a more socially just future.
Dr Rachel Sandford

Dr Rachel Sandford

Loughborough University, UK

Dr Rachel Sandford is a Reader in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough University, UK. She is also the Co-Lead of the UNESCO Chair in Sport, Physical Activity and Education for Development. Her research centres on young people’s attitudes towards, experiences of and development in/through sport and physical activity. She has a particular interest in issues around popular culture, embodied identity and positive youth development. Dr Rachel Sandford | Loughborough University

Dr Oliver Hooper

Dr Oliver Hooper

Loughborough University, UK

Dr Oliver Hooper is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough University. Oliver’s research explores young people’s experiences within physical education, health and youth sport contexts with a specific focus on the experiences of marginalised youth. He is particularly interested in youth voice and the use of participatory methods to facilitate young people’s meaningful involvement within research. Dr Oliver Hooper | Loughborough University

Dr Shirley Gray

Dr Shirley Gray

University of Edinburgh, UK

Dr Shirley Gray is a Senior Lecturer in Physical Education at the University of Edinburgh. Her research focuses on issues relating to gender and equality, social and emotional learning, pupil motivation and the professional learning of teachers. Dr Shirley Gray | University of Edinburgh 

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Camacho-Miñano, M. J., Gray, S., Sandford, R., & MacIsaac, S. (2022). Young women, health and physical activity: Tensions between the gendered fields of Physical Education and Instagram. Sport, Education and Society, 27(7), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1932455

Evans, J. (2014). Neoliberalism and the future for a socio-educative physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(5), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.817010

 

Evans, J., & Penney, D. (2008). Levels on the playing field: The social construction of physical ‘ability’ in the physical education curriculum. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980701345576

 

Gray, S., Hooper, O., Hardley, S., Sandford, R., Aldous, D., Stirrup, J., Carse, N., & Bryant, A. S. (2022). A health(y) subject? Examining discourses of health in physical education curricula across the UK. British Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1161–1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3820

 

Gray, S., MacIsaac, S., & Jess, M. (2015). Teaching ‘Health’ in Physical Education in a ‘Healthy’ Way. RETOS: Nuevas Tendenies En Educacion Fisica Deportes y Recreacion, 28, 165–172. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/teaching-health-in-physical-education-in-a-healthy-way/

 

Gray, S., Sandford, R., Stirrup, J., Aldous, D., Hardley, S., Carse, N. R., Hooper, O., & Bryant, A. S. (2022). A comparative analysis of discourses shaping physical education provision within and across the UK. European Physical Education Review, 28(3), 575–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X211059440

 

Penney, D. (2008). Playing a political game and playing for position: Policy and curriculum development in health and physical education. European Physical Education Review, 14(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X07085708

 

Tinning, R. (2012). The idea of physical education: A memetic perspective. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2011.582488

 

UKPE Cross-border Learning and Innovation Collaborative – Making space for interdisciplinary research, dialogue, and collaboration in Physical Education and Health and Wellbeing. (n.d.). Retrieved May 29, 2026, from https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/ukpe-collaborative/

 

 

How Design Thinking in Education can Help During COVID-19

How Design Thinking in Education can Help During COVID-19

by | NW 18 Research in Sport Pedagogy

In April 2020, Dr Fiona Chambers, a Senior Lecturer in PE and Sport Pedagogy at University College Cork in Ireland, drew an idea on the back of an envelope. She envisioned a plan to kickstart sport and physical activity during and beyond the pandemic, using the principle of Design Thinking in Education.

This idea has become the first Global Design Challenge for Sport and Physical Activity. Here she tells us the reason behind this challenge and how she went about organising it. But first, we wanted to know – what is Design Thinking and how does it work in the field of Education?

Design Thinking in Education

Design thinking is universally used in innovation to solve intractable human-centred problems (Buchanan 1992) in any field, including education. It can be used to innovate processes, products, or services. In so doing, it engages creative multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder teams to use a systematic and collaborative approach to identifying and creatively solving problem (Luchs, Swann and Griffin, 2016, p. 2).

Design thinking brings ‘designers’ principles, approaches, methods, and tools to problem-solving’ (Brown, 2008, p.1). Lockwood (2016) asserts that the design thinking process ‘emphasises observation, collaboration, fast learning, visualization of ideas, rapid concept prototyping, and concurrent business analysis’  (n.p.). The defining pillars of design thinking (Brown, 2008) are problem centeredness, nonlinearity, optionality, and the presence of uncertainty and ambiguity (Liedtka, 2015).

Design challenges are wicked (complex) as they are ‘not stable but continually evolving and mutating and had many causal levels’ (Blackman et al, 2006, p.70) and adding to this complexity, there are intergenerational, multisectoral, and multicultural stakeholders associated with the challenge that hold a range of philosophical views. Design thinkers use empathy to understand the end-user and spend 80% of their time defining the problem before moving into the solution space.

Design thinkers have a particular mindset (open, optimistic, comfortable with ambiguity), follow a process (six stages), and use space as a tool for optimising creativity. Design Thinking can be used to develop educational strategy, innovate curricula, assessment, and develop new ways of researching the experiences of young people and all stakeholders in the field of education.

Design Thinking, Education and COVID-19

We are seeing empty football stadiums, matches taking place behind closed doors, and sports clubs of all kinds restricting access. Social distancing restrictions are making training different and changing the nature of participation in sport. At the same time, people are more conscious than ever of the need to stay physically active. The ‘free to enter’ global challenge we set was designed to ask  the question:

How might we sustainably redesign sport and physical activity for children and families, the young and the not-so-young, for participants, spectators, fans, and community groups, so that it is inclusive, accessible, attainable – and fun! –  during the pandemic and afterwards?

We drew together some of Ireland’s leading sporting organisations, and a range of world organisations, to launch this global design challenge aimed at reimagining what sport and physical activity might look like during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.

Sport Ireland, the Federation of Irish Sport, the Irish National Centre for Outdoor Education and Training, University College Cork Sport, Cork Local Sports Partnership, ISCA, TAFISA, TACTHUB, Deporte para la Educación y la Salud, and Sport for Life Canada looked for the best ideas on how sport and physical activity could survive and thrive in a world remarkably different from what has gone before.

Global Design Challenge for Sport and Physical Activity

The Global Design Challenge for Sport and Physical Activity took place over the weekend of the 26 – 28 June 2020, with teams asked to submit ideas online.  In all, 189 teams took part.

When coming up with ideas, participants considered some of the following dimensions:

  • What is the potential of sport and physical activity to help moderate the impact of Covid-19?
  • Can you evaluate the current methods for managing the safe use of sport and physical activity locations during and after the Covid-19 pandemic?
  • How can we improve the clinical care of people with Covid-19 infections through sport and physical activity?
  • How can we reduce disparities in sport and physical activity opportunities during crises and post-crisis?

The registered teams were provided with free support in the form of a preliminary one-hour Workshop on Design, with Judie Russell of the Vidacademy providing video-making resources to help participants prepare their pitch.

Having completed the judging in July, there are now 37 finalist teams from across 40 countries and 12 time zones. These teams are now entering the eight-month incubation phase (September 2020 to April 2021) where Partners/Incubators will help teams to test their ideas and to seek funding. Successful teams are also being mentored by experts from across all sectors.

The Global Design Challenge for Sport and Physical Activity is being observed by UNESCO, Commonwealth Secretariat, and the World Health Organisation.

Many research organisations are supporting the Challenge, including AIESEP, and PHE Canada and EERA, in particular, NW18 Research in Sport Pedagogy i.e. Dr Rachel Sandford and her team of convenors. 

You can find the other participant videos here. 

“We are using the principles of Design Thinking to reimagine a world of sport and physical activity and we invite the best ideas from around the globe”.

If you want to know more:

Here is our website: https://www.tacthub.com/sportinnovation

Follow us on

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/globaldesignchallengesport/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/GlobalDesignChallenge/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/GlobalDesignCh1

 

Global Design Challenge 2.0 will be launched in May 2021

References

Buchanan 1992 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1511637?origin=JSTOR-pdf&seq=1 
Luchs, Swann and Griffin, 2016, p. 2 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781119154273 
Brown, 2008, p.1 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18605031/ 
Liedtka, 2015 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpim.12163 

Dr Fiona Chambers

Dr Fiona Chambers

Head of the School of Education, University College Cork in Ireland

I am the Head of the School of Education, a Senior Lecturer in PE and Sport Pedagogy at University College Cork in Ireland. I am also a Hasso-Plattner Institute-certified Design Thinking Coach and the Programme Director for the new PGDip in Innovation through Design Thinking at my university.

My teaching, research and civic engagement focuses  particularly on the areas of (a) Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, (b)  Mentoring, and (c) Social Innovation. Since 2009, I have been a reviewer on 12 international high impact peer review journals and a reviewer for Routledge books. Since 2009, I have published 4 edited books, 14 books, 27 book chapters, 18 peer reviewed articles and 115 conference papers. I am (i) an Invited Member of UNESCO Scientific Committee for Physical Activity; (ii) Secretary General, Association Internationale des Écoles Superiéure d’Éducation Physique (AIESEP); (iii) Co-founder and Convenor of European Educational Research Association (EERA) Network on Research in Sport Pedagogy (iv) founder of the Global Design Challenge for Sport and Physical Activity.

http://publish.ucc.ie/researchprofiles/A013/fchambers

The Challenges and Opportunities of Physical Education within the Context of Health and Wellbeing

The Challenges and Opportunities of Physical Education within the Context of Health and Wellbeing

by | NW 18 Research in Sport Pedagogy, SERA

During the #ReconnectingEERA online conference, that replaced the planned 2020 ECER conference in Glasgow, the Network 18 (Research in Sport Pedagogy) symposium on 27th August 2020 was attended by around seventy delegates from across Europe. The symposium was originally planned as a ‘local context’ contribution within NW18’s programme of activities at the Glasgow conference, where it was intended to showcase just some of the excellent Physical Education (PE) research that is taking place in Scotland. The symposium was organised in collaboration with SERA and their PE network (ScotPERN) in order to build capacity, share ideas and facilitate conversations. Dr Shirley Gray and Dr Rachel Sandford provide an overview of the online symposium, reflect on the discussion generated and consider implications for future research agendas.

Curriculum for Physical Education in Scotland

Scotland offers a rich site for educational research, given that it is now ten years on from the introduction of a new curriculum, the Curriculum for Excellence (Scottish Government, 2004). During this time, there have been several curriculum reviews, recommendations and further policy developments, which have presented numerous challenges for teachers. This was particularly evident with the PE curriculum, which in 2010 was relocated from the ‘Expressive Arts’ curriculum to the ‘Health and Wellbeing’ curriculum.

Whereas initially, teachers were supported by just two pages of broad curricular guidelines (Scottish Government, 2009), today they work with twenty-two pages of specific benchmarks (Education Scotland, 2017). These benchmarks indicate what pupils should be able to know and do as they progress through school. The programme for high stakes examinations in the senior years (ages 16-18 years) has also undergone several changes over recent years, and debates remain ongoing as to how they might be further developed in the future.

Research in Physical Education in Scotland

Researchers in PE in Scottish universities have been fascinated by these developments and have spent the last ten years exploring the impact of the new curriculum on teachers’ learning, practice and the learning experiences of students. Specific areas of research have included:

  • exploring the curriculum development process;
  • understanding the nature and role of health and wellbeing within the context of PE;
  • teacher change;
  • in-service and pre-service teacher learning;
  • teaching social and emotional wellbeing;
  • the role of digital technology and social media in how young people learn;
  • gender issues in PE, and;
  • critical pedagogies of affect.

Online Symposium at #ReconnectingEERA

The online symposium consisted of five presentations that exemplified just some of the work that has been done within these areas in recent years. Some of the references for this work can be found below.

The first presentation was by Dr Andrew Horrell from the University of Edinburgh. He presented findings from a study that took place at the time teachers were planning their new curricula in line with policy demands. He highlighted the ways in which regimes of accountability exerted a powerful influence on teachers and had a significant impact on the decisions they made about curriculum design.

The next presentation was by Professor Kirk, Cara Lamb and Dr Eishen Teraoka from the University of Strathclyde. They presented the findings from two studies that explored the pedagogies of PE teachers who paid specific attention to pupils’ learning in the affective domain. The first study explored the perceptions and experiences of teachers who were committed to engaging with pedagogies of affect. In the second study, they highlighted the challenges that teachers faced when attempting to learn and enact an activist intervention specifically designed to support girls’ positive experiences in PE.

Following this, Elaine Wotherspoon from the University of the West of Scotland reported the findings from her study that explored recently graduated PETE students’ levels of preparedness for teaching PE within the Health and Wellbeing curriculum. She discussed the factors that contributed to their feelings of preparedness, but also highlight that, the more they learned ‘on the job’, the less they felt that their PETE experience sufficiently prepared them for their entry into the profession.

In the final presentation, Dr Jess and colleagues from the University of Edinburgh presented their findings from the first phase of a longitudinal study exploring the professional visions of final year PE students. Guided by complexity thinking, they analysed twenty student essays that focussed on a future vision for PE. Results highlighted a diverse range of ideas and a discussion followed about the various factors that teachers will need to negotiate if their vision is to be realised.

In summary, these four presentations provided an insight into just some of the academic work that is being carried out in Scotland within the broad field of physical education. Together, they helped to showcase how the new Scottish curriculum has provided an exciting backdrop for educational research. This research provides academics, working with/alongside teachers,  the opportunity to explore how PE practice might best ensure that young people have positive, healthy and meaningful experiences now and in the future.

In sharing this work and inviting comment, the symposium offered an opportunity for attendees to discuss key issues around health, PE and the curriculum, and make relevant connections to their own contexts. One exciting outcome here is that those delegates in attendance from Wales, a country that is currently going through very similar curriculum reform, sought to continue discussions with the panel beyond the symposium and now plan to organise a further joint symposium in the future.

The online symposium has served not only to raise the profile of educational research in Scotland but also to forge stronger connections between the ScotPERN and NW18 networks and identify opportunities for future collaborative research within Europe and beyond.

If you would like to see these presentations, then you can find them on the SERA ‘connects’ YouTube channel here: 

Dr Shirley Gray

Dr Shirley Gray

Senior Lecturer, University of Edinburgh

Dr Shirley Gray is a Senior Lecturer in Physical Education at the University of Edinburgh. Her research focuses on issues relating to gender and equality, social and emotional learning, pupil motivation and the professional learning of teachers. 

Dr Rachel Sandford

Dr Rachel Sandford

Senior Lecturer, Loughborough University

Dr Rachel Sandford is a Senior Lecturer in Young People and Sport at Loughborough University, UK. Her research centres on young people’s attitudes towards, experiences of and development in/through sport and physical activity. She has a particular interest in issues around popular culture, embodied identity and positive youth development.

References

Scottish Government (2004) A curriculum for excellence. (Glasgow, Learning and Teaching Scotland).

Scottish Government (2009) Curriculum for excellence: health and wellbeing: experiences and outcomes. (Glasgow, Learning and Teaching Scotland).

Education Scotland (2017). Benchmarks: Physical Education.

Scottish Research References

Carse, N, Jess, M & Keay, J. (2020), ‘Primary Physical Education in a complex world (Part 4): Advocating for the Education in Primary Physical Education‘ Physical Education Matters, pp. 21-23.

Carse, N, McMillan, P, Jess, M, McIntyre, J & Fletcher, T. (2018).Exploring the collaborative in a collective self-study. in D Garbett & A Ovens (eds), Pushing Boundaries and Crossing Borders: Self-Study as a Means for Researching Pedagogy . University of Auckland, pp. 489-496.

Craig, M, Thorburn, M, Mulholland, R, Horrell, A & Jess, M. (2016). ‘Understanding professional issues in physical education: A Scottish insight‘, Scottish Educational Review, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 80-100.

Gray, S., Wright, P., Sievwright, R., & Robertson, S. (2019). Learning to Use Teaching for Personal and Social Responsibility Through Action Research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education.

Horrell, A., Sproule, J. & Gray, S., (2011). Health and wellbeing: a policy context for physical education in Scotland. Sport, Education and Society. 17(2) 163-180

 

Jess, M, Keay, J & Carse, N. (2019) ‘Primary physical education in a complex world (part 1)‘ Physical Education Matters, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 23-25.

 

Kirk, D., Lamb, C. A., Oliver, K. L., Ewing-Day, R., Fleming, C., Loch, A., & Smedley, V. (2018). Balancing prescription with teacher and pupil agency: spaces for manoeuvre within a pedagogical model for working with adolescent girls. Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 219-237.

MacIsaac, S., Kelly, J. & Gray (2017). ‘She has like 4000 followers!’: the celebrification of self within school social networks. Journal of Youth Studies.

 

MacLean, J., Mulholland, R., Gray, S. & Horrell, A. (2015) Enabling Curriculum Change in Scotland – PE Teacher and Policy Constructors’ Perceptions compared. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.798406.

 

Mcmillan, P 2017, Understanding physical education teachers’ day-to-day practice: Challenging the ‘unfair’ picture. in M Thorburn (ed.), Transformative Learning and Teaching in Physical Education. Routledge Research in Education, Routledge, Abingdon; New York, pp. 159-175.

Roberts, J, Gray, S & Camacho-Miñano, MJ. (2019). ‘Exploring the PE contexts and experiences of girls who challenge gender norms in a progressive secondary school’, Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2019.1696688

 

Stewart, S., Gray, S., Kelly, J. & MacIsaac, S. (2019). Investigating the development of masculine identities in physical education. Sport Education and Society.

 

Teraoka, E., Ferreira, H. J., Kirk, D., & Bardid, F. (Accepted/In press). Affective learning in physical education: a systematic review. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education.